Military Review

Rifle battle cruisers. "Derflinger" against "Tiger"? H. 3

82
In previous articles, we have disassembled the design features of the Derflinger and Tiger battlecruisers, and, no doubt, the comparison of these ships will not take us much time.


Theoretically, 635-kg “Tiger” shells could pierce 300 mm of Derflinger’s armored belt with 62 cables, and the top 270 mm, probably of cables with 70 or slightly, of course, provided they hit the armored plate at an angle close to 90 degrees. Thus, it can be stated that at the main combat distances (70-75 KBT), the vertical defense of the Derflinger perfectly protected against the “theoretical” (high-quality) armor-piercing shells of the 343-mm guns of the British battlecruiser.

But not a single armor belt ... As we said earlier, the reservation scheme for the German Seidlitz cruisers inclusive had one major drawback - the horizontal part of the armored deck was located higher than the upper edge of the thick armor part. For example, in the same “Seydlitz”, the upper edge of the 300 mm armor belt was (at normal displacement) at a height of 1,4 m above the waterline, and the horizontal part of the armored deck was at the height of 1,6 m. Accordingly, the German battlecruiser had a whole “window” in which enemy shells only had to penetrate the upper, 230 mm armor belt, which was not a significant barrier to the armor piercing 343 mm shells, to hit the horizontal part or bevel of the armored deck. And the Zeidlitsa armored decks (including bevels) had a total thickness of 30 mm ...

So, on the “Derflinger” type cruisers, this “window” “slammed” because the upper edge of the 300 mm belt was not on the 20 cm below, but on the 20 cm above the level of the horizontal armored deck. Of course, given the fact that the shells hit the ship at an angle to the horizon, there was still a section on top of 300 mm armor, which could hit the armor-formwork, but now it was not 230 mm that defended it, but 270 mm armor, pierced which even the 343-mm "armor" was not so easy. And given that the “Derflinger” bevels defended not 30 mm, but 50 mm armor, the chances that the armor shell of the projectile pierced through the 270-300 mm passing through 30 mm did not break too much. Of course, XNUMX mm horizontal armor looked very modest protection and could not withstand the rupture of the projectile on the plate, but from the fragments (besides, flying almost not parallel to the deck) protected quite well.

In other words, in theory, the Derflinger’s defense could have been overcome by an 343-mm projectile. During the breakdown of 270 mm of armor and the break behind it 50 mm, the bevel could be pierced - tests conducted in Russia (1922 g) showed that from 305-356-mm projectile shells that exploded not on the armor, but at a distance of one and a half meters guaranteed protects only 75 mm armor. But this could happen only if the projectile “passed through” 270 mm armor plate as a whole and exploded near the bevel or directly on it, but if the projectile exploded in the process of overcoming the 270 mm armor plate, then it is highly doubtful.

As for the reservation of artillery, the forehead of the towers of the main caliber of “Derflinger” (270 mm) and barbety (260 mm) British thirteen half-inch 635-kg projectile at 70-75 kbt distances, if it could overpower, close to 90 hail. Which, of course, was complicated by the barbet form (it is very difficult to get into armor having the shape of a circle at an angle of 90 degrees).

So, it turns out that even for some “ideal” armor-piercing projectile of 343 mm caliber, the reservation of the Derflinger hull, if it was permeable at distances of 70-75 cables, is only at the limit of the possible. But the fact is that Royal has such shells fleet in World War I there wasn’t, and in fact the greatest thickness that the British shells managed to cope with was 260 mm - and then, it was not a 343 mm but 381 mm shell pierced it. Accordingly, if we proceed not from the table values, but from the actual quality of the English ammunition, the reservation of the Derflinger for the battle cruisers of the Lyon and Tiger types was invulnerable.

This, of course, did not mean that the “Derflinger” could not be sunk by 305-343 mm guns. In the end, the fatal injuries that ultimately led to the death of the same type of “Derflinger” “Lutzow”, inflicted 305-mm projectiles of the battle cruisers “Invincible” and (possibly) “Inflexible” of Rear Admiral Horace Hud.


Linear cruiser "Lutzov"


But, without a doubt, the unprecedented level of body armor (for ships of the class “battle cruiser”) provided the Derflinger with a great advantage.

At the same time, it finally eliminated the main weakness of the German battlecruisers — insufficient armor penetration and the armor-inflicted 280-mm projectiles. The new twelve-inch projectile weighed 405 kg - almost a quarter more than 280-mm. The data in the sources on the initial speed of 280-mm and 305-mm German guns are somewhat contradictory, but in the worst case, the drop in initial speed compared to 280-mm is only 22 m / s, which together gives a significantly greater 305-mm armor penetration ammunition. Only 229 mm British armor provided more or less acceptable protection against them. Of the nine German 305-mm shells that hit the 229 mm armored plates of the belt and towers of British ships, four armor was pierced, but one of these four, although not completely destroyed, but lost both the head and the fuse, and, accordingly, did not explode . Thus, 229 mm armor plates managed to “filter” two-thirds of the German 305-mm projectiles, and this is still something.

As you know, the "Tiger" 229 mm armor got boiler rooms and engine rooms, as well as towers and barbety to the level of the upper deck. But it should be understood that even in theory, the booking of these parts of the British cruiser did not provide that level of protection against 305-mm German shells, which was the type of Derflinger-type cruisers against 343-mm. But in practice, in a real battle, a third of the German shells overcame the 229 mm protection of the British battlecruisers, while the 270-300 mm “Derflinger” armor remained for the 343-mm projectiles invulnerable.

Again, it should be emphasized: the invulnerability of booking does not mean the invulnerability of the ship. Derflinger and his sisterships could have been destroyed with 343-mm cannons, but this was certainly much more difficult than sinking a Lion or Tiger-type battlecruiser with 305-mm German artillery.

If even the 229 mm Tiger armor plates did not provide him with a level of protection comparable to that of the German battleship, then what can we say about the 127 mm belt and 76 mm barbetas covering the flow tubes of the newest British battle cruiser?

I must say that, significantly losing in the vertical booking, "Tiger", in general, did not have any advantages, which allowed him to at least partially compensate for this disadvantage. Horizontal booking "Derflinger" and "Tiger" was about equivalent. In terms of speed, “Tiger” only slightly exceeded its German opponent - 28-29 knots against, approximately, 27-28 knots. The location of the towers of the main caliber of both ships is linearly sublime. As we have said, the British in the “Tiger” project paid great attention to mine artillery - but if its caliber and protection (152 mm and 152 mm) now corresponded to German (150 mm, respectively), the unsuccessful arrangement of artillery cellars, resulting in the need the organization of special horizontal corridors for transporting projectiles and charges to the guns, spoiled the matter. We have to admit that in terms of medium artillery, "Tiger" was also inferior to "Derflinger".

In general, we can state the following. The first generation of British battlecruisers armed with 305-mm guns turned out to be completely uncompetitive for the German Fon der Tannu and Moltke. However, the English ships of the type "Lion" at the expense of the most powerful 343-mm guns and a slight increase in body armor surpassed the "Geben" and "Seidlitz." The construction of the Derflinger restored the status quo that existed before the appearance of the 343-millimeter British battle cruisers, since the newest German ship was significantly superior to both the Lyon and Queen Mary in terms of offensive and defensive qualities. If the British in the “Tiger” project were concerned, first of all, by increasing its protection, providing the citadel along its entire length, including areas of the main caliber towers with at least 