Reflections on the effectiveness of Japanese mid-caliber artillery in Tsushima

200
During the discussion of one of the articles devoted to battlecruisers, an interesting discussion arose about the times of the Russo-Japanese War. Its essence was as follows. One side argued that 152–203-mm guns showed insignificant effectiveness in battles against armadillos and armored cruisers, and that a key role in defeating the Russian fleet in Tsushima played heavy 305-mm guns. The second side believed that a large number of 152-203-mm shells hit Russian ships led to a noticeable decrease in their combat effectiveness, that is, the role and effectiveness of six-eight inch caliber artillery was significantly higher than that expected by opponents.

Let's try to understand this issue.

Unfortunately, we do not have at our disposal, and (before the creation of the time machine) there will not be any accurate data on how many and what projectiles (armor-piercing, high-explosive) got into the Russian ships in Tsushima. There are contradictory data even for the Eagle that survived the battle, what can be said about the three dead Russian battleships of the Borodino type ... However, it can be assumed that, having studied the effectiveness of the fire in other battles of the Russian-Japanese war, we will see some interrelations trends and we can draw conclusions that will help us to understand what happened in Tsushima.


Squadron battleship "Alexander III" in the dock


So, without claiming the absolute accuracy of the data, but realizing that minor errors do not change the overall result, let's try to compare the number of shells of the Japanese and Russian squadrons in 27 January 1904 g, as well as in the Battle of Shantung (battle in the Yellow Sea) held on July 28 1904 with the number of hits that Russian and Japanese gunners could achieve. Let's start with the January 27 battlefield.

The consumption of shells of the Japanese squadron (hereinafter the data from the series of articles by V. Maltsev “On the issue of shooting accuracy in the Russo-Japanese war” are used) was 79 - 305-mm; 209 -203-mm; 922 - 152-mm, also 132-120-mm and 335 75-mm, but we will ignore the latter, as we consider hits of projectiles from 152-mm and above.

Reflections on the effectiveness of Japanese mid-caliber artillery in Tsushima


It is known that the ships of the Russian squadron got 8 - 305-mm shells, 5-203-mm, 8 - 152-mm and nine more shells 152-203 mm, the exact caliber of which, alas, was not determined, 6-75 mm and one xnumx-mm. Thus, the percentage of hits for different calibers was:

For 305 shells, 10,13%;

For 203-mm projectiles - not lower than 2,39%, and possibly even higher (up to 6,7%, depending on how many of the nine projectiles of an unspecified 152-203-mm caliber actually were 203-mm);

For 152-mm projectiles - not lower than 0,86%, and possibly even higher (up to 1,84%, depending on how many of the nine projectiles of an unspecified 152-203-mm caliber were actually 203-mm).

As you can see, the scatter of the values ​​turned out to be very large, and does not make it possible to judge the accuracy of shooting 152-mm and 203-mm calibers separately. But we can do a general calculation for six- and eight-inch caliber projectiles - the Japanese have spent 1 131 such projectiles in total and achieved 22 hits. In this case, our comparison of the percentage of hits takes the form:

For 305 shells, 10,13%;

For shells caliber 152-203-mm - 1,95%.

Thus, we see that the accuracy of the Japanese 305-mm artillery exceeded that of the 152-203-mm guns 5,19 times. But due to the fact that the number of shells fired by six- and eight-inch cannons significantly exceeded the amount of 305-mm ammunition consumed (1131 versus 79, i.e. 14,32 times), 305-hits of 2,75 hits fell on one hit -152-mm.

Let us now look at the figures that the Russian squadron achieved in the 27 battle in January 1904.



At the same time the Japanese ships hit 3- 305-mm projectile, 1-254-mm, 2 - undetermined caliber mm 254-305, 1-203-mm, 8- 152-mm, 4 -120-mm and 6-75- mm

As we see, the situation has changed to the exact opposite - here we reliably know the number of hits of medium-caliber projectiles, but with large-caliber ones - the problem. Therefore, we present the calculation of the percentage of hits as follows:
For large-caliber shells (254-305-mm) - 9,23%;

For medium caliber shells (152-203-mm) - 1,27%, including:

For shells caliber 203-mm - 3,57%;

For shells caliber 152-mm - 1,18%.

Thus, we again see a big difference in the accuracy of large and medium caliber artillery. In the 27 battle of January, the Russian ten- and twelve-inch shots shot out more precisely 7,26 times, but given the fact that 152-203-mm shells were fired far more than 254-305-mm (708 versus 65), then 254-305 mm -mm projectile had a half hit caliber 152-203-mm.

Thus, we see an interesting trend - the fire of medium-caliber artillery is much less accurate than large-caliber artillery. But on the other hand, six- and eight-inch guns in battle manage to spend many times more projectiles than heavy guns, so the number of hits of 152-203-mm projectiles is still higher. There is no doubt that the difference in the number of hits is significant, but nevertheless the large and medium caliber artillery does not differ tenfold in this parameter - we can see that the Russians hit 1,5 for one heavy projectile, and 2,75 for the Japanese for medium caliber ones.

Let's see now the results of the battle at Shantung 28 July 1904.



As we can see in the table, there is already an 51 “unspecified” hit, which does not allow for analysis in the context of each caliber. Nevertheless, it will not be a big mistake to assume that the vast majority of them belong to 152-203-mm projectiles, therefore for our calculation we will assign them all to the hits of average caliber artillery. In this case, the percentage of hits will look like:

For shells caliber 254-305-mm - 10,22%;

For shells, caliber 152-203-mm - 1,78%.

Thus, we see that the accuracy of the Japanese shooting has no fundamental changes in comparison with the January 27 battle. In the battle in the Yellow Sea, the 254-305-mm guns showed accuracy that was 5,74 times higher than the average caliber artillery. At the same time, the Japanese achieved 65 hits with 254-305-mm caliber and only 83 hits with 152-203 mm caliber, that is, one 254-305-mm projectile hit the target had only 1,28 hits of six- and eight-inch shells. And it should be understood that 83-152-mm projectiles 203 hits are the maximum possible figure, assuming that at least a few of the 51 hits of unknown caliber fell on large-caliber or vice versa, small-caliber artillery, this ratio will be even lower. As we can see, the accuracy of firing of medium-caliber artillery decreased slightly. Why did such a fall occur in the ratio of hits of large-caliber and medium-caliber artillery - from 2,75 to medium-caliber hits per large-caliber, up to some 1,28?

The main reason is the significantly longer combat ranges in the first phase of the battle in the Yellow Sea. That is, 28 July 1904 g were such intervals when only large-caliber artillery could act on both sides, and in January 27 battle there were almost none. As we said above, the Japanese spent 27 large-caliber shells and 79 1 medium-caliber, that is, one 131-mm projectile had 305-14,31-152 shells in the 203 battle of January. At the same time, the Japanese used 636 shells with an 254-305-mm caliber and only 4 661 shells with an 152-203-mm caliber in the Shantung battle. That is, in the 28 battle of July 1904 of the Japanese, for every large-caliber shell, 7,33 pieces of 152-203-mm projectiles were spent, or almost twice less than in the battle of 27 of January. Accuracy of shooting also decreased, but only slightly - only 1,09 times, which is also fully explained by the increased combat distances. Hence the difference in hit ratio.

But the results of Russian artillery



Total Russian battleships spent 568 large-caliber projectiles and 3 097 caliber 152-mm (not counting those that were spent on reflection of mine-bearing attacks, since it does not show hit statistics). As we can see, 12-13 shells of unknown caliber have fallen into the Japanese ships (assuming that they were 13 - this will benefit the average caliber artillery in our calculations). We will deal with them in the same way as in the case of determining the percentage of hits of the Japanese squadron - that is, we will attribute all these hits to the account of the average caliber (in our case, six-inch) artillery. Then the percentage of hits will look like:

For shells caliber 254-305-mm - 2,82%;

For shells, caliber 152-mm - 0,64%.

So, the accuracy of the Russian six-inch was 4,36 times worse than heavy cannons and for one hit 254-305-mm shells had only 1,25 hits 152-mm. And this, again, is the maximum, because we recorded all 13 shells of an “unidentified” caliber into six-inch hits!

And now we will try to go to the Tsushima battle. The generally accepted numbers of missile expenditure of the 1 and Japanese 2 units are as follows:

305-mm - 446 pcs .;

254-mm - 50 pcs .;

203-mm - 1 199 pcs. (284 - "Nissin" and "Kasuga", 915 - Kamimura's cruisers, excluding the battle with "Admiral Ushakov");

152-mm - 9 464 pcs. (including 5 748 shells from the 1-th combat detachment and 3 716 shells from the cruisers of the 2-th Kamimura squad, but also excluding the shells expended in Admiral Ushakov);

In total, in the Tsushima battle, the 1-th and 2-th combat units used 496 large-caliber (254-305-mm) and 10 663 medium-caliber (152-203-mm) missiles. In other words, the Japanese used a medium-caliber 21,49 projectile for one large-caliber missile. Why has this ratio increased relative to January 27 and 28 July fights 1904 r?

First of all, because 27 of Japanese battleships and 6 armored cruisers took part in the 4 battle of January, 28-th battle squadron (1 battleship and 4 armored cruisers) fought for the third cruiser, which the third cruiser (Yakumo) fought in July, to which the third cruiser (2 battleship and 2 armored cruisers) fought. only in the 4 phase, and the participation of "Asama" was completely episodic. Thus, in both cases, the number of battleships participating in the battle exceeded the number of armored cruisers. At the same time, battleships 8 and XNUMX armored cruisers of the Japanese fought in the Tsushima battle, that is, the ratio of the number of large-caliber and medium-caliber artillery barrels increased significantly in favor of the latter.

Suppose also that in Tsushima the Japanese ships demonstrated the best accuracy of those achieved earlier, that is, the percentage of hits of 254-305-mm shells reached 10,22% (as in a battle in the Yellow Sea), and for shells of 152-203-mm - 1,95%, ( as in January 27 battle). In this case, the Japanese have achieved 51 hits with large-caliber projectiles (rounded up) and 208 - medium caliber. In this case, the number of hits of medium-caliber shells per one large-caliber will be 4,08 pcs.

Of course, it may well be that the Japanese in Tsushima shot more precisely - maybe on 20, and maybe on 30%, who knows? Suppose the Japanese shot at 25% more accurately, so their hit percentage was 12,78% and 2,44%, respectively. In this case, 64 large-caliber and 260 medium-caliber shells hit Russian ships (again, rounding up fractional values). But this does not affect the ratio between hits of large-caliber and medium-caliber shells - 254 units will be needed for one hit with 305-4,06-mm caliber. 152-203-mm projectiles - that is almost the same value, the difference is only due to rounding.

We see that the relationship of percentages of hits in the battles of January 27 and July 28 1904 r in the Japanese fleet did not change significantly. In the first case, Japanese commanders of medium-caliber artillery fired 5,19 times as bad as their counterparts operating heavy cannons (1,95% and 10,13%, respectively), in the second case - 5,74 times (1,78% and 10,22%). Accordingly, there is no reason to assume that this attitude has changed dramatically in the Tsushima battle.

Thus, we conclude that if in a battle in the Yellow Sea Russian ships received 254-305-mm projectiles with 1,28-152-mm caliber for every hit of the 203-mm projectile, in 27 in January they were 2,75, and at Tsushima, probably already 4,1. This ratio is much more (3,2 times!) Than in the battle at Shantung, so it’s not surprising that Vladimir Ivanovich Semenov, who participated in both fights, perceived the Japanese fire in Tsushima as a hail of shells, which was not in the battle 28 in July 1904 Although one cannot exclude a purely psychological aspect - in the battle of July 28 V.I. Semenov was on the Diana armored cruiser, while the enemy, of course, concentrated the main fire on the battleships of the first Pacific squadron. At the same time, in Tsushima this, in every respect, a worthy officer was on the flagship battleship Suvorov, which was subjected to the most intense shelling. It is clear that when they fire at your ship, the enemy’s fire may seem more intense than when you watch the shelling of another ship from the side.


Damage to the squadron battleship Peresvet in a battle in the Yellow Sea


But back to the effectiveness of the fire of Japanese armored ships. Our calculations have led to the fact that the Russian ships fell from the force 210-260 shells caliber 152-203-mm. Is it a lot or a little? Even simply dividing the given number of hits on 5 of the most modern Russian battleships (4 of the Borodino and Oslyabyu types), we get the 42-52 hitting the ship maximum. Most likely, taking into account hits to other ships, there were no more than 40-45. Thus, the first thing that you can pay attention to is that the number of hits by medium-caliber Japanese artillery in Russian ships was large, but not excessive, hundreds of shells are out of the question - in the worst case, up to fifty. Could such a number of hits cause significant damage to our battleships?

Given what we know about the effectiveness of artillery caliber 152-203-mm - quite doubtful. For example, in the same Tsushima battle, the Aurora armored cruiser received 18 order or even 21 hits, but was not seriously injured and did not fall out of action. The same can be said about “Pearls”, which received 17 hits (including small-caliber). True, the Svetlana armored cruiser was sunk by mid-caliber artillery, but this is a ship with a displacement of less than 4 000 t.

In the battle in the Korean Strait, when three Russian ships fought with four armored cruisers Kamimura, the “Russia” and “The Thunderbolt” received 30-35-mm shells each with 152-203. It must be said that armor had only armor protection of Artillery, but even in Russia most of the guns failed not because of the impact of enemy projectiles, but because of breaks in the lifting arches, that is, a constructive defect in the machines. For the rest, despite the defeat of unarmoured parts and pipes, both cruisers did not receive particularly heavy damage, and in fact their protection was much more modest than even the relatively weakly armored Oslyab.

A detailed analysis of the damage received by the Peresvet squadron battleship in a battle in the Yellow Sea shows that 22 hits with 152-203-mm caliber (this includes also projectiles of unknown caliber, which most likely were 152-mm) did not cause the ship how many Serious damage (except for numerous damage to 75-mm guns). The same can be said about 17 "medium caliber" hits in "Retvizan", he received in the same battle.

According to some reports, the shell, whose debris damaged the centralized fire control system on the battleship Orel, was eight inches. According to the available descriptions, three six-inch shells fell into the conning tower of the ship, but did not cause any harm, and then an 203-mm projectile ricocheted from the sea surface, which caused the above damage, hit it. On the other hand, the descriptions of the damage to the Eagle have become the object of so many speculations that it is absolutely impossible to guarantee the truth of the above.


Damage to the squadron battleship "Eagle", received by him in the Tsushima battle


The First World War also did not demonstrate the special power of artillery with 152-203-mm caliber in cases when high-explosive shells were used. Thus, the famous German corsair, the cruiser Emden, with a normal displacement of 3 664 t, in its last battle received about 50 152-mm high-explosive shells and, although it was completely disabled, but still did not sink (the ship dropped on the stones) . The British light cruiser Chester suffered significant damage from 17 150-mm high-explosive German shells fired at it from a distance of 30 cables and less, lost 30% of its artillery, the fire control system was put out of action - but it is still a question of a weakly armored 5 185 tons of displacement. The very small Albatross, with a total displacement of about 2,2 thousand tons received over 20 152-203 mm Russian missiles hits and, of course, completely lost its combat capability, but was able to reach the Swedish coast and was thrown onto the stones.

Perhaps the only undoubted success of medium-caliber artillery was the destruction of British armored cruisers Good Hope and Monmouth by M. Spee’s squadron in the battle of Coronel, but there the Germans used high-explosive and armor-piercing projectiles in approximately equal proportions, even though 666 used 210 -mm armor-piercing shells were 478, but from 413 152-mm shells armor-piercing were only 67.

But back to the Tsushima battle. As we said earlier, we do not know either the number of hits to the dead battleships, nor the damage caused by them, except, perhaps, the Oslyabya battleship, about which there are evidences of eyewitnesses who served on it. It is also known that medium-caliber artillery cannot claim the destruction of a single heavy Russian ship. "Suvorov", despite the hardest damage, was sunk by torpedoes. "Alexander III", according to eyewitnesses, had a very large hole in the bow of the body. Apparently, as a result of hits of enemy shells, armor plates turned out to be either dented into the hull, or split, and perhaps even fell off of him - an analysis of the damage to the ships of the Russian-Japanese war shows that only 305-mm were capable of such a "feat" shells. As far as can be judged, it was this hole that ultimately led to the death of the ship, as the ship tilted during the turn, and the open ports of the 75-mm gun battery went under water, causing the flooding to take on an avalanche-like character and the ship turned over. The squadron battleship Borodino exploded after hitting an 305-mm projectile from the battleship Fuji. A key role in the death of "Oslyab" was played by hit of an 305-mm projectile in the nose of the ship, in the waterline area under the nose tower, which caused extensive flooding ...

Incidentally, Oslyabya is probably one of the three armored ships, in whose death Japanese middle caliber artillery played a significant role. The fact is that when the ship sat down with its nose, according to survival memories, the struggle for survivability was greatly complicated by the large number of holes through which water flowed, and which resulted from the “work” of artillery in 152-203-mm caliber. But "Dmitry Donskoy" really received critical damage from mid caliber artillery fire. But, firstly, we are talking about a completely outdated “armored frigate”, and secondly, even he, taking part in the Tsushima battle, defended transports, helped “Oleg” and “Aurora” to repel the attacks, where as many cruisers Uriu, then he fought with as many as six enemy armored cruisers, and the latter could not win over him and fell behind. And only the coastal defense battleship "Admiral Ushakov" was a more or less modern ship, killed by mid caliber artillery fire, whose penetration into unarmored parts of the hull caused extensive flooding, inclination and, as a result, inability to fight.

What is the conclusion?

Without a doubt, in theory, hitting six- and eight-inch shells could, with luck, inflict damage to our battleships, to a certain extent, reducing their combat capability. However, we have no practical confirmation of this thesis. All hits in the Russian squadron battleships shells caliber 152-203 mm, the consequences of which we are reliably known, did not cause them significant damage. At the same time, there is reason to believe that in Tsushima, approximately twice as many shells hit the ship in Tsushima than in the same battle in the Yellow Sea. Accordingly, we can assume that some of them could still inflict significant damage on the battleships of the 2 Pacific Pacific Squadron. But at the same time, we have no single reason to believe that it was the “hail of six- and eight-inch shells” that led to the fatal fall in the combat capability of the best ships of ZP Rozhdestvensky - squadron battleships like "Borodino" and "Oslyab", that is, decided the fate of the battle.

On the whole, analysis of Russian-Japanese and World War I war clashes suggests that 152-203-mm rounds were relatively effective in causing heavy, and in some cases decisive, damage only to poorly protected warships with displacement up to 5 000.

Our news channels

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

200 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    +7
    22 May 2018 15: 39
    The article is a highlight!
    Dear Andrey, thank you very much for such gifts !!!
    hi
    1. +4
      22 May 2018 15: 57
      Quote: Kotischa
      Dear Andrey, thank you very much for such gifts !!!

      And thank you for your kind words! drinks
  2. +10
    22 May 2018 15: 40
    It would be even more useful to compare the contents of explosives in 152-203mm and 305mm shells, but I didn’t find anything at all in the Japanese eight-inch shells, although I searched for it for a long time. Something tells me that in the 305-mm HE HE shell it will not be so much smaller than in the 4 152-203mm shells. At least navveps, it turns out that one 305-mm Russian high-explosive projectile contained more (12,4kg) explosives than the 4 152-mm Russian (10,8kg). If there will be 4 mm of these 1 2 or 203 - then this four medium-caliber landmines will be compared with 305-mm by paper impact, but excuse me - these four are spread all over the ship, and the 305-mm bangs in one place ...
    In general, an excellent analysis of medium-caliber artillery. You can safely add to the refuted myths about light cruisers that overcome heavy cruisers at long distances hi In general, it seems that naval artillery of the caliber 152-203mm is most covered in myths. How many of the guns of this caliber are trying to make powerful means against large-tonnage and well-protected ships - but it still doesn’t work out ...
    1. +5
      22 May 2018 16: 12
      Quote: arturpraetor
      It would be even more useful to compare the explosive content in 152-203mm and 305mm shells, but I didn’t find anything at all in the Japanese eight-inch shells, although I searched for a long time

      In general, you are tired of looking :)))) I have something, but everything is confused.
      So - on the Japanese shells. About 305 mm there are already 3 versions - 36,3, 39 and 48 kg of shimoza wassat I have a strong feeling that they are torn off by the weight of the explosives of the British CPC Mark VIIa and HE Mark IIa, but here, as in a famous joke, students ask the mathematician how much will be 0,5 + 0,5? To which the professor replies: "I feel like a liter in my soul, but I can’t prove it mathematically."
      In Japanese, 203 mm - there is only Titushkin with his "Naval Artillery"

      But only Titushkin’s mistakes ... there are few of them, and besides, he indicates the explosive content for the heavy 113,4 kg of a 203 mm Japanese shell, and they also used lightweight ones.
      In general, 48 kg at 305 mm, 10,12 at 203 mm and 6,01 at 152 mm. The numbers may be subject to adjustment, but some sort of order is approximately
      Quote: arturpraetor
      You can safely add to the refuted myths about light cruisers that overcome heavy cruisers at long distances

      Well, from this I’m shocked at all :)))))) At short distances, in a night battle - where else did it go, but at long distances?
      1. +3
        22 May 2018 16: 21
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In general, 48 kg on 305 mm, 10,12 on 203 mm and 6,01 on 152-mm come into the circle.

        And it turns out that even if all of the 4 hits in Tsushima were all 203-mm, the impact on the target will be less than with one hit of an 305-mm projectile, and this effect will be spread throughout the ship. Which again hints at the fact that the main damage was caused by 305-mm shells, and 152-203mm ... Well, it's like skirmishers in ancient armies - they can cause damage, defeat the enemy army - only in the most exceptional cases, or if the enemy army consists of 3,5 anonymous (small and poorly protected ship).
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, from this I’m shocked at all :)))))) At short distances, in a night battle - where else did it go, but at long distances?

        Well, you know, many people believe that shells of different calibers are equally accurate at comparable distances wassat And their six-inch rate of enchantment captivates - truly, "Give the country coal - fine, but d *** me!" laughing And these insidious stats. data about the amount released into milk, I'm sorry, in the enemy of metal or explosives per minute ...
        1. +4
          22 May 2018 16: 37
          Quote: arturpraetor
          Well, you know, many people firmly believe that shells of different calibers are equally accurate at comparable wassat distances

          Of course of course. And look at the consumption of shells of 6-dm cruisers in battles and display the percentage of hits, as I understand it, religion strictly forbids. Under the threat of circumcision! laughing
          Quote: arturpraetor
          And these insidious stats. data about the amount released into milk, I'm sorry, in the enemy of metal or explosives per minute ...

          Then the most terrible gun is the BelAZ mine - it can dump up to 90 tons of shells in less than a minute! And of any caliber! laughing
          1. +3
            22 May 2018 16: 42
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Of course of course. And look at the consumption of shells of 6-dm cruisers in battles and display the percentage of hits, as I understand it, religion strictly forbids. Under the threat of circumcision!

            Or remember one magic word - “Espero”, and how 5 of British light cruisers nailed it for more than two hours from long distances, having spent more than 5 of thousands of shells and as a result hardly drowned it laughing An excellent six-inch accuracy and firing performance! But the Espero was also loaded with artillery and ammunition boxes, which greatly complicated its position ...
        2. +4
          22 May 2018 19: 40
          Quote: arturpraetor
          Well, you know, many people believe that shells of different calibers are equally accurate at comparable distances

          Chihix ... and I even know a place where such believers are gathered together. In those parts, a cruiser with a 6 "high-explosive mine hits a battleship from 15 km, while having a range of scatter of almost the same as that of the Battleship 15". smile
          1. +3
            22 May 2018 19: 44
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In those parts, the 6 cruiser “is driving a battleship with 15 km with a land mine, while having a range of scatter of almost the same as that of the battleship 15.”

            MUCH less :))) There the whole point is that the cruisers were set to super accuracy, and the linkors were cut down on the contrary (otherwise the battleships crushed ffseh, but this is a game :)))))
          2. +3
            22 May 2018 19: 52
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In those parts, the 6 cruiser “is driving a battleship with 15 km with a land mine, while having a range of scatter of almost the same as that of the battleship 15.”

            There is much less circle of scatter. Somehow, when playing on Kaiser, it got so burned that they banned me in the game chat laughing And all because several volleys in a row gave cover, but not a single hit, and this is at a crucial moment. While I was trying to get this at least once, they dismantled me. After that I sold all the battleships ...
            1. +2
              22 May 2018 20: 25
              Quote: arturpraetor
              After that I sold all the battleships.

              This is just a game.... wink
              1. +4
                22 May 2018 20: 29
                And I am so flotophile that I want to have ships at least somewhere - even in the game (I rarely play), at least in the form of models (quit), at least in the form of pixel drawings (I actively suffer and develop my skills in this matter in the field of alt. History ) laughing And it was all the more sad to sell battleships - I’m a fan of these pachyderms with big guns, and here is such a disappointment ...
                1. 0
                  23 May 2018 15: 05
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  selling battleships sadly - I'm a fan of these pachydermal monsters with big guns, and here is such a disappointment ...


                  You are further - to level 9-10 - the accuracy of Iowa and Musashi will please
                  Or Brittany (12 GK 340 mm in a salvo) and followed by Lyon (16 GK 340 mm in a salvo) - just an outlet against the ugly cruisers.
                  1. +1
                    23 May 2018 15: 15
                    Yes, I got stuck at the 4-5 levels and put the 2-3 months back, switching entirely to the cruiser - for now there are more interesting options for spending time, and is also somehow connected with the fleet.
                  2. 0
                    24 May 2018 10: 21
                    Quote: DimerVladimer
                    Or Brittany (12 GK 340 mm in a salvo) and followed by Lyon (16 GK 340 mm in a salvo) - just an outlet against the ugly cruisers.

                    “Lyon” still pleases with its numerous quick-firing and long-range universal caliber. But here are the shelling sectors of the BS GK ... in order to put into operation at least three towers, you need to board the target. And the armor of the “Lyon” is practically no.
                    1. 0
                      24 May 2018 12: 58
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      “Lyon” still pleases with its numerous quick-firing and long-range universal caliber. But here are the shelling sectors of the BS GK ... in order to put into operation at least three towers, you need to board the target. And the armor of the “Lyon” is practically no.


                      This is true - add to it the circulation speed option to the detriment of the survivability struggle system - this gives time to avoid salvo at a distance of 12-15 km - the main thing is not to miss (when avoiding - do not forget to turn and reset the full stroke to 1/4 by 4- 5 seconds - the speed drops much faster and the radius of circulation decreases sharply, the salvo lies ahead in front of the same course).
                      And Brittany is already very maneuverable without it - the favorite trick was to enter the smoke and punish the destroyer, first dodging the torpedoes (you enter the smoke at an acute angle beforehand having reduced to the approximate location - sometimes you don’t have time to throw back the torpedoes or put them into the light for 3-4 rumba - 90% of the torpedoes will be thrown by), then you unload the explosives in one gulp - the poor people are very angry, they are used to the battleships running away from the destroyer, and here it’s “unexpected” :)
                      That is, both Brittany and Lyon allow to oppose on equal terms with ships one level higher. Something under 68% for these ships a victory rating came out - successful ships.
            2. +1
              23 May 2018 10: 04
              I somehow had a full airborne volley of "Texas" lay beautiful bursts around the going side on the 8km Svetlana.
              1. +1
                23 May 2018 15: 03
                Three volleys with Queen Elizabeth on board-ship Chapaev from 9-11 km. Three covers, not a single hit. In a chat they swore at me that the airborne vehicle couldn’t carry the fins forward. For what? laughing
                1. +2
                  24 May 2018 10: 29
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Three volleys with Queen Elizabeth on board-ship Chapaev from 9-11 km. Three covers, not a single hit.

                  Great Koryushkin random. smile “NorKa” can calmly issue from over 20 km 3 strongholds on a cruiser that almost went over the island, and then grease it three times with 12-15 km in full salvos on a cruiser in open water.
                  1. +2
                    24 May 2018 19: 17
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Great Koryushkin random.

                    WRC? It seems to be the same :)))))))
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    NorKa can safely issue cruiser over 20 km 3 strongholds

                    Wow :)))) I was knocked out by an obscene American woman crying However, it happens for everyone. I’m on Chapa and Tirpitz was very angry with me - I drove through half a map, and I incinerated it quietly. But he competently drove me into a corner, there was no way out, and generally you shouldn’t do this with rats :))))))))) In general, I turned around and went on the attack, fired torpedoes like true gentlemen in a duel, and he drowned :)))))
                2. 0
                  24 May 2018 11: 07
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Three volleys with Queen Elizabeth on board-ship Chapaev from 9-11 km. Three covers, not a single hit. In a chat they swore at me that the airborne vehicle couldn’t carry the fins forward. For what? laughing


                  I really liked Queen Elizabeth - he knocks out the citadel with single-level battleships and even higher. But cruisers of the same level are better high-explosive.
                  Developers strongly indulge with probability coefficients of hitting - in some cases, citadels make their way several times in a row, in others with 7-8 km to board to no avail - annoying.
                  I highly recommend the French branch of battleships - Brittany Lyon - well, they show very good accuracy at maximum range - until they nerfed them.
                  I haven’t visited it myself for a couple of weeks.
              2. 0
                24 May 2018 10: 59
                Quote: Snakebyte
                I somehow had a full airborne volley of "Texas" lay beautiful bursts around the going side on the 8km Svetlana.


                “Svetlana” they have “spoken” - the impression is that they reduced the probability of getting to it real :))) Knocking her a citator even from 10 km is a rare event.
                By the way, it is similar with 1-level cruisers - they swallow the Musashi GK 460 mm with minimal damage - although for 9 level cruisers the damage is completely - the conventions of the developers - otherwise no one would play on cruisers.
                1. 0
                  24 May 2018 13: 03
                  with 10 level cruisers
                  1. 0
                    24 May 2018 17: 17
                    Quote: DimerVladimer
                    I really liked Queen Elizabeth - he knocks out the citadel with single-level battleships and even higher. But cruisers of the same level are better high-explosive.

                    I somehow had no luck with this. By the way, the cruisers were knocked out of the citadel, but EMNIP never even hit the battleships. Knocked out at KG5, but somehow it did not grow together at the Queen
                    Quote: DimerVladimer
                    By the way, it is similar with 1-level cruisers - they swallow 460 mm Musashi Group of Companies with minimal damage - although for 9-level cruisers - the damage is quite

                    Yeah, quite .... I'm on Dmitry Donskoy now, because once I was maneuvering a rhombus with 16 for about km, Yamato puts a volley - and 4 / 5 health bye ....
                    1. 0
                      25 May 2018 12: 50
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Yeah, quite .... I'm on Dmitry Donskoy now, because once I was maneuvering a rhombus with 16 for about km, Yamato puts a volley - and 4 / 5 health bye ....


                      Yes, yes - and cr Moscow in the same situation and does not pass damage from 7-9 km, similarly to Ginderburg and other cruisers of the 10th level. The laws of physics simply cease to apply to them.
    2. +1
      23 May 2018 14: 58
      Quote: arturpraetor
      In general, an excellent analysis of medium-caliber artillery. You can safely add to the disproved myths about light cruisers that overcome heavy cruisers over long distances. In general, it seems that the 152-203mm caliber artillery is most covered in myths.


      This is taking into account that the 152 mm artillery of the RVE period did not have centralized aiming, the Japanese used optical sights, and at Rozhdestvensky’s squadron, the optical sights were set on the eve of the second squadron’s release and the gunners were extremely nervous about this innovation - it was more handy from the barrel :)) .

      And with the advent of a centralized guidance to the PMV on some modern cruisers - the effectiveness of main guns - even if the 6 "-8" caliber increased - the same Blucher had a very advanced control system for his main caliber and was used to train cadets and artillery officers in shooting.
      1. +2
        23 May 2018 15: 14
        So no one disputes the development of the LMS, but the LMS makes it possible to better realize the capabilities laid down directly in the artillery itself. And any artillery has a limit on the power and accuracy of shells, which depends directly on the guns and shells themselves, including the caliber of the gun. And for heavier guns and shells this limit, of course, is higher - although the weight of the shell, shape, initial speed, etc. also play a role. And on the Internet there is a fairly popular point of view that all this does not play any role at all, and with other things being equal, 20-mm, 305-mm and 203-mm guns will hit with the same accuracy wassat That is somehow poorly confirmed by practice (firing accuracy in the same RVE, or WWII and WWII), but this is voiced periodically even in serious literature, especially on the example of light and heavy cruisers - they say, at long distances due to the greater rate of fire, light cruisers they can easily deal with heavy ones, since those have a much lower rate of fire. Accuracy of firing at different distances, projectile power, armor penetration do not play a role, the main weight of the volley and the number of shells, because the statistics of fired kg of metal and explosives simply mentally crush the probable enemy in TKR, whose shells, all other things being equal, are much more ballistic resistant, which means more accurate, and able to break through thicker armor and do much more damage than 152-mm request
  3. +5
    22 May 2018 15: 44
    As always an interesting article.
    1. 0
      22 May 2018 21: 23
      could have been shorter, it’s just that nobody in Japan made a revolution and therefore didn’t do wrecking in artillery cellars with gun systems
  4. +3
    22 May 2018 15: 54
    How would you not think such a macar about the effectiveness of high-explosive shells in general and not come into conflict with your own Tsushima cycle. :))
    1. +4
      22 May 2018 16: 13
      Quote: MooH
      How would you not think such a macar about the effectiveness of high-explosive shells in general

      Why is this? :))))) Ying 305-mm HE bomb and trust! soldier
  5. +6
    22 May 2018 16: 00
    The merit of the work can be attributed to the fact that the author gives statistics on shots and hits of naval battles of the RJV, which is interesting primarily because it is given for almost all battles, except for the battle in the Korea Strait, where incomplete data and the battle of the Varyag are given. Which, incidentally, is somewhat strange.
    However, in talking about the effectiveness of hits, the author abstracts from analyzing the quality of shells, both in caliber and in countries. Which is more than strange, because it is the quality of the shell that determines in many respects the consequences of its impact.
    As for the author’s conclusion, without defining the concept of damage / damage from the impact of the projectile on the target, he fell into his narrow understanding of causing direct damage to ship structures. And this is not true, because it is necessary to take into account both losses among the personnel and obstacles in the struggle for survivability from hits of SK shells. By the way, the calculations of some authors show that the losses among the personnel for one hit of the Russian shell were higher than the Japanese ....
    Finally, the conclusion is on "vulnerablem warships having to 5 tons of displacement "contradicts the battle of the Varangian, the displacement of which was greater than this figure. However, the very concept of" weakly protected "is unhistorical - large ships were then either armored or with an armored belt. In addition, the ships were protected by coal pits ... Therefore, it remains to wish the author to use established terms.
    1. +4
      22 May 2018 16: 31
      Quote: ser56
      curious, first of all, by the fact that it was given for almost all battles, with the exception of the battle in the Korea Strait, where incomplete data and the battle of the Varangian are given

      In Korean - alas, I have no statistics. According to the Varangian, it is not very revealing due to the lack of 305 mm artillery.
      Quote: ser56
      However, in talking about the effectiveness of hits, the author abstracts from the analysis of the quality of the shells, both in caliber and in countries

      The fact is that the author focuses on the analysis of the impact of Japanese shells on Russian ships, and their quality is relatively comparable
      Quote: ser56
      As for the author’s conclusion, without defining the concept of damage / damage from the impact of the projectile on the target, he fell into his narrow understanding of causing direct damage to ship structures

      Which was, so to speak, the object of study. Sorry, but the human losses in this case did not interest me
      Quote: ser56
      And this is not true, because it is necessary to take into account both losses among the personnel and obstacles in the struggle for survivability from hits of SK shells.

      Losses of personnel on armadillos (surviving, of course) are insignificant with respect to the total number of crews and could not seriously affect the combat effectiveness of the ships. Which gives us reason to assume the same for the dead. If you wish, you can discuss in more detail which particular ship you are interested in?
      Quote: ser56
      By the way, the calculations of some authors show that the losses among the personnel for one hit of the Russian shell were higher than the Japanese ....

      I apologize, but 116 people died on the Japanese squadron, 5 people died on the Russian, which even with an equal number of dead per shell, gives a ratio of 045 Russian hit per 1 Japanese. Can you believe it? I think no.
      Quote: ser56
      And finally, the conclusion on "weakly protected warships with up to 5 tons of displacement" contradicts the battle of the Varyag, whose displacement was greater than this figure.

      OK, let's increase to 6500 tons :)
      Quote: ser56
      However, the very concept of "weakly protected" is non-historical - large ships were then either armored or with an armored belt.

      No :)))) The same Athlete is protected much better than the Varyag, despite the fact that both are armored, and Ushakov’s defense is not comparable with Borodino’s EDB, although both have an armored belt.
      1. +3
        22 May 2018 17: 11
        1) like the topic you have the effectiveness of the UK, and not generally naval artillery .... so the battle of the Varangian is quite the topic.
        2) even Japanese shells are different. At the same time, you give statistics on the shooting and hits of the Russians ... did not give - there would be no question ...
        3) Do you separate equipment and crew from a single combat vehicle? not scientific ...
        4) You have not heard - the struggle for survivability matters ... I remind you that due to fires, the effectiveness of Russian EDB fire in Tsushima sharply decreased, and ZPR was forced to leave the conning tower.
        5)
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but 116 people died in the Japanese squadron, 5 people died in the Russian, which even with an equal number of people killed per shell, gives a ratio of 045 Russian hit per 1 Japanese. Can you believe it? I think no.

        Well, you don’t want to hear criticism - it’s your right, but why turn it into stupidity? Drowned people are not among those injured in contact with ...
        6)
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        OK, let's increase to 6500 tons :)

        In this sense, the battle of D. Donskoy is indicative ...
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        No :)))) The same Athlete is protected much better than the Varyag, despite the fact that both are armored, and Ushakov’s defense is not comparable with Borodino’s EDB, although both have an armored belt.

        a) at Bogatyr artillery is better protected and all. Again, the terms are floating ... just compare the vitality of the Bayan and the Athlete ...
        b) Comparing BRBO and EBR is somewhat strange ... You can compare for example EBRs like Borodino and Navarin, which have different belt lengths ...
        1. +3
          22 May 2018 18: 52
          Quote: ser56
          like the topic you have the effectiveness of the UK, and not generally naval artillery .... so the battle of the Varyag is completely in the subject.

          I apologize, but the article is called “Reflections on the effectiveness of Japanese medium-caliber artillery in Tsushima” and I use other battles only insofar as it is necessary to derive the proportions of hits, as well as the consequences of the impact of medium-caliber artillery on the EDB. Indications of other ships are nothing more than an appendage; they are not particularly significant within the framework of the article.
          Quote: ser56
          even Japanese shells are different. At the same time, you give statistics on the shooting and hits of the Russians ... did not give - there would be no question ...

          as for the Japanese shells - this is true, but there is nothing to be done about it. I am sure that in the LM and Tsushima different 305 mm shells were used, but I can not say anything about smaller calibers.
          The statistics of Russian shells is not needed on its own, but as a confirmation of a simple fact - the percentage of hits of medium-caliber artillery is much lower, and even a large number of 152-203-mm rounds does not give a “hail of hits”
          Quote: ser56
          Do you share equipment and crew from a single combat vehicle? not scientific ...

          Yes, I, in general, do not pretend. I have already indicated the reasons why I do not. I apologize, will there be any objections? :))))
          Quote: ser56
          You have not heard - the struggle for survivability matters ... I remind you that because of fires, the effectiveness of Russian EDB fire in Tsushima sharply decreased,

          Can you prove this statement? I absolutely do not see any significant effect of fires on the combat effectiveness of the EDB.
          Quote: ser56
          and ZPR was forced to leave the conning tower.

          I do not understand :))) What do you mean?
          Quote: ser56
          Well, you don’t want to hear criticism - it’s your right, but why turn it into stupidity? Drowned people are not among those injured in contact with ...

          Sorry, but criticism is constructive, and not very. So, I quote
          Quote: ser56
          By the way, the calculations of some authors show that the losses among the personnel for one hit of the Russian shell were higher than the Japanese ....

          are not constructive criticism, and here's why. First, if you read "some authors", then you know that their calculations either ignore the dead Russian ships in general, or assign them a fictitious and based on no number of hits. Both methods are extremely far from the scientific one you care about so much.
          And the second - those who died on Borodino, Alexander, Oslyab fell precisely as a result of the impact of enemy artillery. It was the Japanese guns that caused the loss of stability of Alexander and Oslyaby, the explosion of Borodino, so there is no reason to divide these losses into "dead from the shell" and "drowned".
          Quote: ser56
          at Bogatyr the artillery is better protected and all. Again, the terms are floating ... just compare the vitality of the Bayan and the Athlete ...

          In my opinion, you are already starting to swim here. I said about “weakly protected” goals, you didn’t like it, you demand either “armored” or “armored” ones, and when I tell you that the presence / absence of an armored belt generally does not determine the degree of protection of the ship and therefore the definition proposed by you does not fit , You are again unscientific :)))))
          Quote: ser56
          Comparing BRBO and EDB is somewhat strange ...

          This is for your definition - you and I did not offer to divide the ships into "having and not having an armored belt". And you claimed that it was scientific hi
      2. +1
        23 May 2018 15: 11
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The fact is that the author focuses on the analysis of the impact of Japanese shells on Russian ships, and their quality is relatively comparable


        I would still look at the difference in shrapnel and incendiary effects.
        Especially under Tsushima.
        What was manifested in the knocking out of emergency teams, the destruction of fire hydrants, as a result - the fight against fires.
    2. +4
      22 May 2018 17: 36
      Dear colleague, the loss of personnel to a large extent depends not on the qualities of enemy shells, but on the design of your ship. The closest example: damage in the Tsushima battle of the cruisers Oleg and Aurora. They have approximately the same displacement, they spent the whole battle side by side, well, to the heap they were built at the shipyards of the New Admiralty, which alludes to the same quality of construction. So, despite the fact that the “Oleg” suffered twice as much damage, the loss is twice as high for the “Aurora”.
      1. +2
        22 May 2018 17: 43
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        So, despite the fact that the “Oleg” suffered twice as much damage, the loss is twice as high for the “Aurora”.

        you are difficult to understand ....
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        to a large extent depend not on the qualities of enemy shells, but on the design of their ship

        arguably, they depend on both factors ...
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        which hints at the same quality of construction.

        but they have different artillery defense designs - Oleg’s towers and casemates ...
        1. +6
          22 May 2018 18: 19
          you are hard to understand

          This happens:))
          I will try to explain more popularly.
          When the cruiser Enquist came to Manila they were examined by the American commission and came to the conclusion that the minimum time for their repair to ensure safe navigation would be for Oleg - 60 days, Aurora - 30 days, Pearls - 7 days. Thus, we can safely say that “Oleg” received twice as much damage
          Losses of personnel (killed and wounded) amounted to “Aurora” - 98 people, “Oleg” - 51 people.
          but they have different artillery defense designs - Oleg’s towers and casemates ..

          That is what I am telling you.
  6. +4
    22 May 2018 16: 51
    In past lives, I, in every way, was a sailor. Straight, the skin stands on end. When in the St. Petersburg Maritime Museum you look at this:

    fragments in his leg, but damn it. when such

    how I hate the wicked euro kagal.
  7. +2
    22 May 2018 18: 23
    Quote: arturpraetor
    Well, you know, many people believe that shells of different calibers are equally accurate at comparable distances

    And here I would like to receive an explanation. What was in reality: an alternative - either the accuracy of the medium-caliber guns is many times smaller than large-caliber guns, or not: they are approximately the same. Judging by the hits in a real battle against ships, it is clear to everyone that medium-caliber guns are much worse in terms of accuracy. But if we consider the firing practice, when the ships shoot at wooden shields, and in peacetime. So the question is: did the firing accuracy of medium-caliber guns also be many times worse at training firing? And all the admirals beforehand - before the onset of any war, knew that the accuracy of firing medium-sized (and small) caliber guns was no good?
    1. +3
      23 May 2018 04: 44
      Quote: geniy
      And here I would like to receive an explanation. Judging by the hits in a real battle against ships, it is clear to everyone that medium-caliber guns are much worse in terms of accuracy. But if we consider the firing practice, when the ships shoot at wooden shields, and in peacetime. So the question is: did the firing accuracy of medium-caliber guns also be many times worse at training firing? And all the admirals beforehand - before the onset of any war, knew that the accuracy of firing medium-sized (and small) caliber guns was no good?

      Good question, interesting.
      Consider the peace and wartime on the example of English and Japanese training firing.
      1) The British do not know the distance to the shields, we assume that both the main and medium caliber fired at the same distance.
      13 armadillos, peers "Mikasy" released released 151 12 caliber shell 75.
      37 armadillos and armored cruisers, also of the same age as Mikasy, released 2 104 6 caliber projectile '', hit 1 091 the shell.

      2) On the eve of Tsushima, the Japanese fire the 1-th fighting detachment, the distance is the same for all guns.
      4 battleship fired 32 12 caliber shell 16.
      4 armadillo and two armored cruisers fired 480 6 caliber shells 162 shell.
      1. +2
        23 May 2018 08: 32
        there is an opinion that for exercises, shooting from medium-caliber guns was adjusted from rangefinders, and in war - only the main caliber (except when they were shot with medium caliber)
        1. 0
          24 May 2018 00: 11
          Exactly. In the exercises, they shot separately with the main separately separate medium caliber. And the fire was adjusted. In battle, only the main caliber fire was adjusted.
    2. 0
      23 May 2018 15: 16
      Quote: geniy
      that medium-caliber guns are much worse in terms of accuracy.


      Only for the days of the REV. With the advent of centralized interference, the situation has changed.
      1. 0
        23 May 2018 15: 28
        At comparable distances - no, ceteris paribus (initial speed, quality of the SLA, training personnel, the degree of gunshot, etc.) heavier shells have greater accuracy due to greater stability in flight due to the large weight. Under the influence of wind, humidity and air resistance, a lighter projectile loses speed faster and begins to deviate more from the initial trajectory, resulting in a much larger spread with increasing distances than a heavier projectile. That is, with the help of the LMS, determining the angle of vertical and horizontal aiming at the enemy ship with equal accuracy and placing it exactly in the middle of the dispersion ellipse of your guns when firing at the same distance from 152-mm, 203-mm and 305-mm guns the probability of a shell getting into an enemy ship will be completely different. But it strongly depends on the distance - at long distances the separation of heavy cannons from medium is more and more, and at small distances there is essentially no difference.
      2. +1
        23 May 2018 16: 51
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Only for the days of the REV. With the advent of centralized interference, the situation has changed.

        The fact of the matter is that absolutely not - 6-dm continued to remain in the outsiders for accuracy
        1. 0
          24 May 2018 11: 29
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The fact of the matter is that absolutely not - 6-dm continued to remain in the outsiders for accuracy


          What did not stop building light cruisers with such a caliber, they were widely used and very successfully - New Year's Fight, Fight at La Plata, etc.
          Stupid admirals ordered ships without reading the correct sites;)

          And what a disgrace the beginning is set on post-war ships? Universal 57 mm 76 mm 100 mm 120 mm :)) 55-70 calibres.

          It is clear that this is not the main weapon - it would be strange to observe a shootout of two URO frigates with a universal caliber at a distance of 17 km. They have a completely different purpose.
          But if it comes to rapprochement with a goal - undoubtedly universal tools will be used.
          Firing range of some modern samples 17-27 km
          1. +1
            24 May 2018 11: 49
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            What did not stop building light cruisers with such a caliber, they were widely used and very successfully - New Year's Fight, Fight at La Plata, etc.

            So let's see, for example, the battle of La Plata. The British fired 2065 shells, achieved 18 hits, that is, the percentage of hits was 0,87 :))))) This is lower than any heavy ship in the battle of Jutland :))))
            1. 0
              25 May 2018 12: 54
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              So let's see, for example, the battle of La Plata. The British fired 2065 shells, achieved 18 hits, that is, the percentage of hits was 0,87 :))))) This is lower than any heavy ship in the battle of Jutland :))))


              But the galley was destroyed and in order not to starve the team, the raider had to be flooded;))
              But seriously - the loss of accuracy of the Raider GC fire - from the loss of communication between the rangefinder post and the towers - made its own adjustments to the result of the battle.
  8. +3
    22 May 2018 19: 30
    Gentlemen, your five cents in a common pot!
    To begin with, the author has bold five - the article is informative and makes the gray matter move a little to digest what is said and compare it with reality Yes
    Further, do not forget that it is important WHERE the shell hits! It is important how many explosives contain the projectile, because it is it that creates destruction on the ship. Therefore, you can also scoop up a couple of tens of six-inches for a ship with a displacement of 10000 tons, and he won’t feel it, but you can get one or two good “pendels” under the tail in the right place to break down and get decent damage with flooding ( "Asama." Tsushima)
    Therefore, if in the last decade of the 19th century the medium artillery was considered almost basic, then with increasing battle distances it stupidly turns into additional, with the functions not to drown the enemy battleship with heavy fire, but at least repel the attacks of destroyers or disturb the available light enemy forces The Germans in the PMV kept the 152mm caliber as additional equipment for causing collateral damage (add-ons, pipes, unarmored sections of the side), because for 20-25000t. carcasses even a decent portion of these 46kg of shells that the elephant grains ....
    Further. Do not forget about fire controls. After the “hit on the head” command, controlling the artillery fire of your ship against the backdrop of a heap of bursts is no longer possible. Although the enemy receives something from this heap, it is not known from whom. Therefore, it’s already problematic to use your additional artillery in a landfill such as Tsushima (or the battle at Shantung) in a quality manner. That's why such hit rates. Plus “fine” shooting techniques, which even at a training distance of 20-25 cable can give results, then at decent distances for a 152mm gun 40-45 cab. the system already involves aiming at the eye (how lucky). Either it was necessary to improve the SUAO with firing methods, or use the separation of targets (at that time)
    So ... a side view smile hi
    1. +2
      22 May 2018 20: 13
      Therefore, you can also scoop up a couple of tens of six-inches for a ship with a displacement of 10000 tons, and he won’t feel it, but you can also get one or two good “pendels” under the tail in the right place to break down and get decent damage with flooding ( "Asama." Tsushima)

      The EMNIP Asama steering gear damaged just the 12 projectile.
      Here it is probably better to recall the “Rurik” which lost control under Ulsan.
      1. +2
        22 May 2018 20: 19
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        The EMNIP Asama steering gear damaged just the 12 projectile.

        Welcome hi I know, that's why I said "good" wink
        I agree with Artyom that one good woman will do more harm than a few small ones
  9. +8
    22 May 2018 19: 34
    but even with "Russia" most of the guns failed not because of the impact of enemy shells, but because of breakdowns of the lifting arches, that is, a structural defect in the machines.

    They wrote on the old fortification that the problem with the arcs of the ship’s guns was more complex - not so much the machines themselves were to blame, but the machine-deck complex.
    The fact is that before the REV no one had counted on long-term firing with large HEVs. Accordingly, the reinforcements for the guns were calculated on the basis of a completely different distribution of axle loads - and everything worked fine in tests with low IOC. But during long-term firing with large VHF, reinforcements experienced off-design vertical loads, surrendered, machines with a deck began to “walk” - and this led to the appearance of additional dynamic loads on the arcs. And the arcs could not stand it.
    It is significant that when testing the ship’s guns on the shore, from a concrete base, there were no problems when firing with large UVN.
  10. +3
    22 May 2018 23: 22
    The author is sure that in the Yellow Sea and in Tsushima, the Japanese used different 12 "shells. More precisely, in the Yellow they used armor-piercing and high-explosive shells stuffed with black gunpowder. That is, they were still English. And in Tsushima they were already high-explosive shells filled with shimoza. They were already Japanese. Comrade I don’t remember him, he wrote that the Japanese couldn’t produce shells of this caliber on their own, respectively, and start them.
    There were no "one-fight super-duper shells." The Japanese themselves to WWII were left only with armor-piercing shells. Their "teachers", the British in Jutland, made full use of shells filled with black powder. The Germans and the French improved armor-piercing shells.
    In Tsushima, Rozhdestvensky dragging at 9 knot speed of the artillery shield himself presented the Japanese with the desired 6 knots, which allowed them to “catch up, overtake and concentrate”. Knocking out two or three ships with concentrated fire one after another, battleships of the Borodino type. And there were only four of them. The Japanese would have dealt without Kamimura’s detachment. They would not have died by artillery fire during the day, and destroyers would have been killed at night.
  11. +3
    23 May 2018 01: 03
    The article as a whole is interesting, but this is not what we expected from you. A question was asked about comparing the destructive capabilities of 12 "and 6" shells. You answered mainly with tables with percentage of hits. Also informative but not enough. Meanwhile, the comments show that there is no understanding in this matter. For example:
    Quote: arturpraetor
    If of these 4 1 or 2 will be 203 mm - then, according to the effect on paper, this four medium-range HEs will be compared to 305 mm, but excuse me - these four are spread all over the ship, and 305 mm plow in one place ...

    An example where everything is exactly the opposite. Four shells with an explosive content of 4 x 10 kg will be three times more destructive in strength than one projectile with an explosive content of 40 kg. Just because the energy of the explosion drops in proportion to the cube of the distance, which means that the greatest damage will be around the epicenter. By the way, this is valid for modern nuclear weapons. You've probably noticed that missiles with one large and thick “kuzkin’s mother” have long been replaced by a package of small charges. And the area of ​​destruction of several such charges is much larger than one, albeit very powerful.

    When we talk about comparison, I would like to see specific numbers. For example, here is what can be said about the 6 "high-explosive shell: mass is usually about 45 kg, explosives about 6 kg. When blown up, the shock wave creates a radius of guaranteed destruction of 5.5 meters (memento-sea) in a radius of 15-20 meters they get shell shock from very heavy ( up to 6 months in the hospital and 50% lethal) to light concussions incapacitating for 5-10 minutes and treatment within a month.This projectile produces about 1900 dangerous fragments with a radius of manpower damage of about 50 meters. enough energy to penetrate 3 mm of homogeneous armor in a radius of up to 4 meters.Some of these fragments are capable of penetrating armor up to 15 mm in a radius of 20-25 meters.

    And now, returning to the effect on the ship, I want to remind you that 50 hits of 6 "in a ship 100-120 meters long, on average, a hole every 2 meters. And each I recall with a radius of guaranteed destruction of 5.5. Meters of anyone who was without cover from this directions and breaking through bulkheads and mechanisms. Recalling the recent description of the battle of Varyag - the first 8 "shell hit the bridge, with its explosive in 10kg, probably carried all who were on deck in a radius of 20-30 meters, this is half the length of the ship. And it’s hard to imagine what was happening in the conning tower, which is only a meter lower. After all, they did not have bulletproof glass.
    1. +2
      23 May 2018 02: 00
      Quote: Saxahorse
      The article as a whole is interesting, but this is not what we expected from you. A question was asked about comparing the destructive capabilities of 12 "and 6" shells.

      You may not have noticed, but the discussion (the answer to which this article was) was not with you :)
      Quote: Saxahorse
      An example where everything is exactly the opposite. Four shells with an explosive content of 4 x 10 kg will be three times more destructive in strength than one projectile with an explosive content of 40 kg.

      Take Beret Polomoshnov, you’ll read, he lists ALL hits in Russian battleships in the battlefield and the consequences of each of them. In principle, they are also in other sources, but at Polomoshnov everything is brought together and convenient. After that, you will be very ashamed of what you wrote here
      1. 0
        24 May 2018 00: 20
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You may not have noticed, but the discussion (the answer to which this article was) was not with you :)

        I apologize for interfering, but you have led the discussion in public.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You take Polomoshnova read

        Thanks for the advice, let's look. But this does not exclude the desire to hear your opinion. Moreover, you promised this to readers.
    2. +1
      23 May 2018 09: 31
      Explosive 4x10kg explosives will be three times stronger than a single projectile with explosive content in 40kg.

      Only in one case: if these four shells hit at the same time, it’s close enough to each other.
      1. +1
        24 May 2018 00: 21
        On the contrary. If all four hit one point, then there is no difference, if different then the area of ​​significant destruction will be greater compared to one shell.
        1. +3
          24 May 2018 08: 10
          Do you like, colleague, to lead a discussion with yourself :)))
          Where did I write at one point? Close enough, that means their impulses must interact. Roughly speaking, if you dig one pit with a large amount of explosives during the penetration, then during the explosion there will be a large pit and a certain amount of rock broken into dust. If you make four, but lay them far apart and will not be undermined at once, the rock will not notice your efforts :)
          1. +1
            24 May 2018 23: 53
            You are talking about synergy. The mutual influence of charges and the amplification of the effect of this. And I'm talking about something else. The fact that the total area of ​​maximum damage from several charges will always be greater than the area of ​​maximum damage from one charge even equal to the mass of several. Those. one big hole from an explosion, always smaller than four holes from smaller explosions ..
            1. 0
              25 May 2018 09: 06
              Is not a fact. Russian 12 "an inch shell of the time of the RNW weighed 331 kg and had a slightly higher 6 kg explosive in the (!) Design. EMNIP 6" with a weight of about 41 kg had 1 kg BB (according to other 2.7 data, this is doubtful, and it doesn’t matter) . and so neither six, nor ten, and twenty six-inch shells could inflict such damage as the 12 on a modern battleship. "
              Although of course, the latter could fall into a coal pit or cofferd and explode without any special consequences.
              1. +1
                26 May 2018 02: 54
                Of course this is not a fact, this is physics :)

                Imagine that we are not talking about Russians but about abstract shells, such as Japanese. The energy of a projectile explosion decreases in proportion to the cube of distance. But the steel bulkheads around have a very specific tensile strength, and everything that is weaker in energy than this strength is simply ignored. Therefore, four shells with explosives of 10 kg will leave a total hole larger than one shell with explosives of 40 kg. The latter has a lot of energy just scatter without special benefit, failing to inflict significant damage.
                1. +1
                  26 May 2018 09: 13
                  This is not physics, but your ideas about it :) The possibility that one heavy shell will pierce the armor plate and turn the inside of the ship, and the four light ones will simply burst on it, scratching the paint, are you not considering?
                  Somehow strange you reason. It is much easier for steel bulkheads to ignore a smaller charge than a large one, don’t you?
                  1. +2
                    26 May 2018 12: 28
                    Not to mention the fact that 40kg of the 305-mm shell during an explosion gives the fragments of the shell much more energy than 10kg 152-mm, and the fragments themselves are larger and / or larger. The fragments of the 305-mm HE shells quietly pierced the side skin at close gaps, but I don’t remember this about the 152-mm. But yes, 152-mm shells can tear a large area of ​​the board if they can, because everything only comes down to this smile
                    1. +1
                      28 May 2018 09: 38
                      Quote: arturpraetor
                      Not to mention the fact that 40 kg of explosives of a 305 mm shell during an explosion gives the fragments of the shell much more energy than 10 kg of 152 mm, and the fragments themselves are larger and / or larger. Fragments of a 305 mm landmine calmly pierced the side of the shell at close gaps, but I don’t remember this about the 152 mm.

                      This is not a true idea - the wall thickness of the projectile is important for the detonation speed - for thin-walled shells (like Japanese 12 "suitcases), it could be lower - for example, when the destruction of the shell of the shell occurs before the explosive fully reacts and the speed the expansion of the fragments will be lower than that of the "thick-walled" 6 ". But this is an extremely rare event - mainly a marriage of arsenals (productions), then the detonation mathematics and the required minimum wall thickness for high-explosive shells were already well understood.
                      In any case, a high-explosive 12 "suitcase gives a much greater destructive effect, both in the shock wave and in the fragments, temperature and time of its impact.
                      And by the way - the calculation of the effective wall thickness of a high-explosive projectile and the number of explosives is interdependent, consists of two second-order curves with a point of intersection in the optimal ratio of wall thickness and optimal charge. So mathematically, more explosives with the same projectile mass - not optimal. By the way, perhaps the appearance of half-armor-piercing shells is associated with this.
                      1. +1
                        28 May 2018 11: 49
                        Not quite true, for simplified. Yes, and I'm not an expert in this topic to explain everything in such detail - there were thoughts on this subject, but nothing more. Thanks for a more detailed explanation. hi
                    2. 0
                      28 May 2018 22: 50
                      Quote: arturpraetor
                      Fragments of a 305 mm landmine calmly pierced the side of the shell at close gaps, but I don’t remember this about the 152 mm.

                      I gave specific figures above, fragments of a 6 "shell confidently penetrate armor up to 15 mm and often up to 25 mm. The side skin is softer than the armor, you can add 10 times. The side skin at the ends is just 15-25 mm. And in the middle of a large ship times 30-XNUMX mm.
                  2. 0
                    28 May 2018 22: 46
                    5-7-10 bulkhead thickness mm. It is equally difficult for them to ignore both the 12 and 6 shells. Both will tear the bulkhead like a rag.

                    But about breaking through, this is another conversation, the average caliber will bring more damage, but it is easier to defend against it. At large distances, of course. But at the same time, there will still be a lot of vulnerabilities outside the citadel.
                    1. +1
                      29 May 2018 14: 32
                      5-7-10 bulkhead thickness mm. It is equally difficult for them to ignore both the 12 and 6 shells. Both will tear the bulkhead like a rag.

                      Sorry, but before you talked about the stability of bulkheads to the explosion
                      The energy of a projectile explosion decreases in proportion to the cube of distance. But the steel bulkheads around have a very specific tensile strength, and everything that is weaker in energy than this strength is simply ignored

                      A colleague, but do you know how much some places in armadillos were not protected by armor?
                      Mainly because there was nothing particularly important there. And therefore, six-inch shells that fell into these places ... well, as it were, they are unpleasant, of course, but not fatal at all.
                      1. 0
                        29 May 2018 23: 37
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        Sorry, but before you talked about the stability of bulkheads to explode

                        Mutually I apologize, but I talked about the tensile strength of the bulkheads with respect to the explosion. This means that for more explosives, the shock wave is theoretically felt further. But the tensile strength of the bulkhead cuts off everything that is not capable of destroying it. It turns out what I said, the 12 "projectile makes a hole twice as large as the 8", but although the explosives in it are four times as much, the excess is reflected by established bulkheads and dissipated. Because 4x8 "make a hole twice as large as 1x12".

                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        A colleague, but do you know how much some places in armadillos were not protected by armor?

                        You asked a very painful question for designers. What to consider necessary and what type to score. In practice, they protect what was enough for money and displacement. And everything else, gritting their teeth, is considered relatively secondary in importance to the details of the ship.

                        And of course it would be cool! The citadel alone and around the foam fairings :)
    3. 0
      23 May 2018 09: 51
      Quote: Saxahorse
      By the way, this is valid for modern nuclear weapons. You've probably noticed that missiles with one large and thick “kuzkin’s mother” have long been replaced by a package of small charges. And the area of ​​destruction of several such charges is much larger than one, albeit very powerful.

      The reason for the replacement of monoblocks on the RGCh is somewhat different: increased accuracy of ICBMs and SLBMs. The first-generation megaton monoblocks were a necessary measure - only in this way, by increasing the power and radius of the nuclear explosion, it was possible to compensate for the CVO of the first ICBMs, often exceeding a kilometer. Once it became possible to hit not somewhere in the boundaries of the metropolis, and at least within a couple of blocks - it became possible to reduce the power of charges, and at the same time increase their number.
      1. 0
        24 May 2018 00: 24
        And so it can be said. Improving the accuracy allowed to reduce the power of a single charge. But the area of ​​the zone of complete destruction when using multiple charges has become larger.
    4. +2
      24 May 2018 14: 53
      If you follow these conclusions, then according to the RNE everyone had to set up ships with a very large number of medium-caliber guns. They did everything exactly the opposite. USA, England. The Japanese immediately put 305 mm even on armored cruisers.
      Somewhere on this resource, testimonies of Russian officers from the battleships of the Port Arthur squadron were given, which believed that hits less than 12 inches could be ignored altogether.
      And here are 12 inches ... how lucky.
      And so: 48 kg of explosives in a Japanese shell. It is as if 2 boxes of TNT now. On land, so much TNT with a concentrated charge can do a lot of things.
  12. +1
    23 May 2018 01: 07
    And so, under Tsushima shells of medium (6-8 ") caliber in Russian ships hit four more than shells of large (10-12") caliber, which had not happened before.

    At the same time, large-caliber shells in the four dead Russian battleships and the surviving "Eagle" hit 50-65, about the same number (60) as they hit six (surviving) Russian battleships in the battle at Cape Shantung.

    Trying to explain this amazing difference: the number of 10 "-12" shells that hit the battle at Tsushima (at five) and at Cape Shantung (at six) of Russian battleships is about the same, but at the same time, all five armored ships were largely deprived of combat readiness four were killed, and in the battle on July 28, 1904, all six Russian battleships retained most of their artillery, they did not have large fires and critical flooding, it is very difficult to ignore the significantly increased number of medium-caliber hits during Tsushima, although, as we see, with some efforts it turns out.

    What shells disabled most of the artillery of Prince Suvorov, Emperor Alexander III, and Borodino, we do not know. However, statistics are known from Oryol. The vast majority of the turret artillery "Eagle" was put out of action by Japanese medium-caliber shells. These same shells deprived the "Eagle" of centralized artillery control. One can also guess that most of the fires on the Russian battleships under Tsushima were created by medium-caliber projectile hits, simply because these hits were four times more than those of large-caliber projectiles.

    What else?

    Both the Tsesarevich and the battleships of the Borodino type were distinguished by prowess and a roll on the circulation. Compounding the matter were the gun ports located near the waterline of the 75 mm battery (Emperor Alexander III, during a sea trip test in 1902 at a speed of more than 15 knots and a 30-degree rudder shift on board, so banked that it began to collect water from the 75 mm battery ports.

    Under Tsushima, this problem was exacerbated by significant overload, far from projected metacentric height. According to Kostenko, the Eagle had an overload of over 1,7 thousand tons and a displacement of over 15 thousand tons at the beginning of the Tsushima battle. In a similar position were other armadillos of this type.

    With such an overload and such a displacement, the main belt of these ships went under water, and the metacentric height decreased to 2,5 feet ~ 0,76 meters.

    The water that was used during the battle to extinguish extensive fires accumulated on the battleships of the Borodino type above the waterline. The artillery cellars and coal pits below the waterline were emptied during the battle. As a result, significant battles from side to side were observed on battleships of this type during the battle.

    Here's how, for example, the situation with the battleship "Emperor Alexander III" is described:

    "" ... It was about 5 o’clock in the evening ... when the Suvorov was among our squadron inconsistently moving north ... Borodino was leading the lead squadron. "Alexander", badly beaten, with a roll and sunk into the water almost to the ports of the lower battery, kept out of line, slowly lagging behind, but not stopping the battle, acting from the surviving guns. I didn’t see him, but they told me that he had the entire bow - from the ram to the 12-inch tower - as if opened ... "

    "... About 6 hours and 50 minutes, the battleship Alexander III, with huge holes, with a large bank and a fire on the rosters, failed to the left and on the Nakhimov traverse quickly fell to the starboard side, giving the last volley of two 6 -inch guns of the middle tower. Its bottom appeared above the water, and several dozen people managed to climb it ... "

    On "Alexander III" there was no significant trim on the nose, and consequently no extensive flooding in the bow, due to which Oslyabya died. "Alexander III" corny lost stability when it first crashed to the left, and then, apparently when the steering wheel was abruptly shifted to the starboard side, it circulated to the right and began to scoop up water from the unopened or damaged ports of the 75 mm battery.

    And so, under Tsushima, the Russian armadillos hit large-caliber shells about the same as in the battle at Cape Shantung.

    But the shells of medium caliber in the Russian battleships of the Tsushima battle hit (~ 80 vs 210-260) 2,6-3,25 times more than in the battle at Cape Shantung.

    As a result, under Tsushima, “Borodino” type battleships experienced massive “knockout” of artillery. The vast majority of the artillery of these battleships was disabled by enemy artillery fire (this was not observed in the battle on July 28, 1904). Plus large-scale fires that were also not observed in the battle on July 28, 1904.

    A multiple increase in the number of medium-caliber hits (with a similar, I recall, the number of large-caliber hits) became a visible illustration of the law "Transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones".

    Complicated by a very large overload design features (yaw rate, felling on circulation, located near the waterline ports of the 75 mm battery) Borodino type battleships as well as large "reserves" of combustible materials on their board (including those caused by a desire to improve habitability in the tropics ) led to the fact that they received several dozen hits (3/4 of which were medium-caliber shells), these ships could not demonstrate the qualities that their prototype, the Cesarevich, demonstrated in battle on July 28, 1904,

    "Oslyabyu" ruined overload. In the battle on July 28, 1904, the Peresvet, similar in design, received about 40 hits of Japanese shells, more than a dozen of which were large-caliber.

    "Relight" through the holes in the bow and the hole caused by the displacement of the armor plate under the bow casemate gained several hundred tons of water. But this battleship was not overloaded by the start of the battle. And "Oslyabya", at the beginning of the Tsushima battle, was. As a result, “Peresvet” retained combat effectiveness and returned to Potr-Arthur, and the flooding in the bow of the Oslyaby became irreversible for some 30-40 minutes and led to the death of this battleship.

    Tsushima is distinguished from the battle at Cape Shantung:

    1. A significant overload of Russian battleships at the beginning of the battle fatally exacerbated the design flaws of the battleships of the Borodino and Oslyaby type;

    2. The presence of a large number of fire hazardous materials on board the battleships of the Borodino type.

    3. An approximately threefold increase in the number of hits of medium-caliber shells under Tsushima (with a similar number of hits of large-caliber shells), which led to large-scale fires and the destruction of most of the artillery of the Borodino-type battleships.

    Conclusion? I will not impose any conclusion on the role of Japanese medium-caliber artillery in Tsushima. Here, I think those who have already done it themselves.
    1. +1
      23 May 2018 01: 58
      Quote: AlexanderA
      As a result, under Tsushima, on the battleships of the Borodino type, there was a massive "knockout" of artillery

      tell me how many guns of the "eagle" were "massively knocked out" by medium-caliber artillery? :)))))
      Quote: AlexanderA
      But this battleship was not overloaded by the start of the battle. And "Oslyabya", at the beginning of the Tsushima battle, was. As a result, “Peresvet” retained combat effectiveness and returned to Potr-Arthur, and the flooding in the bow of the Oslyaby became irreversible for some 30-40 minutes and led to the death of this battleship.

      This is not entirely true, because an important moment has been missed. Peresvet received luli sequentially, but Oslyabya - for a very short time
      Quote: AlexanderA
      Significant overload of Russian battleships at the beginning of the battle fatally exacerbated the design flaws of battleships such as Borodino and Oslyaby;

      True, there was no strong operational overload of the EDB in Tsushima, and this is well known. But I wonder how, in your opinion, the overload affected the death of Borodino and Suvorov.
      Quote: AlexanderA
      a threefold increase in the number of hits of medium-caliber shells at Tsushima (with a similar number of hits of large-caliber shells), which led to large-scale fires and the destruction of most of the artillery of the Borodino-type battleships.

      Let’s do it without imagination, because the fires did not disable the EDB artillery.
      1. +2
        23 May 2018 15: 59
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Let’s do it without imagination, because the fires did not disable the EDB artillery.


        This is not true, dear Andrey:
        We turn again to the original source - to the same Semenov:
        Making his way between the debris in the stern, he ran into Redkin, hurrying to the tank.
        - Ah! by the way! - He spoke excitedly, - you can’t shoot from the left stern. Under it, there is a fire around. People choke on heat and smoke ..

        That is, an eyewitness claims that the fire led to the fact that it is not possible to fire from a medium-caliber tower, although the tower is operational and not damaged.

        There was no real fire in the lower battery yet, it was coming from above, but burning debris fell down and down through the hatches, torn smoke shields and holes of the middle deck, and now and then there were minor “fires”. Once it was especially briskly occupied at the battle station of a wireless telegraph bounded by coal bags. The fire seriously threatened the carts with 75 mm rounds that were crowded in this place (due to damage to the supply rail), so some of them were even thrown overboard; but still managed to cope.


        Of course, the fire did not spread only naturally, it was also helped by enemy shells, which continued to pour on the battleship. Losses in people did not stop.


        Suddenly, somewhere close and especially sharply the shell rang. Shrapnel jumped and pounded around ...
        - It seems that the 6-inch ... - I thought, squinting and holding my breath so as not to swallow gas ...
        Indeed, when the smoke dissipated, only one sticking out helpless uphill sticking up helplessly upward from the tower ... The tower commander, Lieutenant Danchich, leaned out of the armored door:
        - And for me - it's over: one - the barrel was demolished, the other - the installation is broken.
        .
        According to the description, the medium-caliber tower was clearly damaged by a 6 "-8" caliber projectile - a 12 "inch projectile, would not leave anyone alive in the tower and would tear it off the guides. That is, it can be assumed that medium-caliber guns medium caliber (tower structure) on an armadillo - subject to an eyewitness.
      2. +1
        24 May 2018 06: 30
        tell me how many guns of the "eagle" were "massively knocked out" by medium-caliber artillery? :)))))


        To quote: “About 7 feet (2 m) of the barrel of the left fore 12” gun was torn off as a result of the hit of an 8 ”shell. Part of the roof of the aft 12” turret above the left gun port was pressed inward by an 8 ”shell, limiting the elevation angle of the gun, and the side armor of the turret has traces of a 10 "projectile that exploded or, more likely, crashed on impact with the armor. The left bow and right middle 6 "towers are jammed as a result of hits of 8" shells in their armor, with significant damage to the adjacent portions of the deck. An ammunition explosion occurred in the right middle tower, resulting in significant damage. The right stern 6 "turret is damaged by a 12" projectile, which hit the barbet at an acute angle. Shards of two 6 "shells, one of which hit the side wall, and the other into the roof of the conning tower, penetrated the cabin."

        And I will illustrate:

        http://tsushima.org.ru/uploads/images/batt
        le / orel_povr_p.jpg

        http://tsushima.org.ru/uploads/images/batt
        le / orel_povr_l.jpg

        This is not entirely true, because an important moment has been missed. Peresvet received luli sequentially, but Oslyabya - for a very short time


        "Oslyabya" "for a very short time" received hits much less than "Relight". But since the overloaded Oslyabya was ready for sinking (it had a much smaller reserve of combat buoyancy), it received several large holes in the bow of the Oslyabya and began to sink irreversibly.

        "Relight", however, through the holes received flooding of the bow ram compartment, flooding of the bow cellar of ammunition, the separation of underwater mines and dynamos, the flow of water into the turret compartment. Since the stock of combat buoyancy “Relight” was higher, the trim on the nose did not become critical, although the water layer on the living deck in the nose reached 1,5-2 feet.

        The fact that the time interval between individual injuries at Peresvet was longer did not play any role. It was not possible to fix the holes, and the struggle for survivability was reduced only to counter-flooding with the intake of an additional 160 tons of water to straighten the heel caused by water entering the body through an underwater hole under the nasal casemates.

        As a result, there were problems with controllability and stability:

        “At night after a day’s battle, the following phenomenon was observed: when, when the enemy destroyer appeared, the ships put the helm on board and showed the destroyer stern, the Peresvet began to roll slowly in the direction opposite the turn; as a result, the water standing in the living deck began to roll from one the sides on the other side and thereby increased the angle of heel: the heel reached 7–8 °, the battleship remained in this position, and there was no notice of any urge to either straighten up or heel further until the steering wheel was retracted; then the battleship began to roll in the opposite direction and again reached 7-8 ° roll.

        In general, it was felt that the armadillo was in unstable equilibrium, which is explained by the fact that coal from the lower coal pits was used up, shells, charges, cartridges and arbors were used up in large quantities, partly raised up as a reserve for guns, and water goes in large mass in residential deck, as a result of which the center of gravity of the armadillo, in addition to rising to the height of a dangerous position, also changed its position in the plane of frames during the roll to the direction disadvantageous for stability.

        To correct the situation, they carried out counter-flooding already at night:

        "The commander of the battleship, Captain 1st Rank Boysman, ordered the entire double bottom to be filled with water, with the exception of the bow compartments, to align the trim a little."

        If the “Relight” at Cape Shantung was initially overloaded in the same way as the “Oslyabya” under Tsushima, initially sitting deeper in the water, he would not take water to the living deck, not 1,5-2 feet, but would get a complete flooding of the living deck and bow and water entering the battery deck. That is, an armadillo would donkey with its nose into the water along anchor wounds. When the "Oslyabya" donkey anchored in the water, it was already clear that the ship was "not a tenant." As the same Krestyaninov noted in his monograph: "If the artillery battle continued for some time, the Peresvet would surely have died from injuries in the forward unarmored part."

        If the “Relight” had been overloaded by the beginning of the battle as well as the “Oslyabya”, then he would have died on July 28, 1904.

        True, there was no strong operational overload of the EDB in Tsushima, and this is well known.


        Should I quote Kostenko?

        “Transshipment with variable supercompacted cargoes is characterized by the following figures in tons: coal - 370 (1150 instead of 780); boiler water - 240 (all was accepted for transshipment); water for ship needs - 40; drinking water - 35 (100 instead of 65); machine water oil - 55 (65 instead of 10); provisions - 110 (205 instead of 95); shells and charges - 91 (20% over the set); materials, tools, luggage and small things - 184; boiler grates - 25 (not provided for in the load) . Total 1150 tons. "

        Construction overload (635 tons) amounted to only 55 percent of the specified operational.

        The total is 1150 + 635 = 1785 tons.

        Let’s do it without imagination, because the fires did not disable the EDB artillery.


        “Lieutenant Shamshev was wounded for the third time in the head and began to call one of the group commanders for a shift. Lieutenant Girs was called from the right bow of the 6-inch tower.

        At this moment, in his tower, from the burst of an enemy projectile, the 6-inch charges standing in the fenders were ignited at the top, a fire broke out. Girs himself opened the tower door and sent the whole burnt maid to the dressing room, extinguished the fire, fired two shots from loaded guns and, despite the burns, went on a call to the conning tower. When he climbed the storm ramp under the bridge, the canvas patch ignited there and the flame swept through Girs. He was so injured that he was immediately sent to the operation center. Then the third artilleryman, Lieutenant Ryumin, was shell-shocked to the head. "

        Fantasy is that "there was no strong operational overload of the EDB in Tsushima, and this is well known"

        And the fires disabled the EDB artillery under Tsushima very successfully. On the "Eagle" to a lesser extent:

        "The shell explosions were accompanied by large fires that did not merge into a general fire on the ship, as on the Suvorov, only due to the removal of the tree before the battle and the dashing work of the bilge-fire division commanded by midshipman Karpov."

        No one will say whether the fire at Borodino reached the cellar of 152 mm ammunition. There are no witnesses left. And the ship itself has rusted at the bottom of the Tsushima Strait for more than 114 years.

        However, a vivid description of how the cellar of 152 mm ammunition on the Eagle nearly exploded left Novikov-Priboy:

        "... After the stoker left, the formidable news of a six-inch tower flew to the operating site. As it turned out later, a hot fragment penetrated inside and hit a spare cartridge. An explosion occurred. Three more of the same cartridge were ignited. One of them was at that moment the arms of the second-room’s commanding officer, Vlasov, who was loading the cannon, the tower, throwing red flames from all its openings along with smoke and gases, echoed hollowly, as if emitting the last uterine breath of despair. horror screams. Oil paint on the walls, insulation on wires, covers from guns caught fire. People, gasping for gas and frying on fire, looked for a way out and didn’t find it. Blinded by smoke, distraught, they rushed about in different directions, but were bruised about their own guns or about vertical armor, fell and rode on an iron platform.

        The tower was inactive, but screams, screeches and roars rang out in its steel walls for a long time. These inhuman voices were heard in the turret compartment, from where the incident was immediately reported to the central post.

        The fire, penetrating down the noriya, ignited the wires and the tree. The powder cellar was in danger of ignition, and only the decisiveness of the sailors who were there saved the battleship from the explosion.

        Porters came to the tower and opened the door. One of them loudly shouted:

        “Well, what happened here?”

        In response, the moans and grunts of the dying were heard. Three of the artillery servants - Vlasov, Finogenov and Maryin, charred, lay dead.

        The quartermaster Volzhanin and the commander Zuev were barely alive. Instead of a dress on them, one could see charred rags.

        Those cartridges of six-inch guns that exploded and caused so much trouble were spare. There were four in each tower. During the journey, starting with Revel, they were kept ready at the fenders, so that in case of the sudden appearance of the enemy, it was possible to quickly load the guns.

        Knowing that the embrasures in our towers are too large, these cartridges should have been the first to be put into action at the beginning of the battle, but no one thought about it. "
        1. 0
          24 May 2018 09: 50
          The fact that the time interval between individual injuries at Peresvet was longer, didn't play any role. There was no way to close the holes, and the struggle for survivability was reduced only to counter-flooding with the intake of additional 160 tons of water to correct the roll caused by water penetrating the body through an underwater hole under the nasal casemates.

          Colleague, and you yourself do not see the contradiction between these two statements?
          And all subsequent ones only confirm that at Peresvet there was time for organizing the struggle for survivability and his team took full advantage of it.
          1. +1
            24 May 2018 19: 08
            Colleague, and you yourself do not see the contradiction between these two statements?


            No, because the struggle for the survivability of Peresvet in the battle was reduced only to its further flooding, albeit counter-flooding, to straighten the bank. With trim, (again further KONTRsoplivanie) fought at night. Combat margin of buoyancy "Relight" it allowed.

            But the stock of combat buoyancy "Oslyabya", overloaded by the beginning of the battle by at least 2,5 thousand tons (the building load of the battleship "Oslyabya reached 1734 tons (13,6% of the displacement) + operational), to fight against roll and trim counter-flooding no longer allowed. Although it also managed to apply counter-flooding to straighten the roll.

            For example, the construction overload of Peresvet was “only” 1136 tons. But in the battle, “Relight” went without a part of artillery and staff reserves. So the construction overload was largely offset by operational underload. With “Oslyabya” it was the other way around. Its construction transshipment to Tsushima was compounded by significant operational overload. In fact, judging by the descriptions, the battleship Oslyabya was enough for the death of three shells, two high-explosive "suitcases" that destroyed an unarmored side at the waterline in the nose, and one that violated the integrity of the armored belt in the area of ​​coal pit No. 10.

            “The first and second compartments of the living deck were flooded through the hole, located mostly above the water; through the broken ventilation pipes, water began to flow into the left bow 152-mm cellar and turret compartment of the bow tower. For a while, the second bulkhead stopped the spread of water along the living deck Water cut off people who were in the bow of the dynamo and mine vehicles, but managed to get them out through the bow of the tower ... A large shell, destroying the armor, fell into coal pit No. 10, which quickly flooded; water began to spread into the left spare hook "To the leveling of the roll, they began to flood the right corridors, and then the cartridges ..."

            But the roll failed to straighten:

            "At about 14.30, Oslyabya, with a roll of up to 12 ° to the left side, buried its nose in the very jams, rolled out of order to the right; a fire raged on the rostrums. Water from the port side reached the lower gun ports and began to pour in through them. for survivability, Lieutenant M.P. Sablin, convinced of the impossibility of stopping the spread of water, climbed the bridge and reported on the inevitability of the death of an armadillo ... "
        2. 0
          24 May 2018 14: 57
          Quote: AlexanderA
          To quote: "About 7 feet (2 m) of the trunk of the left fore-end 12" guns were torn off as a result of the hit of the 8 "projectile.

          Clear. Well, I understand your point of view. I don’t have the opportunity to answer it in the comment - the volume is too large. Accordingly, let’s do it this way - I’ll write a second article on this topic, where I will elaborate on the consequences of getting large- and medium-caliber shells into Russian ships, including, of course, the Eagle. I invite you to take part in its discussion. hi
          Quote: AlexanderA
          The fact that the time interval between individual injuries at Peresvet was longer did not play any role

          Again - I understood your position, but you are mistaken. The fact is that an 2 shell hit the nose of Peresvet, but much closer to the nose - one did not make any special problems, because it did not damage the bulkhead before the beam. The second one caused the flooding recommended by you, and their overall picture (the living deck is heated + some water enters the turret compartments and other compartments under the armored deck) were similar in Oslyaby and Peresvet.
          But Peresvet did not receive any other damage to the hull, which could lead to heavy flooding and survived. But Oslyabya also grabbed the second heavy damage - the shell pierced the armor and water flooded the coal pit No. 10, after which the water began to spread further. They tried to combat this with counter-flooding, as a result of which the battleship took a lot of water, surface damage to the hull went under the water and all this took an irreversible character.
          But at Peresvet they resorted to counter-flooding much later, when part of the "holes" were patched. Therefore, the speed of getting damaged Oslyaby matters, and overload .. She was not a critical factor here
          Quote: AlexanderA
          Should I quote Kostenko?

          Kostenko is a liar, so you don’t need to quote him. As well as trusting his data, in which, by the way, he is constantly confused. I will give a simple example - in different sources Kostenko reports where about 370 ton, and where - about 400 ton overload at the beginning of the battle. You quoted "On the Eagle in Tsushima" where he reported about 370 tons of overload, but here he has already reported about 400 tons to the Commission of Inquiry.
          At the same time, in the morning of May 13, “Orel”, in response to a traditional request from “Prince Suvorov,” announced the presence of 1 095 tons of coal (Russian-Japanese War 1904-1905. Fleet operations. Documents. Division IV. Book Three. Issue 5 PGD, 1914, p. 69). Given that the normal coal supply was 787 tons, it can be stated that the day before the battle, the loading of Orel with coal did not exceed 308 tons. Given that the daily fuel consumption on the battleship reached 128 tons, it is easy to calculate that the load at the beginning of the battle for coal was about 180 tons, and the total fuel supply was 960-970 tons.
          The same goes for the rest of Kostenko’s numbers. Unfortunately, they are completely not worthy of trust.
          1. 0
            24 May 2018 20: 18
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But Peresvet did not receive any other damage to the hull, which could lead to heavy flooding and survived. But Oslyabya also grabbed the second heavy damage - the shell pierced the armor and water flooded the coal pit No. 10, after which the water began to spread further.


            "Relight" received "other damage to the hull." And also, like "Oslyabya" hole in the armored belt:

            “One shell immediately fell under the waterline into seven-inch armor, didn’t break through the armor, but squeezed 5 frames and the No. 29 bulkhead. The new 12-dm hit the corner of the armor plate on the right side, under the nasal casemates. The corner of the plate was poorly reinforced, due to which (although the shell didn’t penetrate the shell and only made a pothole in it), it yielded two feet inward, and only the soft part of the plate bent, the hardened one gave several concentric cracks. A hole formed in the form of a triangle with a base of 2 feet and a height of 7– 8 ft. Water filled the 33rd and 37th compartments, the upper (20 tons each) and the lower (60 tons each) - only 160 tons.The lower compartments were flooded through the necks in the carp deck, which are not tightened up. "significant roll, which had to be leveled by flooding of the corresponding volume of compartments on the left side (another 160 tons)."

            Pictures of damage to the unarmored and armored board "Oslyaby" and "Relight" are very similar.

            The difference is that the water layer on the living deck in the bow of Peresvet turned out to be 1,5-2 feet, and the roll reached 7-8 degrees.

            On the Oslyaba, by the time when: “Lieutenant MP Sablin, who led the struggle for survivability, convinced himself of the impossibility of stopping the spread of water, went up to the bridge and reported on the inevitability of the death of the battleship,” the battleship had already settled its nose along anchor gaps (that is, a living deck in the nose was completely flooded), and the roll to the left side caused by flooding through damage to the armored belt in the area of ​​coal pit No. 10 reached 12 degrees.

            This difference was caused by the initial significant difference in the stock of combat displacement of the two battleships at the beginning of the battle.

            But at Peresvet they resorted to counter-flooding much later, when part of the "holes" were patched.


            This is when it is at the "Relight" part of the holes was patched?

            "The further spread of water was stopped by the third bulkhead, in front of the nose beam. Sealing the hole, due to its large size, swell and stroke, was impossible."

            So what kind of hole was fixed before taking water into the double bottom space ("1st-rank captain Boysman ordered the entire double bottom to be filled with water, with the exception of the bow compartments, to slightly trim the trim"), a hole in the area of ​​bulkhead No. 29?

            Kostenko is a liar, so you don’t need to quote him. As well as trusting his data, in which, by the way, he is constantly confused.


            This is normal for a witness to facts, and not a person who came up with a "fact", confused in the testimony.

            “Tomorrow at dawn we begin the first loading of coal in the ocean, although 1860 tons remain on board. We will load from transports in bags, transferring them to the flooring from the boards laid on the banks of the barges.” (C) Kostenko

            Kostenko is a liar? Novikov Surf is also a liar? Campbell in his article based on the materials of Pekingham apparently also lie?

            Soviet historians also lied? "23 on May. The last loading of coal by the 2 th squadron before the Tsushima battle, with all the battleships taking a much more than full supply of coal, so that the coastal defense battleships went overboard with overloads into the water." the history of the Russian fleet from the 9th century to the 1917 " - M .: Military Publishing House of the USSR Ministry of the Interior, 1948

            Tell me why? To discredit the great Russian naval commander Zinovy ​​Petrovich Rozhestvensky?

            If you are a fan of the "slandered admiral" of Christmas, then of course I will not argue. Of course lied, of course.

            Given the fact that the daily fuel consumption on the battleship reached 128 tons


            Kostenko is a liar. What about the rest?

            “On the morning of May 14, on ships of the Admiral Senyavin type, there were still 440–446 tons of coal and about 200 tons of fresh water each. The transshipment compared to normal reserves was at least 370–380 tons. The displacement of Admiral Senyavin was approaching 5050, "Admiral Ushakova" - to 4975 and "Admiral Apraksin" - to 4810 tons. The armor belt of the first ship almost completely went into the water, and on the others it towered above the actual waterline by 9 and 24 cm, respectively. Given the actual unrest, this meant that the surface part of the board is completely devoid of protection.

            “Emperor Nicholas I” had up to 690 tons of coal and 150 tons of boiler water. According to the senior officer of the armadillo, his draft was not less than 1 foot (30,5 cm) normal, which corresponded to a displacement of about 9850 tons. They managed to use up the coal laid on the deck, but the bags of coal, like on the rest of the squad’s ships, were used as an improvised ballistic defense. "V.Yu. Gribovsky, II Chernikov" Battleship "Admiral Ushakov"
            1. +1
              25 May 2018 11: 05
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Kostenko is a liar? Novikov Surf is also a liar?

              And what else.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Soviet historians also lied? "23 on May. The last loading of coal by the 2 th squadron before the Tsushima battle, with all the battleships taking a much more than full supply of coal, so that the coastal defense battleships went overboard with overloads into the water." the history of the Russian fleet from the 9th century to the 1917 " - M .: Military Publishing House of the USSR Ministry of the Interior, 1948

              Please note that domestic historians are more than accurate in their interpretations - yes, they accepted a “more than full” coal reserve, but they say only about BRBO that went into the water armored belt, and most importantly, I don’t see the statement that this belt was under water to the beginning of the battle :)))) That is, at the time of loading - yes, it was. But the ships were approaching Tsushima, coal was being spent, and where is the indication that their armored belt was under water at the beginning of the battle?
              I repeat, there is a book of "Diamond", which noted the reserves of coal on the ships of the squadron

              And they directly contradict what Kostenko said. At the same time, if you carefully read it on the Eagle in Tsushima and the testimony of the Commission of Inquiry, you will see, for example, that he, depending on the context, changes very much the same data. Even the book contains many inaccuracies and internal contradictions.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              If you are a fan of the "slandered admiral" of Christmas, then of course I will not argue.

              I am a fan of documents :)))) And they, by the way, show that Rozhdestvensky was really slandered.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              On the morning of May 14, on ships of the Admiral Senyavin type, there was still 440 — 446 tons of coal and about 200 tons of fresh water left. Overload compared with normal reserves was at least 370 — 380 tons.

              Well, we consider - 440 tons of coal + 200 tons of water = 640 tons - 370 tons of overload = 270 tons. This is the weight of normal reserves.
              Open the “Coast Guard Armadillo” Admiral General Apraksin (album of ship’s reporting drawings) and read - normal coal supply - 214 tons, water weight in boilers - 114 tons. 214 + 114 = 328 tons.
              Moreover. Even if the supplies of water and coal exceeded normal, this does not in any way indicate an overload of the ship - such is the excess of the full supply, but not normal at all.
      3. +1
        25 May 2018 13: 19
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        tell me how many guns of the "eagle" were "massively knocked out" by medium-caliber artillery? :)))))


        I would just like to give some comparative schemes of the impact of field artillery on OFZ shells - for clarity (although this is not entirely correct - sea guns fire heavier shells).

        Fragmentation of fragments is quite significant when falling into the water, i.e. a gap near the side can damage unarmored parts of ships and openly located mechanisms and people.
        In World War II, a 12 "shell that fell next to a German tank (landing in Normandy) turned it over. A hit of a 6" high-explosive shell in a tank leads to severe shell contusion, the turret is torn off shoulder straps, and fragments are broken off inside the armored corps (the latter is for armor from the time of the REV unlikely - not the same cementation of the armor and the inside was less fragile).

        The high-explosive effect is very significant, although not comparable to 12 ".
        The incapacitation of drainage and fire mechanisms is undeniable.

        He will turn to Semenov’s diary: being shelled by the Virgo (6 ") cruisers, they put the crew on decks and did emergency work, although they suffered losses as soon as the" suitcases "began to fall - the sailors fled in panic to hide in the deck.
    2. 0
      24 May 2018 11: 36
      If you make a squeeze out of your thoughts, then the main reason for the death of Russian ships is construction and operational overload, the lack of preparation of ships for battle (decoration, furniture, combustible materials, etc. on board, which led to severe fires). Everything else is secondary, but it was in such circumstances that the Japanese high-explosive shells were most effective.
      1. +1
        24 May 2018 20: 48
        Construction and operational overloads drowned the main armored belt and reduced the metacentric height of the Borodino-type battleships to the start of the battle to ~ 0,76 m (during the battle it even decreased - the consumption of shells from cellars and coal from coal pits closest to the boilers, the fire department "water above the waterline), a large amount of combustible materials on board would not have caused such fatal consequences if it were not for the sharp increase (not less than 3 times) in the number of medium-caliber hits in battleships in comparison with the battle of July 28, 1904 with a similar battle at Cape Shantung the number of hits of large-caliber shells. Many times more hits, many times more potential fires.

        So everything turned out one to one - overload, which reduced the metacentric height on the battleships of the Borodino type, and also deprived of a significant reserve of combat buoyancy that did not have a full armor belt along the Oslyabyu waterline. The flicker on the circulation of battleships of the Borodino type and the ports of their 75 mm battery located at the waterline. Large "reserves" of "combustible materials" on most ships. All this multiplied by a sharp increase (in comparison with Shantung) in the number of hits of medium-caliber shells.

        If at least one “ingredient” had been thrown out of this formula, then in the daytime artillery battle one Russian battleship could have died, maybe even two. But not four at all.
        1. +1
          25 May 2018 01: 36
          Quote: AlexanderA
          If at least one “ingredient” had been thrown out of this formula, then in the daytime artillery battle one Russian battleship could have died, maybe even two. But not four at all

          Given the fact that Suvorov was sunk by torpedoes, and Borodino exploded ....
          1. 0
            26 May 2018 02: 06
            By the way, it’s not a fact that Borodino exploded. I read five or six versions of that last minute of the fight.
    3. +1
      24 May 2018 12: 18
      The battle at Tsushima is most different from the battle at Shatung - completely different - Admiral Witgeft gave a simple order, led his squadron in battle meaningfully and gave the ships fire under normal conditions, but the Admiral did not bring the Christmas plan for the battle to his subordinates, he did everything so that the commandants wouldn’t could shoot - gave incomprehensible commands, strangely maneuvered and arranged a bunch at the beginning of the battle, etc.
    4. +1
      25 May 2018 15: 00
      In addition to the above considerations, I dare to add here there is one more reason: the battle distances at Tsushima were lower, sometimes significantly, than in the Yellow Sea. And then it affected accuracy, with a much higher rate of fire.
  13. 0
    23 May 2018 01: 32
    Article minus. A reprint of another author a hundred years ago. Our audience has fallen in education and education. Regardless of age, the audience does not know history. That's why they applaud all nonsense. Essentially: 1.How far was the fight
    2. What quality was the manufacture of medium-caliber shells. Take for example modern ammunition. 3.Satya is called, but what’s the conclusion? It’s a shame for our audience on V.O. Take the ballistics of the 305mm guns of that time and 152mm. Now you can sink the smaller caliber. The article is called thinking about the effectiveness of medium-caliber guns. Let’s then discuss the sailing fleet. For example, why do you need cast iron cores when you can burn wooden ships in different ways. Just to write. Not just write, but reprint another author. PLAGIAT.
    1. +4
      23 May 2018 01: 53
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      Article minus.

      No problem:)))
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      A reprint of another author a century ago

      You know, you just accused me of plagiarism. In a decent society, in such cases it is necessary to give a link to the original. Where is she? If you can’t, then I’ll have to call you a liar. What you really are, because I better know if I wrote an article or copy-pasted, but I will give you a chance.
      1. +4
        23 May 2018 05: 09
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In a decent society, in such cases it is necessary to give a link to the original. Where is she? If you can’t, then I’ll have to call you a liar.

        Yes, it’s, Kolya, you see, our Passerby took the word laughing
        Started with trolling. By the way, Andrey, remember how I posted a document with the amount of coal on different ships of Rozhestvensky’s squadron, and he said that I had fabricated the document myself. Allegedly, on the Internet there is the same, but real, with genuine numbers.
        There have been a lot of whistleblowers lately, yesterday I was accused of plagiarism, today you smile
        1. 0
          23 May 2018 10: 47
          Quote: Comrade
          By the way, Andrey, remember how I posted a document with the amount of coal on different ships of Rozhestvensky’s squadron, and he said that I had fabricated the document myself. Allegedly, on the Internet there is the same, but real, with genuine numbers.

          A book from Diamond? Of course, how do you forget this :)))))
          Quote: Comrade
          Yesterday I was accused of plagiarism

          And you for what?
          1. +2
            24 May 2018 01: 43
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And you for what?

            One of the regulars accused me the other day that the article about Ushakov was a copy-paste hodgepodge. I offered him good money for pointing to where I stole the paragraphs. Silent, damned laughing
            1. 0
              24 May 2018 14: 58
              Quote: Comrade
              One of the regulars accused me the other day that the article about Ushakov was a copy-paste hodgepodge

              BUT! yes, yes, I read it :)))))) laughing
  14. +3
    23 May 2018 02: 31
    Dear Andrey, you have a good analysis, interesting +!
    However, this is your business card, intelligently arrange everything on the shelves and present on a silver platter smile
    The second side believed that a large number of hits by 152-203-mm shells in Russian ships led to a noticeable decrease in their combat effectiveness

    Interestingly, were some facts in favor of this hypothesis, or was it just that they thoughtlessly borrowed the thesis from Koffman? I remember that in one of his articles Volodya persistently persuaded readers that our armadillos were sinking just because of medium-caliber shells.
    Such shells could very seriously damage the Rurik or Admiral Ushakov, but for shell squadrons these shells did not carry a particular threat. Although, of course, there were successful hits, but this is a matter of chance ..
    Our calculations led to the fact that Russian ships got hit by 210-260 shells of the caliber 152-203-mm

    Definitely, Kostenko would not agree with you laughing

    A clear photo of how our 8 '' shells differed from the 8 '' English (Armstrong) used by the Japanese. Two Russians go from left to right, the last to the right is a Japanese shell. He was found unexploded in Vladivostok.
    1. +1
      23 May 2018 10: 31
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear Andrey, you have a good analysis, interesting +!

      Thank you, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      Interestingly, were some facts in favor of this hypothesis, or was it just that they thoughtlessly borrowed the thesis from Koffman?

      I think this is just an opinion based largely on theoretical assumptions. In general, I must say that Dmitry (with whom we actually discussed) is a very pleasant conversationalist, and if you don’t know the history of the ROV as deeply as we would like, then it's okay :))) If you recall what nonsense I carried when we first met on an alternative ... you helped me critically look at the official history of the REV, now here I am helping other people :)))
      Quote: Comrade
      Definitely, Kostenko would not agree with you laughing

      Why, then, he was initially inclined to my version - that heavy damage to the Eagle was caused by 305 mm HE shells laughing Number one hundred and fifty wassat
      Quote: Comrade
      A clear photo of how our 8 '' shells differed from the 8 '' English (Armstrong) used by the Japanese.

      Charming photo, thanks! hi
      1. +1
        24 May 2018 01: 55
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Why, then, he was initially inclined to my version - that the 305-mm HE shells did heavy damage to Oryol. The number one hundred and fifty.

        There is a continuation of the topic. Recently I came across what I had dreamed of for decades. Kostenko has a book of drawings, and here is the scheme of getting into Eagle, a version of Vladimir Polievktovich. Well, he did not know, a sinner, shaking the scheme before the commission that the time would come, and it would be possible to compare Kostenko’s scheme with photos of the “Eagle”.
        It turns out that at first he came up with 150 “suitcases”, and then he drew non-existent holes for them and put the commissions under his nose.
  15. +1
    23 May 2018 04: 59
    Thanks for the interesting material, Andrey! The article is definitely a plus.
    In general, I agree with your conclusions. But you, it seems to me, do not take into account several circumstances that reduced the effectiveness of precisely the medium 8 "and 6" caliber guns in the battles of the REV:
    1) It was the medium calibers that the shooting was made. And only after the distance to the target was "felt" by the fire 8 "and / or 6" the 12 "and 10" guns entered into business. It seems to me that a certain percentage of the consumption of medium-caliber shells should nevertheless be attributed precisely to the sighting (i.e., to the consumption of ammunition with a known absence of hits).
    How many shells were spent on sighting? At least 3 volleys from each ship, but I think that no one can answer for sure. And if we recall the active maneuvering and rupture of the firing distance at different stages of the Tsushima battle - then there were quite a lot of such repeated attacks.

    2) Do not neglect the technical features of both the guns themselves, and their placement and equipment with auxiliary mechanisms.
    12 "and 10" guns had the lowest rate of fire, were placed behind the thickest armor and were most equipped with auxiliary mechanisms for supplying shells, loading, aiming. All this combined gave less artillery fatigue during a long battle, their greater safety against defeat by enemy shells and, especially, shell fragments, and, accordingly, relatively quiet and more accurate aiming. A longer reload time allowed more time for more accurate aiming of the guns.
    However, this is true only in comparison with 6 "guns, since everything related to large calibers is quite applicable to 8" guns, except that they have a shorter reload time.

    3) I think that you do not take into account the human factor in vain. In any case, for the Japanese fleet. I don’t remember when and where I first read that the first armored detachment (EDB) of Togo was equipped with the best sailors from all over the fleet - gunners, gunners, etc., followed by the second armored detachment (BrKR) of Kammimura and then descending . Now it is already at the level of an axiom that does not require any evidence or confirmation.
    It is quite reasonable to assume (and maybe there is documentary evidence, but I do not know about them) that a similar selection occurred on each of the ships of the Japanese fleet. Those. the best, most accurate gunners of the ship were selected for the main caliber. Accordingly, this further increased the accuracy of the main caliber.

    I believe that the above to some extent affected the decrease in the accuracy of shooting medium-caliber guns. And p. 2), as it seems to me, had an impact on the accuracy of shooting in both the WWII and WWII.
    1. 0
      23 May 2018 10: 45
      Quote: pacific
      Thanks for the interesting material, Andrey!

      And thank you for your kind words!
      Quote: pacific
      But you, it seems to me, do not take into account several circumstances that reduced the effectiveness of precisely the medium 8 "and 6" caliber guns in the battles of the REV:

      Well, I'm definitely not God and not his deputy for history, so anything is possible
      Quote: pacific
      How many shells were spent on sighting? At least 3 volleys from each ship, but I think that no one can answer for sure.

      You write correctly about the sighting, but a little wrong in one moment. The fact is that during the years of the NRN there was no salvo fire, it worked like this - they measured the distance with a range finder and shot from one gun. Therefore, the consumption of shells for sighting was relatively small
      Quote: pacific
      All this combined gave less artillery fatigue during a long battle, their greater safety against defeat by enemy shells and, especially, shell fragments, and, accordingly, relatively quiet and more accurate aiming.

      Maybe you're right. On the other hand, I don’t really understand why the 6-dm gunner should get tired more than the 305-mm - neither shells carry them. But the most important thing - in the article I evaluated the impact of medium artillery in comparison with heavy. You are now talking about the reasons for the different number of hits and the consumption of shells. This is an interesting question, but still different.
      Quote: pacific
      It is quite reasonable to assume (and maybe there is documentary evidence, but I do not know about them) that a similar selection occurred on each of the ships of the Japanese fleet. Those. the best, most accurate gunners of the ship were selected for the main caliber. Accordingly, this further increased the accuracy of the main caliber.

      Quite possible hi
      1. 0
        26 May 2018 02: 05
        You write correctly about the sighting, but a little wrong in one moment. The fact is that during the years of the REV there was no salvo fire ....

        As far as I remember, the volley or half-barreled shooting system was proposed by the artillery officer of the BrKR "Russia", lieutenant V.E. Grevenitz, just during the REV. And was adopted after the REV. But how widely was it used during REE (and was it used at all)?
        ... why the 6-dm gunner should get tired more than the 305-mm guns - neither shells carry them.

        For turret installations 6 "guns (" Tsesarevich ", all 4" Borodino ") there really is no difference with the GK guns - horizontal and vertical aiming is mechanized in both cases. But 6" guns placed in casemates ("Retvizan", "relights", " Navarin "," Sisoy "," Mikasa, etc.), as well as in half-tower installations ("Pallada", "Diana", Aurora) or completely open ("Varangian") were manually guided. I had a chance to spin 100mm in practice half tower on the Kyrgyz Republic pr. 68 bis (anchored in the bay in full calm, without heel and trim). I want to say that it was very, very not easy. horizontal guidance or just carry shells?
        in the article I evaluated the impact of medium artillery compared to heavy. You are now talking about the reasons for the different number of hits and the consumption of shells.

        It seems to me - the more hits, the stronger the impact. smile

        And if we compare the effectiveness of medium artillery versus heavy artillery, it seems to me that you will not deny that the effect of medium artillery in the situation of the EDB against the EDB will be very different from the effect of the same artillery in the situation of the Kyrgyz Republic against the Kyrgyz Republic. In the second case, its effectiveness will be significantly higher. Those. damage caused by medium-caliber artillery to the cruiser (no matter the armored or armored) will be noticeably more serious than the damage that it can inflict on the battleship.
        But this is also another question that goes beyond the topic of your article.
        Best regards, hi
        1. 0
          26 May 2018 10: 04
          Quote: pacific
          But how widely was it used during REE (and was it used at all)?

          Not at all applied
          Quote: pacific
          For tower installations 6 "guns (" Tsesarevich ", all 4" Borodin ") there really is no difference with guns GK

          Yes, but I meant them precisely, because, in general, they are discussed
          Quote: pacific
          the impact of medium artillery in the situation of the EDB against the EDB will be very different from the impact of the same artillery in the situation of the Kyrgyz Republic against the Kyrgyz Republic.

          Of course. But there are a couple of nuances - as we can see, the same “Stormbreaker” held well hits of medium-caliber artillery, and even “Oleg” - even though it was armored. That is, medium-caliber artillery is not even effective in all KR hi
      2. 0
        26 May 2018 03: 02
        PS
        .... I evaluated the effects of medium artillery versus heavy artillery. You are now talking about the reasons for the different number of hits ....

        Once again, I am losing my accuracy request
        But the effectiveness / accuracy of guns with a barrel length of 50 or 45 calibers is still higher than similar guns with barrels 35 to 40 gauge long.
        Although the heaviest damage to Japanese ships in the battles of the nuclear war was caused by outdated "short-barreled" guns of the Civil Code
        1. 0
          26 May 2018 09: 19
          And here it is, most likely, in the shells used by these artillery systems.
  16. 0
    23 May 2018 10: 20
    Medium-caliber artillery (152–203 mm) wrecked out of order in the first place the artillery fire control of Russian ships. Then they began to disable the guns and towers of the main and auxiliary calibers, destroyed the non-reservation or easily reservation of the superstructure, access roads and extremities. Ships without artillery and having lost their course remained either to sink or surrender.
    According to Western terminology, this is called firepower kill first, followed by mobility kill.
    The same thing hit in World War II when the cruisers were disabled by fire controls or battleship artillery.
    None of the Russian ships died from penetrating the main armor with a main caliber projectile.
    1. 0
      23 May 2018 11: 30
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Medium-caliber artillery (152–203 mm) wrecked out of order in the first place the artillery fire control of Russian ships.

      It is extremely doubtful.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Then they began to disable the guns and turrets of the main and auxiliary calibers

      Can you indicate the sources in which you found such information?
  17. 0
    23 May 2018 10: 34
    Quote: arturpraetor
    In general, it seems that naval artillery of the caliber 152-203mm is most covered in myths. How many of the guns of this caliber are trying to make powerful means against large-tonnage and well-protected ships - but it still doesn’t work out ...

    But the Japanese did very well and 203 mm artillery of their two cruisers in a matter of minutes: "made one of our new battleships deaf, dumb, blind and impotent." These are the words of American Admiral Lee and he means the battleship South Dakota.
    1. 0
      23 May 2018 12: 17
      Disabled at night, at close range, large battleships with a small area of ​​external armor and large poorly protected superstructures, only the battleships’ lives were threatened, but certainly not shells. A heavy cruiser can sink a battleship only if the battleship does not resist, and then - you can shoot the entire BC, but do not cause critical damage.
  18. +1
    23 May 2018 13: 38
    Quote: arturpraetor
    Disabled at night, at close range, large battleships with a small area of ​​external armor and large poorly protected superstructures, only the battleships’ lives were threatened, but certainly not shells. A heavy cruiser can sink a battleship only if the battleship does not resist, and then - you can shoot the entire BC, but do not cause critical damage.

    1. And who needs critical damage if the battleship has lost the ability to shoot and move? It can be taken as a trophy.
    2. If the night did not beat, then the battleship 100% went to the bottom. Cruisers could have killed him with torpedoes. Thanks to the night, he was able to escape from the cruisers.
    1. 0
      23 May 2018 13: 42
      Quote: Kostadinov
      And who needs critical damage if the battleship has lost the ability to shoot and move? It can be taken as a trophy.

      Boarding? Are you seriously?
      Quote: Kostadinov
      If night did not beat, then the battleship 100% went to the bottom. Cruisers could have killed him with torpedoes. Thanks to the night, he was able to escape from the cruisers.

      Yeah. Just he would go to the bottom from torpedoes, not shells, and we are discussing the effectiveness of shells.
  19. +1
    23 May 2018 14: 07
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Kostadinov
    Medium-caliber artillery (152–203 mm) wrecked out of order in the first place the artillery fire control of Russian ships.

    It is extremely doubtful.
    Quote: Kostadinov
    Then they began to disable the guns and turrets of the main and auxiliary calibers

    Can you indicate the sources in which you found such information?

    1. "What shells disabled most of the artillery of" Prince Suvorov, "" Emperor Alexander III "and" Borodino ", we do not know. However, statistics are known from Oryol. The vast majority of the turret artillery "Eagle" was put out of action by Japanese medium-caliber shells. These same shells deprived the "Eagle" of centralized artillery control.Is this true or not?
    2. And what are your sources that didn’t happen like that?
    3. The main armor of the Russian battleships was not broken once. All damage from HE shells. Japanese 12-inch HE shells contained approximately 4 times more explosives than 8 inches and 8 times more than 6 inches. The radius of damage of 12 dm shells is approximately 2 times greater than 6 dm. and medium-caliber shells hit 4 times more.
  20. 0
    23 May 2018 15: 17
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I do not understand :))) What do you mean?

    fires on Suvorov that did not extinguish
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    First - if you read "some authors" then you know that their calculations either ignore the dead Russian ships in general

    of course! to analyze the effectiveness you do not need to know all the hits ....
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And the second - those who died on Borodino, Alexander, Oslyab fell precisely as a result of the impact of enemy artillery. It was the Japanese guns that caused the loss of stability of Alexander and Oslyaby, the explosion of Borodino, so there is no reason to divide these losses into "dead from the shell" and "drowned".

    you have a typical error - after this and as a consequence of this! Well, if you like such a simplified approach, why do you need to analyze anything? The same role of SK ... somehow you are not consistent ... bully

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In my opinion, you are already starting to swim here. I talked about "weak security" goals,

    This is in your opinion ... the presence of a belt or a hollow armored deck accurately characterizes the ship reservation system! The term "insecure" does not have a reasonable meaning and has different interpretations ... However, if you want to create your own terminology - a flag in your hands ... hi
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    You and not I suggested dividing the ships into "having and not having an armored belt." And you claimed that it was scientific

    Of course, simply comparing different classes of ships on reservation is strange and unscientific! To analyze the Kyrgyz Republic by the presence and absence of an armored belt is generally accepted. As well as to compare the length / height / thickness of the armored belt of the EDB. If for you these platitudes is a surprise, these are your problems.
    1. +1
      24 May 2018 15: 09
      Quote: ser56
      of course! to analyze the effectiveness you do not need to know all the hits ....

      What are you! :)))))) Why is it interesting to know?
      Quote: ser56
      you have a typical error - after this and as a consequence of this! Well, if you like such a simplified approach, why do you need to analyze anything?

      That is, you want to say that I am mistaken, and the ships indicated by me died after artillery impact, but not as a result of it ?!
      Quote: ser56
      This is in your opinion ... the presence of a belt or a hollow armored deck accurately characterizes the ship reservation system!

      I have no task to characterize the ship reservation system. But there is a task to indicate the effectiveness of the impact on the ships of medium-caliber ammunition.
      Quote: ser56
      The term "vulnerable" does not have a reasonable content and has different interpretations ...

      But perfectly expresses the essence of the issue.
      Quote: ser56
      If for you these platitudes is a surprise, these are your problems.

      Sergey, I have no problems :))) I had a task - to briefly explain which ships could receive decisive damage from medium-caliber artillery and I solved it. If you think that I did it unscientific and it bothers you - then these are your problems, why are you shifting them to me? wink Write your article, lay out in detail the influence of the UK for each class and type of warships in the world. I think in a three-volume quite fit laughing
      1. 0
        25 May 2018 12: 37
        "Sergey, I have no problem:"
        happy for you...
        "I had a task - to briefly explain which ships could receive decisive damage from medium-caliber artillery and I solved it."
        experience of the discussion showed that the displacement boundary swam up ... forgot? bully In my opinion, you have solved the problem superficially.
        “then these are your problems, why do you shift them to me?” are you against discussing your work? Or consider yourself above this?
        “Write your article” I don’t see the point, I do not use secondary materials in my works, and I don’t have the desire or the time to sit in archives, especially Japanese ones. In addition, I do not confuse hobbies and work. hi
        "I think it’s completely fit into the three-volume edition" you need to be able to think yourself, and to try for others is not a thankful task ... crying
        1. +1
          25 May 2018 14: 05
          Quote: ser56
          experience of the discussion showed that the displacement boundary swam up ... forgot?

          So what? For this and discussion.
          Quote: ser56
          In my opinion, you have solved the problem superficially.

          It doesn’t matter if you think so - consider it on health
          Quote: ser56
          Are you against discussing your work? Or consider yourself above this?

          I am not opposed to the discussion, but I do not like when, instead of constructive criticism (yes, at least in terms of 5 000, which I installed incorrectly, and agreed with you when you pointed it out to me), something incomprehensible begins.
          I wrote about vulnerable targets. You told me that this is unscientific, but it would be scientific to indicate “armored” / “armored”. I answered you that this is not suitable, because this definition does not reflect the degree of protection against medium-caliber shells. and
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The same Bogatyr is protected much better than the "Varyag", despite the fact that both are armored, and Ushakov’s defense is not comparable with the EDB Borodino, although both have an armored belt.

          You begin to reproach me for not knowing the difference between the squadron battleship and the BRBO. And I know her, but the question is that the degree of protection against medium-caliber artillery is very different, although both have an armored belt, and therefore the definition of "armored / armored" does not suit me. You again swear and it becomes completely incomprehensible, what exactly do you want from me? You criticize my words without offering anything in return.
          Quote: ser56
          In addition, I do not confuse hobbies and work.

          Do you confuse yours? :))))))
          Quote: ser56
          you need to be able to think yourself, and try for others - not a thankful job ...

          Well, if you think that I do not know how to think - again, your right. However, there is a nuance - I am not interested in discussing my person, about whom I have long had a definite opinion. I am interested in a discussion of the article.
          1. 0
            25 May 2018 16: 53
            “I wrote about poorly protected targets. You told me that it was unscientific, but it would be scientific to indicate“ armored ”/“ armored. ”I replied that this is not suitable, because this definition does not reflect the degree of protection against medium-caliber shells. And "
            I note that you did not decipher your term ... it remains only to guess what you mean by it, while the ones that I propose are generally accepted ...
            "And I know her, but the question is that the degree of protection against medium-caliber artillery is very different,"
            that’s the problem that you cannot formulate your position ... bully
            "You again swear and it becomes completely incomprehensible, what exactly do you want from me? You criticize my words without offering anything in return."
            I criticize the lack of certainty ... if you pointed out - poor protection of the crew / artillery from fragments - then it is understandable, or for example - severe damage to an unprotected side, which is difficult to close ...
            "However, there is a nuance - I am not interested in discussing my person,"
            apply your thesis to yourself about others, no more ....
            1. 0
              25 May 2018 19: 03
              Quote: ser56
              apply your thesis to yourself about others, no more ....

              Unlike you, I did not go over to your personality :)
              Quote: ser56
              that’s the problem that you cannot formulate your position ... bully

              I formulated, you did not like, you did not offer a replacement.
              Quote: ser56
              I note that you did not decipher your term ...

              But could answer if you ask
              1. 0
                26 May 2018 15: 04
                “You did not offer a replacement.” I cannot and will not write for you, questions are asked - in response to a wounded pride ....
                "But could answer if you ask"
                see above bully
                1. 0
                  26 May 2018 15: 53
                  Quote: ser56
                  I can’t and will not write for you, questions have been asked - in response to a wounded pride ....

                  Sergey, the further the “discussion”, the more disappointment. On the merits of the question, I have already answered a long time ago, and your running around the "wrong term", and even with the transition to personalities, is of little interest to me. And yes, the pride of a person hinders the transition to personality, is this news for you? :)))
                  Quote: ser56
                  "But could answer if you ask"

                  Yes, he could. As a matter of fact, of all the readers, something was incomprehensible only to you alone, so "I definitely do not see why the noble Don ..."
                  1. 0
                    28 May 2018 11: 50
                    It seems you just don’t want to hear - your right, come up with your slang and terms ...
                    As for me alone - this is normal, few people in the subject like me ... bully
                    1. +2
                      28 May 2018 12: 33
                      Quote: ser56
                      As for me alone - this is normal, few people in the subject like me ... bully

                      (laughing) How many unrecognized geniuses are there on the Internet ...
                      1. 0
                        28 May 2018 15: 27
                        why did you decide that I am not recognized? bully think in blocks, however ... hi
                      2. +1
                        28 May 2018 18: 06
                        Quote: ser56
                        why did you decide that I am not recognized? think in blocks, however ... hi

                        good laughing Yes, I agree. Recognized geniuses on the Internet are somewhat less common :))))))
  21. 0
    23 May 2018 15: 24
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    Thus, we can safely say that “Oleg” suffered twice as much damage

    while the repair time and the number of hits do not have a linear relationship - hits can be in vulnerable places and are difficult to repair and not very ... for example, just replace the skin sheet.

    Quote: Senior Sailor
    That is what I am telling you.

    it’s all the more difficult for you to understand - it’s more difficult to hit calculations in towers and casemates than on deck, but these hits weakly determine the survivability of the ship ...
    1. 0
      27 May 2018 10: 29
      Sorry, but it was you who proposed to assess the damage by the loss of l \ s. And I just showed that this criterion (undoubtedly important) is not determining.
      And in order to “sheathing sheet”, two-month repair is not needed.
  22. +1
    23 May 2018 15: 58
    Boarding? Are you seriously?

    I don’t know what to call it - boarding or something else, but unfortunately this is exactly what happened with some Russian battleships after Tsushimya. They were not flooded and they got like trophies from the Japanese.
    A battleship like Bismarck, if the crew didn’t flood the British themselves, could tow it like a trophy.
    Yeah. Just he would go to the bottom from torpedoes, not shells, and we are discussing the effectiveness of shells.

    The modern battleship lost the ability to fight from the medium-caliber artillery of the cruisers, but could not finish it off with torpedoes. In this case, the artillery of the cruisers showed good efficiency against the battleships, but the torpedo weapon turned out to be ineffective.
  23. +3
    23 May 2018 17: 02
    Thanks for the analysis, dear Andrey. He is quite convincing and well founded.

    The difference in accuracy in% between 12 "and 6" is quite understandable - the guns of the Civil Aviation of the time of the REV receive data on the range and on the observed bursts of falls from artillery officers and observers. With the gradual destruction of bridges and observers, communications - GK towers switched to autonomous fire control, respectively, the accuracy decreased.
    It is not possible to correct the firing of guns of 6 "times of the REV due to the greater number of bursts of falls, to determine which ship is difficult, not only which tower (by the way, you wrote about this in the article" Fighting in the Yellow Sea ").
    I understand that the data on the hit of shells of medium caliber 6 "and 8" is difficult to separate because of the small difference in the nature of the explosion, in contrast to 12 ".

    But still, the 8 "guns of the GK of Japanese armored cruisers also clearly had greater hit accuracy, compared to 6", since their fire was still adjusted similarly to 12 "squadron battleships. It is not correct to mix 8 and 6 inch artillery in terms of fire efficiency in Tsushima battle, although sharing this data is not possible.

    Of course, the essence of the dispute was not that the squadron battleships received heavy damage from 6 inch shells, but that you considered them useless.
    I, referring to eyewitnesses, showed that more frequent hits, 6 "shells made fires, destroyed rangefinders (reduced firing efficiency of the GK), destroyed openly standing observers and signalmen, teams of survivability struggle (which exacerbated the situation with the combat effectiveness of the ship).



    An EDB of the Borodino type is quite well-armored to avoid death from HE shells, but a significant number of superstructures and bridges do not have armor - Suvorov was not sunk by 12 "shells, but completely lost combat effectiveness - this is undeniable.

    Regarding Oslyaby, I do not have information about the 12 ship’s defeat by "shells, but that you did not convince me of the second armored detachment (armored cruisers) - that is, the 8" caliber.

    All that is discussed enriches us with knowledge.
    Thank you for your work in a very interesting article.
    1. +1
      23 May 2018 19: 22
      Greetings, dear Dmitry! I will answer all questions later, maybe tomorrow, today, alas, something is blocking ... drinks
    2. +1
      24 May 2018 00: 35
      I agree with you. In the days of the REV, the naval SUAO was not at all. Rangefinders and pointers only. Therefore, the fire of the main caliber was adjusted and the average received the distance at best, and even then not always. Hence the difference is five times in favor of the main caliber.

      The difference in the percentage of hits in the Yellow Sea and under Tsushima is explained by the distance. In the second case, Togo allowed himself to get close to 10-15 kb with the Russian squadron. This is almost direct fire for 6 ", you can get without rangefinders.

      In Oslyab, Nissin and Kassug were the first to open fire, plus the first ships of Kamimura. 12 "they definitely didn’t have.
      1. 0
        24 May 2018 11: 29
        As far as I remember, the primitive SUAO system on Russian armored cruisers of the 1st rank already existed and each 6 "gun had a disk with arrows for issuing basic guidance data. Although it could be confused with a later period.
        1. 0
          25 May 2018 00: 18
          These were just pointers to which board to deploy and for what purpose to shoot. Well, one or two rangefinders. Nothing to calculate the amendments, VIR \ VIP was not. The only way to shoot is to mark the gap.
    3. +2
      24 May 2018 02: 14
      Hello Dmitry !
      I apologize, dear colleague, that I intervene, but could not pass by.
      For the Japanese, fire control on ships of rank 1 was organized in such a way that both the main and medium caliber quickly received information from rangefinders. The system was simple but effective. All 6 '' guns had a direct connection with the bridge, from where they received the distance and direction of fire. Officers specially seconded for this business carried out communications, one on each side.
      As for Oslyaby, there’s even the exact time (thanks to the Japanese) when he received 12 '' shells that destroyed him.
      1. 0
        24 May 2018 12: 14
        Quote: Comrade
        For the Japanese, fire control on ships of rank 1 was organized in such a way that both the main and medium caliber quickly received information from rangefinders. The system was simple but effective. All 6 '' guns had a direct connection with the bridge, from where they received the distance and direction of fire. Officers specially seconded for this business carried out communications, one on each side.


        Thank you - I also studied the organization of shooting in the Japanese Navy (and completely agree with your comment) and in Russian I especially paid attention to the description of the headquarters of officer 2 of the Pacific Squadron Semenov (again to him :))

        The ship’s crew on the squadron almost half consisted of “young sailors,” that is, recruits who had just learned the formation, gun techniques, the sailor’s catechism (“What is a sailor?”, “What is a banner?”, Etc.), never seen the sea, and from the "spare."
        The senior artilleryman of the Suvorov, quite angry with the language, defined the situation like this:
        Some have to learn from the basics because they do not know anything, and others because they have forgotten everything, and if they remember anything, then this is already out of date! Take at least the newly set optical sights. Remember from your navigational practice: how much time does it take for a good, diligent man to learn to look into the telescope? What does he see in her for the first time, with all his desire to please the authorities? .. Of course, I will not rebel against the introduction of optical sights, long accepted in all fleets! Shooting at a distance of 75 cable, to see the enemy is as clear as when shooting at 10 cable - a definite benefit! ...
        Well, I know you well! Love to swear and thicken colors! And they themselves probably managed to "train" your "Erem" so much that for them the optical sight is a pleasure ...
        Thinking in vain! he spoke, nervously adjusting his pince-nez and in a completely serious tone. - When was it? Work - acceptance, acceptance - work ... Everything is anchored.
        Rare exits to the sea for a few hours ... I teach! Of course I’m teaching! .. But aiming without a shot is an empty matter, and a few shots are not a science!

        It’s just that the optical sights for the medium and mine caliber were only set before the campaign, and the commandants could hardly get to know them.
        Japanese commandos fired with optics in anticipation of the war.

        Then he also - shooting during the campaign, is also very deplorable:
        Yesterday's shooting was extremely sluggish and, to my deep regret, found that not a single ship, with the exception of the Aurora, took seriously the artillery control lessons when performing exercises according to plans ...
        Valuable 12-inch. shells were thrown without any consideration with the results of hits of different calibers ... Shooting from 75 mm was also very bad; it can be seen that in the exercises, aiming at optical sights was practiced "approximately" over the pipes... It’s a shame to mention the shooting from 47-mm guns depicting a reflection of a mine attack: we put people to the guns for this purpose every night, and during the day, the entire squadron, we didn’t make a single hole in the shields representing the destroyers, although these shields differed from the Japanese destroyers in our favor in that they were motionless "...
        So wrote the squadron commander in his order ...


        It was hoped that the Irtysh transport would soon come and, perhaps, would bring some shells and charges for practical shooting.
        In essence, this was not training, but an exam. A man, on the eve of a duel, firing several shots at a target, "does not study, but only tests his art ... What were the results obtained? ....
        Shooting on January 18 and 19 was slightly better than shooting on the 13th. But in the expenditure of large-caliber shells the same impermissible indiscretion is noticed ...
        - On January 13, a shot was fired at the shield that appeared under the stern of the Donskoy in the distance of 6 cables behind the Donskoy from the Suvorov, which parted with the Donskoy. The firing manager on the Suvorov gave the first gun some distance - the shell did not reach the Donskoy by 1/2 cable and lay very left so that it ricocheted over the Donskoy. What followed: suddenly add at least 7 cable to the distance to get a flight, and sharply change the setting of the pillar of the lines by 10 to get a deviation to the right. But, despite the caution given by the result of the first shot, for the second, only 1/2 of the cable was added to the sight and left unchanged. - The shell and hit directly into the bridge "Donskoy" ...
        This was, of course, very bad, but the impression made by this incident was completely inadmissible: on January 19, it was difficult to force the Suvorov artillery to shoot between their ships, although the target was 20 cable farther than their ships, which allowed shooting not only in between, but also through their heads. It should be borne in mind that with a long wake line, it can be very important to wrap your head 16 degrees R in time to double the fire on the tail of the enemy oncoming column, and therefore it is imperative to learn to shoot in the spaces between your ships, as in parallel courses (general case of shooting cruisers), and on the oncoming ... The rate of fire on January 18 and 19 was even lower than January 13. Meanwhile, if the 47-mm guns still have to be used to repel destroyers, then it is necessary to convince the officers and the servant that only rain of shells of this caliber can cause damage to the destroyer ... "(Order on January 20 for 50)
    4. +1
      24 May 2018 15: 12
      Hello again, dear Dmitry!
      Having read the objections of other commentators, I consider it necessary to continue the article with a detailed analysis of the damage to Russian ships, including the Eagle.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Regarding Oslyaby, I do not have information about the 12 ship’s defeat by "shells, but that you did not convince me of the second armored detachment (armored cruisers) - that is, the 8" caliber.

      I invite you to a discussion in advance - let's look at everything with concrete examples
      1. 0
        28 May 2018 14: 08
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I invite you to a discussion in advance - let's look at everything with concrete examples


        Thank you, dear Andrew, by all means.
        Each time, more and more useful sources for analysis :)
  24. 0
    23 May 2018 17: 39
    An interesting article, but such complex issues need to be addressed comprehensively. Weather conditions, crew actions, condition of ships and crews, condition of guns and ammunition, etc. I think that the consumption of ammunition in the absence of accurate data on getting into ships gives little useful information.
  25. 0
    23 May 2018 22: 00
    I must say that only the Stormbreaker had the protection of artillery with armor,


  26. +3
    24 May 2018 00: 44
    If a respected author wanted to prove that the advantage of 12 "guns lies in accuracy, he should have given dispersion for 12" and 6 "shells at typical RJW distances, at least 35 kb and 15 kb. But I’m afraid that such tables of the author will not please, the distances are small for 12 "and for 6" and there is no particular difference in accuracy by 2 km. In any case, not by 14 times. :)

    But the tables with percentages of hits do not directly relate to accuracy. And they simply confirm the long-known fact that the fire of the main caliber was adjusted and the average was not. Which became one of the main reasons for the appearance of dreadnought. And by the way, this respected author has already explained this point to us in one of the previous articles. :)
    1. 0
      24 May 2018 12: 42
      Quote: Saxahorse
      And they simply confirm the long-known fact that the main caliber fire was corrected and the medium caliber - no


      Medium-caliber distance (elevation angle) was given from the instrument bridges (according to rangefinders) while someone was alive on the open art bridge and while there was communication with the plutongs. Usually the whole thing was also given by an officer from the bridge. True, it was almost impossible to adjust the average caliber for bursts of falling poisons when massing fire on one ship.
      In the absence of commands from the bridge, the plutong switched to autonomous guidance - and here everything depended on the gunner’s eye, accordingly the accuracy was further reduced.

      Considering the fact that in the Japanese Navy, data in the plutongs due to loss of communication should have been transmitted from unarmored art bridges to plutons by messengers - this system was extremely vulnerable to destruction by high-explosive medium-caliber projectiles. So is our system.
      The difference turned out to be the preparation of the gunners - the Russian gunners had an extremely insufficient experience of shooting with optical sights.
      1. 0
        25 May 2018 00: 34
        It’s clear with the distance, they tried on, they sent a messenger, they could do without VIR. But how did they calculate the whole thing? Again, I read that the Dumaresq calculator was invented already in 1902, but did the Japanese have it or just a pencil and tables? For an average caliber, did an individual count?
        1. 0
          28 May 2018 14: 18
          Quote: Saxahorse
          It’s clear with the distance, they tried on, they sent a messenger, they could do without VIR. But how did they calculate the whole thing? Again, I read that the Dumaresq calculator was invented already in 1902, but did the Japanese have it or just a pencil and tables? For an average caliber, did an individual count?


          Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the organization of the calculation of the pillar in the Japanese fleet at that time.
          I can only assume that during training burst firing, in battle - when it is extremely difficult to identify your bursts, knowing the distance and speed of the target, counting the time the shells fell - trying to make out your own - is a non-trivial task, it all depended on the eye and experience of the artillery officer.
          I would love to see the practice or training of an artillery officer of 1900 or so.

          But in WWII it was already clear - one ship shot, one tracer shell in a salvo, the second shot two tracer shells - what was the identity of the volleys identified.
  27. 0
    24 May 2018 12: 21
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Oslyabya, for a very short time

    the main question is WHY! Why did the weakest EDB carry the admiral's flag? Why did ZPR maneuver so that Oslyabya threw off the course and came under concentrated fire?
    1. 0
      24 May 2018 14: 13
      Excuse me, who is strong in the second squad?
      1. 0
        26 May 2018 15: 07
        but why do you need a 2nd detachment, the admiral then died ....
        1. 0
          27 May 2018 09: 36
          And, what, what are your suggestions? Send a detachment home, flood from sin ... what to do?
          Put at the head of the second column Nebogatov with his antiques? Appoint another squad leader? Well, so will the flag of the squad leader. What's the point?
          1. 0
            27 May 2018 19: 06
            For example, attach the fast-moving Oslyabyu to the first detachment and assemble the slow-moving boats with thick armor into one detachment. As a result, the first unit can conduct an aggressive battle at 18 knots and bounce under the cover of the second unit for respite and quick repairs.
            1. +1
              28 May 2018 23: 30
              Quote: Saxahorse
              As a result, the first squad can conduct an aggressive battle on 18 nodes

              laughing fool What 18 ties? :))))) From the strength of 14, and even then it is somewhat doubtful
              1. 0
                29 May 2018 17: 22
                At the same time, 14 bonds of the Russian 1st detachment allowed: a) to avoid overtaking Suvorov and concentrating fire on him Togo) on the contrary, to increase Mikasa’s stay under the concentrated Russian fire ... who knows what this would lead to ... winked
              2. 0
                29 May 2018 23: 46
                About 16 nodes "Varyag" we also read. Do you have a reliable proof that exactly 14 knots and not a drop more? Not 15 knots there and especially not 16 knots?
                1. 0
                  1 June 2018 15: 41
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Do you have a reliable proof of exactly 14 nodes and not a bit more?

                  Did you try to read the reports of the Investigative Commission?
                  1. 0
                    1 June 2018 22: 48
                    No. And even Nicholas No. 2 in Yekaterinburg did not personally interrogate. Alas, all from other people's words.
            2. 0
              29 May 2018 14: 25
              They answered you in their own right, but it seems to me that if the ZPR had acted in this way, you would have shouted the loudest that he had put the "battleship-cruiser" for slaughter, joining him to the first detachment.
              1. 0
                29 May 2018 17: 22
                This is exactly what he did, leaving the admiral's flag on it ... well, having arranged a bunch ...
          2. 0
            29 May 2018 17: 20
            you have strange sentences ... laughing
            I would do so, of course this is an alternative, but simple and reasonable:
            The first detachment - Borodin, Oslyabya and Sisoy - 1 EDB with new artillery and the course of the 6th.,
            2nd detachment - IN1, Navarin, Nakhimov, three BRBO - move 12uz.
            As for EDB IN1, he had a full belt and good training, most likely that it was he who knocked out Asama.
            As for the Admiral’s flag, it provoked the concentration of fire on Oslyab, the weakest armored and most overloaded during the construction of the EDB ... However, his commandants shot well during exercises, but the ZPR maneuvers at the beginning of the battle did not allow them to shoot, alas ...
            1. 0
              29 May 2018 17: 50
              Well, at least not 18 nodal detachment, and thanks for that :)))

              At all. the distribution of ships of the 2 TOE among the units, this is an eternal topic
              A full belt, this is certainly good, but he is there alone.

              And the "Oslyaby" them poorly poor two

              In general, find yourself “Nicolas” in place of “Oslyaby" ...
              And how would they maneuver with six-detachment detachments, if in real life four did not work ...
              1. 0
                29 May 2018 23: 54
                Yes, everything is bad there. The sissy poor fellow turns out to be glued together with adhesive tape, and in spite of the decent book TTX he died almost from spitting, the bulkheads immediately bent and that .. :(
                From the point of view of aftertaste, it would be necessary to set it 2nd, 3rd .. And who is the first to be incomprehensible. Navarina, perhaps.

                But other options, without division into units, unambiguously lead to nirvana. The primitive linear battle chosen by ZPR is a guaranteed end.
                1. 0
                  30 May 2018 08: 39
                  The primitive linear battle chosen by ZPR is a guaranteed end.

                  afterglow.
                  Moreover, with their ability to joint maneuvers, there simply is no other option ...
                  1. 0
                    31 May 2018 23: 19
                    Well .. with Nikolai’s ability No. 2 to rule the country, any war is deadly. But where to get involved there and have to swim. Even if it’s not really water.
  28. +1
    24 May 2018 23: 15
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    This is if we take into account that 152 mm artillery of the period of the strategic nuclear forces did not have a centralized aim

    And, excuse me, why did you draw such a conclusion? And describe in more detail how exactly, in your opinion, the guidance of the main and medium caliber guns was carried out during the time of the REV?
  29. +1
    24 May 2018 23: 52
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    Medium-caliber distance (elevation angle) was given from the instrument bridges (according to rangefinders) while someone was alive on the open art bridge and while there was communication with the plutongs.

    And what do you mean by the phrase "connection with the plutongs"? Maybe you think that the data was transmitted by voice over the phone?
    And why then to each gun under the deck an electric wire was supplied for the artillery fire control device?
  30. +1
    24 May 2018 23: 54
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    The distance to the average caliber (elevation angle) was given from the instrument bridges (according to rangefinders), while someone was alive on the open art bridge

    And why do you think that the control of artillery fire was carried out from some mythical "artillery bridge" and not from an armored conning tower? By the way - where was the entot artillery bridge in your opinion?
    1. 0
      28 May 2018 14: 44
      Quote: geniy
      And why do you think that the control of artillery fire was carried out from some mythical "artillery bridge" and not from an armored conning tower? By the way - where was the entot artillery bridge in your opinion?


      For armadillos - in the conning tower.
  31. +1
    25 May 2018 00: 17
    Quote: Comrade
    For the Japanese, fire control on ships of the 1st rank was organized in such a way that both the main and medium caliber quickly
    Officers specially seconded for this business carried out communications, one on each side.

    Please tell me - with what speed did the Japanese officer run to transmit new data on the change in elevation angle for all guns of the same side of an armadillo or cruiser? And also tell me please, how many times is the speed of data transmission with the help of electric current to the devices of the PAOA greater than the speed of the Japanese officers?
    And also tell me how it was in the Russian fleet: who ran there: sailors or officers? And why is data transfer in the Japanese Navy by writing on tablets better than in the Russian Navy by writing on paper in your opinion?
  32. +1
    25 May 2018 00: 26
    Quote: Comrade
    For the Japanese, fire control on ships of the 1st rank was organized in such a way that both the main and medium caliber quickly received information from rangefinders. The system was simple but effective. All 6 '' guns had a direct connection with the bridge, from where they received the distance and direction of fire.

    Please explain in more detail what exactly you mean by direct communication from rangefinders to guns. Maybe you mean that one artillery officer phoned each gun, each plutong and each turret and shouted something like: "Vaska Enikeev! Rearrange the elevation angle by 12! Petka Sidorov, rearrange the elevation angle by 12! Eroshka prokhindey - rearrange the elevation angle by 12! And so on - to all 2 towers of the main caliber, 3 towers of medium caliber, and 3 plutongs of 75 mm caliber.
    Or maybe they still used the transmission of data through the electrical system of artillery fire control devices?
  33. +1
    25 May 2018 00: 40
    Quote: Saxahorse
    And they simply confirm the long-known fact that the fire of the main caliber was adjusted and the average was not.

    And what do you think: for what reason the fire of medium-caliber guns was not adjusted?
    After all, it seems like the guidance principle is completely different: For example, on battleships of the Borodino type (on Japanese ships it is similar - although there were no medium-caliber towers, and a single gun fired).
    So: for each battleship “Borodino” the bow tower of a caliber of 152 mm made a sighting shot, and noticing the difference between the fall of the projectile and the distance of the burst from the target, it reported the true distance and direction to the target to the main gunner and the officer responsible for the transmission of data on the PUAO. The chief officer did nothing at all, but only monitored the accuracy of the fire. And the officer of the PAOA simply put the data on the distance and the angle of the horizontal aiming on his giving device. And this data was instantly transmitted to all towers and plutons.
    Thus, the fire of medium-caliber guns (and even small 75-mm caliber) was adjusted exactly the same as the fire of main-caliber guns - they simply all received the same data on the firing distance and the desired elevation angle, along with the horizontal angle. What do you think?
    1. 0
      28 May 2018 14: 43
      Quote: geniy
      Thus, the fire of medium-caliber guns (and even small 75-mm caliber) was adjusted exactly the same as the fire of main-caliber guns - they simply all received the same data on the firing distance and the desired elevation angle, along with the horizontal angle. What do you think?


      For armadillos of the Poltava type:
      Electric artillery fire control devices, proposed at one time by S.O. Makarov and produced by the domestic plant of the company N.K. Geisler, were given to guns (according to commands from the conning tower} indications of the direction of fire, the distance to the enemy and the kind of shells to be shot. To determine the distances, they continued to use the micrometers of Lujol and Myakishev, which were portable hand goniometers, dimensions and appearance resembling an amateur movie camera. They could be used only knowing the height of the mast or hull of the ship, to which it was necessary to determine the distance. Intrabasic rangefinders, although their industrial designs have been known since 1893, weren’t widespread in the Russian fleet due to misunderstanding of their importance and the Borodino-type battleships appeared, like optical sights, only with the outbreak of war with Japan .
      1. 0
        28 May 2018 23: 03
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Electric artillery fire control devices, proposed at one time by S.O. Makarov and manufactured by the domestic plant of the company N.K. Geisler, gave the guns (on commands from the conning tower) directions about the direction of fire, the distance to the enemy and the kind of shells to be shot .

        In the description of Geisler's instruments, I often came across a refinement - the 1910 sample of the year. There is a suspicion that until 1910 they were not released.
        1. +1
          28 May 2018 23: 29
          Quote: Saxahorse
          In the description of Geisler's instruments, I often came across a refinement - the 1910 sample of the year. There is a suspicion that until 1910 they were not released.

          As always - you are mistaken :)))))) This time you did not understand one simple thing - Geisler devices arr 1910 g - these are exactly Geisler devices of the 1910 g model, which does not exclude the availability of devices of the same firm of early models
          1. 0
            30 May 2018 00: 00
            Please give as an example a description of the Geisler instruments of a sample of at least 1902-1903. A description of the 1910 instrument kit is also very detailed. Tell us everything please that was part of the devices of the previous model.
            1. +1
              30 May 2018 08: 42
              The cruiser’s artillery fire was controlled using artillery fire control devices (PAO), supplied by the St. Petersburg Electromechanical Plant N. K. Geisler and Co. °. The PUAO system allowed an officer to control the entire artillery of the ship and each gun individually. The set of Aurora PUAO included: 2 combat pointers; 2 signal pointer; 2 shell index; 2 rangefinder dials - one each in the conning tower and in the central combat post; 34 tower dial mounted on guns; 14 shell dials that were located in cellars. Six rangefinder stations with rangefinder keys were located: 2 on Mars and 4 in any place designated by the shooting leader convenient for measuring distance to the 84 target.

              "Cruiser Aurora" Polenov. Http://wunderwafe.ru/WeaponBook/Aurora/chap05.htm
              l # chap5_7
              1. 0
                31 May 2018 23: 30
                Super! At least there is something to think about!

                And this is exactly infa for 1903? And then they are somewhat confused "Six rangefinder stations with rangefinder keys were located: 2 on Mars and 4 in any place designated by the shooting leader"

                But with that in the same place: "The strained relations between Russia and England, Japan's secret ally, as well as the high cost of rangefinders, did not allow the Ministry of the Sea to purchase enough devices to provide each ship with 1 liter of 2 ranks and two rangefinders."

                Is there 6 rangefinder stations in our Aurora system without rangefinders? Or is this a description of the late Suao, after the REV?
                1. +1
                  1 June 2018 11: 44
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Is it in our Aurora 6 system of rangefinder stations without rangefinders?

                  Oh tryndets .... I will tell you a secret, on Varyag there were also 6 rangefinding stations. Only now they were equipped not with rangefinders, but with Luzhol-Myakishev micrometers - as a matter of fact on the Aurora
                2. +1
                  1 June 2018 19: 20
                  No, this is a description at the time of "acceptance into the treasury." As for the rest, the "range finder" is a device for measuring distance (or, if you wish, range) (yes, thanks to the cap :)), and what’s the ten principle that is used in the device. In this case, it was the Luzhol-Myakishev goniometer.
                  1. 0
                    1 June 2018 22: 52
                    Yeah, got it. Thanks for the help in the next branch, I read the details. They still had a rangefinder dial. True, the scope and rear sight did not seem to give them. Unlike the Japanese. Or didn’t I see how they did it?

                    And thanks again for the good tip on the PAO!
            2. +1
              1 June 2018 11: 43
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Please give as an example a description of the Geisler instruments of the sample of at least 1902-1903 of the year.

              It’s not a question - in the RPN all the battleships and cruisers were equipped with 1893 / 94 control systems. All these control systems were made at Geisler and K. ("Domestic artillery fire control devices" A. V. Platonov. Doctor of naval sciences, if that)
  34. +1
    25 May 2018 12: 35
    Quote: Saxahorse
    VIR \ VIP was not

    And what do you think these VIR and VIP indicators were really needed during the Russo-Japanese War?
    If you don’t know, then I’ll explain: the magnitude of the VIR and VIP is the change in distance and direction to the enemy target ship that will occur during the flight of the projectile. That is, with a fairly large firing range during the First World War - about 100 cable - that is, about 15-19 kilometers (this is the net horizontal distance, and given that the projectile trajectory looks like a parabola, the projectile path is about 25 kilometers) , with an average projectile speed of about 600 meters per second, the flight time of shells, for example, in the Jutland battle is about 40 seconds. And during this time, the target ship could move a certain distance. here in order to take this into account and to predict the point at which the projectile should fall during the WWII and it was necessary to take into account the VIR and VIP.
    And in the days before the start of the NRF, fights were supposed to be conducted at distances from 10 to 30 cabs, and then they did not think about long distances. And the flight time of the projectile in the REV was about 8 seconds. And they simply did not need accounting for VIR and VIP. That is, the accusation of the artillery fire control system of the time of the REV that it did not take into account the VIR and VIP is simply stupid. In 1905, these indicators did not matter for accuracy.
    1. 0
      28 May 2018 23: 05
      Quote: geniy
      And the flight time of the projectile in the REV was about 8 seconds. And they simply did not need accounting for VIR and VIP.

      VIR \ VIP are needed not by themselves but by themselves, but to calculate the pillar. In the case of crossing-T, in fights at counter-courses at the speed of the then EB up to 10 m \ s, you can’t do without setting a pillar.
  35. +1
    25 May 2018 12: 47
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    Only for the days of the REV. With the advent of centralized interference, the situation has changed.

    And what do you personally mean by a centralized tip?
    Maybe you mistakenly think that during the time of the NRW, each artillery gunner of medium-caliber guns independently chose the angle of vertical and horizontal guidance? Or, all the same, electric guns of the PUAO system were conducted to each gun and the gunner received data on the magnitude of the full angle of the vertical and horizontal aiming angles, and only manually rotated the flywheels of the aiming, raising the gun’s barrel by the specified angle from the gunner controlling the guns — that is, the development of gun pointing angles carried out centrally?
    1. 0
      28 May 2018 14: 30
      Quote: geniy
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Only for the days of the REV. With the advent of centralized interference, the situation has changed.

      And what do you personally mean by a centralized tip?
      Maybe you mistakenly think that during the time of the NRW, each artillery gunner of medium-caliber guns independently chose the angle of vertical and horizontal guidance? Or, all the same, electric guns of the PUAO system were conducted to each gun and the gunner received data on the magnitude of the full angle of the vertical and horizontal aiming angles, and only manually rotated the flywheels of the aiming, raising the gun’s barrel by the specified angle from the gunner controlling the guns — that is, the development of gun pointing angles carried out centrally?


      For example, alterations in Poltava after redemption from the Japanese fleet are known:

      During the repair, the largest amount of work was done on the artillery unit. In the main-caliber towers, due to “altering the charger, changing the loading method, installing the third sight and the average horizontal aiming post, we managed to increase the speed of fire from 4,5 minutes to 1 minute” (according to the passport, the English gun fired one shot in 1,3 minutes, and former 40-caliber Russian guns - a shot in 2,5 minutes). The towers of medium caliber were also redone, and the six-inch battery was declared unsuitable and should be replaced as soon as possible. All 75-mm guns were also shot (they were replaced by Japanese 76-mm guns, taking four each from Peresvet and Varyaga). Installed fire control devices, including telephones in towers and intercoms.


      The battleships "Poltava" were the first in the Russian fleet to receive Popov-Ducreta radio stations, as well as the first to have fully electric lighting in all compartments and rooms. The firing control systems included electric dials and an alarm system, allowing firing at centralized commands from the conning tower.

      in fact, using centralized instructions was difficult due to the difference between the 152 mm guns: the turret guns had other sighting devices and required adjustment after firing due to the rotation of the turret. Oddly enough, the range of fire from tower guns was also less than casemate
  36. +1
    26 May 2018 22: 33
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The fact of the matter is that absolutely not - 6-dm continued to remain in the outsiders for accuracy

    But do not you bother to explain: for what reason is the accuracy of shooting medium-caliber guns lower than that of large-caliber?
    I would especially like you to separate your personal point of view from the official one - that is, opinions of senior ship gunners. Do you know about this - or not?
  37. 0
    28 May 2018 15: 25
    About the hits described in the reports - also need to be taken carefully.
    For example:
    began to describe the circles under Arthur’s batteries, until the “Sevastopol” drove into the side of the “Poltava”. Only the happiness of the battleship saved from death. “Sevastopol” indirectly crushed the scoop of the right underwater vehicle, where a mine was planted. The drummer bent, and there would have been a few capsules — it would have been blown up, followed by a mine, there would be little left of our stern. Nevertheless, the ram of Sevastopol crushed our side, a crack formed, and two sections of the side corridors were filled with water. The deputy wrote in his report that Poltava received a 12-dm projectile in the underwater part, we did not receive the projectile, it was the work of Sevastopol. So the history of war is written.

    But it got into the governor’s report as a combat damage :)
    Archives - sometimes very different from reality.
  38. 0
    29 May 2018 17: 37
    you probably think this is ridiculous ... sorry for your sense of humor ... okay, i'll write honestly ...
    1) Your attempts in this article on analytics are extremely unsuccessful, in general, the problems of our historians have appeared common.
    2) In my opinion, the topic discussed, namely, the effectiveness of the IC in the REV, is strange to consider without analyzing the tools and shells of the IC, which I noted earlier.
    3) In addition, it is strange to evaluate effectiveness without analyzing this very concept. You have superficially examined only 2 elements of this concept (probability of impact and damage to structures), without analysis there were left such elements as crew damage, impact on survivability struggle, impact on rate of fire and accuracy of guns under fire.
    4) It is not scientifically to evaluate the effectiveness of the IC in general, without dividing the goals into classes, and not by tonnage, but by type and security. Separately, it is necessary to compare separately the action of the UK on EDB, on the Kyrgyz Republic (with a belt and armored) and small and ships (VSKR).
    5) Accordingly, conclusions must be drawn in the indicated manner ... and yes, raised the bar to the Varyag, but forgot about the Urals? bully
    I note that most of the material is already in the materials of the commission on the REE ... hi
    1. 0
      1 June 2018 11: 02
      Quote: ser56
      ok, I'll write honestly ...

      This had to be done right away, and not around
      Quote: ser56
      1) Your attempts in this article on analytics are extremely unsuccessful, in general, the problems of our historians have appeared common.

      General words do not hurt me at all. This kindergarten, I know how much I heard a lot? I have hundreds of publications, and there are more than enough “expert commentators”. Even recognized geniuses come across, do not believe it.
      Quote: ser56
      In my opinion, the topic discussed, namely, the effectiveness of the IC in the RNE, is strange to consider without analyzing the tools and shells of the IC, which I noted earlier.

      They told you that the effect of the impact of Japanese artillery is being analyzed, and that the Japanese used very different shells, moreover, to figure out which battles are unrealistic right now. (unless you learn Japanese and get drunk in a top secret story for a year)
      Accordingly, your view passes through the category of good wishes, and without you I know that it is better to be rich and healthy than the poor and sick
      Quote: ser56
      In addition, it is strange to evaluate effectiveness without analyzing this very concept. You only superficially examined the 2 element of this concept (probability of impact and damage to structures), without analysis there were left such elements as crew damage, impact on the survivability fight, impact on the rate of fire and accuracy of the ship’s guns under fire.

      Put together a bunch. At the same time, the defeat of the crew and the impact on the survivability struggle are of interest to us only to the extent that this defeat and influence led to decisive damage to the ship. What would be more understandable to you - for the purposes of analysis, it is completely uninteresting how difficult it was to put out the fire on the rostra of the ship and how many people died in this, it is only interesting whether this fire caused a decrease in combat efficiency or not.
      Quote: ser56
      influence on the rate of fire and accuracy of guns under fire.

      Generally nonsense. There is no information on the basis of which it can be analyzed.
      Quote: ser56
      It is not scientifically to evaluate the effectiveness of SC in general, without dividing goals into classes

      Yeah Generally speaking, it was a question of armadillos and DBKR :)))) And the results of actions on ships of other classes were not given because they were included in the analysis, but as an illustration of the impact of medium-caliber artillery - because large- and medium-caliber artillery usually worked on armadillos , and the effects on them are mixed.
      Quote: ser56
      Accordingly, conclusions must be drawn in the indicated manner ... and yes, raised the bar to the Varyag, but forgot about the Urals? bully

      In fact, it was not worth raising it to the Varangian, because both the Varangian and Askold were, let's say, very specific ships, which was supplemented by the extremely unusual distribution of hits on the Varangian. And I raised the bar so as not to argue with you - I went to meet, so to speak. And, of course, it was interesting if you had enough mind not to remember the Urals, which, generally speaking, was a liner, and not a warship, and therefore had nothing to do with analysis. I am silent about the fact that it is not known at all which shells fell into the ship.
      1. 0
        1 June 2018 14: 19
        "and the Varangian and Askold were, let's say, very specific ships,"
        conventional RBKR ... so-called 6000t
        "And I raised the bar because I don’t argue with you - I went to meet, so to speak"
        funny ... laughing
        "Well, of course, it was interesting if you had the mind not to remember the Urals, which, generally speaking, was a liner, not a warship, and therefore has nothing to do with analysis." The Urals was armed and carried the flag of the VM, it means it was a warship ... but not of a special construction ... again you think up the terms or don’t understand them washed away ... in terms of the impact on it, the IC practically did not differ from the BPCR - only protection mechanisms.
        "Hmmm. Generally speaking, it was about armadillos and DBKR:" I read the title of the article and I don’t see it ... bully
        "Generally nonsense. There is no information on the basis of which it can be analyzed."
        all that you are not able to understand is nonsense for you! bully By no means, they just need to be distinguished among other factors. For example, there is evidence of the shooting of a non-shelled Deflinger.
        “At the same time, the defeat of the crew and the impact on the survivability struggle are only interesting to us to the extent that the defeat and influence led to decisive damage to the ship. For you to understand, it’s completely uninteresting for the purposes of analysis how difficult it was to put out the fire "the rostra of the ship and how many people died in this, the only interesting thing is whether this fire caused a decrease in combat efficiency or not."
        To begin with, the goals of the analysis must be formulated - I tried, and you got off with common words ... I note that there is an example of Peresvet and Oslyaby. The first survived, the second not ... some believe that Peresvet survived precisely because he managed to fight for survivability ... Continue? laughing
        Okay, it’s like feed is not like a horse — you are deeply convinced that you are right and don’t want to hear someone else’s opinion. Your right, I am too lazy to spend more time, but I tried ... crying
        1. 0
          1 June 2018 15: 35
          Quote: ser56
          The Urals was armed and carried the flag of the VM, which means it was a warship ...

          It was. BUT is not a special building, which automatically takes it beyond comparison
          Quote: ser56
          from the point of view of the impact of the SC on it, it practically did not differ from the BPCR - only by the protection of mechanisms.

          wassat Does it say a person who claims to have some knowledge of the subject? I heard right?
          Quote: ser56
          For example, there is evidence of the shooting of a non-shelled Deflinger.

          That is, your "scientific" method allows an analysis of the effectiveness of shelling from the SC of battleships, by analogy with the shelling of the GC of a linear cruiser? BRAVO!
          In other matters, it is difficult to expect more from a recognized genius.
          Quote: ser56
          Continue?

          You decided to starve me to laugh? :)))
          1. 0
            2 June 2018 12: 34
            me: "but not of special construction."
            you: "BUT is not a special building, which automatically takes it beyond comparison"
            you have an interesting discussion system lol If it’s not a secret, why does it deduce? Is the resistance of an unarmoured BPCR side to splinters or HEs somewhat better? This is a question about terms ... bully
            "Does this say a person who claims to have some knowledge of the subject? Have I heard right?" I am waiting for technical objections instead of words ... laughing
            "That is, your" scientific "method allows an analysis of the effectiveness of shelling from SK armadillos, by analogy with the firing of the GC battlecruiser? BRAVO!"
            1) it seems like a scientific approach is alien to you in principle and you have no idea about the methodology ... crying
            2) I gave you an example - if you want to do the work for you - just write ... bully Alas, you did not even understand the essence of the approach ...
            "You decided to starve me to laugh? :)))" I'm glad that you are in a good mood ... hi but I don’t see the arguments ... bully
            1. 0
              2 June 2018 14: 42
              Quote: ser56
              "That is, your" scientific "method allows an analysis of the effectiveness of shelling from SK armadillos, by analogy with the firing of the GC battlecruiser? BRAVO!"
              1) it seems like a scientific approach is alien to you in principle and you have no idea about the methodology ...

              I have no more questions. Indeed, your genius knows no bounds (reality laughing )
              1. 0
                2 June 2018 14: 49
                actually the questions are asked to the author .... bully you prefer not to respond to serious ones, but to switch to personalities is also a tactic ... feel
                as for my genius - then you have a fad ... hi
                1. 0
                  2 June 2018 15: 05
                  Quote: ser56
                  actually ask the author questions

                  You do not ask questions - you are in the pose of a mentor, and you teach the author for the unscience of his article
                  .
                  Quote: ser56
                  serious you prefer not to respond

                  Lying. I answered all your questions.
                  Quote: ser56
                  as for my genius - then you have a fad.

                  This is not a fad, I just enjoy your genius laughing It oozes from you directly from each statement
                  1. 0
                    2 June 2018 15: 41
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Lying. I answered all your questions.

                    by no means, you evaded and turned to the individual ... a classic of the genre ... laughing

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    This is not a fad, I just enjoy your genius laughing. You oozing directly from each statement.

                    just bdsm ... however it's your business ... feel
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You are in the position of a mentor, and teach the author for the unscientific nature of his article

                    I stated clearly - you introduced new terms into circulation and did not decipher them ... this is normal for politics / propaganda, but strange for science, even for popular science ... hi
                    1. 0
                      2 June 2018 16: 02
                      Quote: ser56
                      I stated clearly - you introduced new terms into circulation and did not decipher them ...

                      In response, I decoded them. But I have a question for you, as a practice-recognized genius. Please tell me, is sclerosis an obligatory component of genius, or is it still optional?
                      1. 0
                        4 June 2018 11: 56
                        1) do not show where you deciphered the term "weakly protected warship"? The question immediately arises - poorly protected from what? From SK? Again the question is from BB or HE hi
                        2) I am not a doctor, but I state a tantrum .... bully
  39. 0
    30 May 2018 08: 36
    Saxahorse,
    Colleague. I answered in the next branch, to exactly the same ...
    1. 0
      31 May 2018 23: 45
      Uh ... thanks!
  40. 0
    3 June 2018 01: 48
    Dear Andrey, your articles are usually very good. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Derive from "thinking" incorrect. You don’t always have to “fight myths”, even where they are not. Here is what I mean:
    Of course, it may well be that the Japanese shot at Tsushima more precisely - maybe 20, maybe 30%, who knows? Suppose the Japanese shot 25% more accurately, so their hit rate was 12,78% and 2,44%, respectively. In this case, 64 large-caliber and 260 medium-caliber shells hit the Russian ships (again, rounding up the fractional values). But it is already will not affect the ratio between the hits of large-caliber and medium-caliber shells - one hit with a caliber of 254-305 mm will have 4,06 pieces. 152-203 mm shells

    This unreasonable and an incorrect judgment devalues ​​your further calculations. Why?
    1. The firing range with Tsushima and with LM are significantly different.
    2. With the fact that the larger caliber is “inherently” more accurate (with the same aiming systems, etc.) I completely agree. The fact is also likely that physically with the growth of the caliber (say 2 times) the mass of the projectile grows in the third stage (8 times) and deflecting factors (say wind) act on areas that increase in the second stage (4 times)
    2. Upper, however, is significant only at distances at which angular dimensions targets less gun accuracy in angular minutes! When it's the other way around for both calibers, we call this distance “small” and there the difference in accuracy is much weaker. After all, you do not share the situation where "aiming at the base of the first pipe, but hit the second" :)).
    Your impact assessments are also given by "caliber fanaticism" :)) Yes, correctly designed and built armadillos early 20th century should not be strongly influenced by medium-caliber hits, because it was precisely for fighting with him that the reservation was "spread" over a large area. (as SK later disappeared, they returned to the citadels) But the Borodinians and Oslyabya were not such "correctly built" battleships.
    In short, you like statistics. So, as colleagues have pointed out, the number of 12 “hits in ZhM and Tsushima is almost the same. Why is there such a striking difference in results? Only“ furoshiki ”? I don’t think. Besides other factors and differences, give credit to the Japanese SK. battle, huh? bully
    1. 0
      4 June 2018 10: 39
      Quote: anzar
      The firing range with Tsushima and with LM are significantly different.

      Actually - not especially. And the chosen method of estimating the number of hits (that in Tsushima it is the same as in LM) completely eliminates this.
      Quote: anzar
      Only furosiki? I don’t think so.

      And I am almost sure of this - and even brought the article in confirmation.
      1. 0
        5 June 2018 14: 15
        And the chosen method of estimating the number of hits (that in Tsushima it is the same as in LM) it levels.

        I think that does not level. I affirm that at "large" and "small" distances your proportion (the ratio of the percentage of hits at 12 "and 6-8") will be different. And let's say 8-10kab. the percentage of hits for different calibers (at the center. tip) will be almost equally high.
  41. 0
    23 January 2023 16: 01
    The accuracy of medium-caliber fire then depended very much on the distance. In Tsushima, the distances were shorter than those of the Shantung, there was a moment when they converged and on 12 cable Asahi even launched a torpedo, but by. That is, at such a distance, the percentage of hits of quick-shooters is much higher, I think. Plus, casemate artillery had a higher rate of fire than tower artillery of those times. Maybe this explains the "hail of shells" in Tsushima?

"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), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“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 Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"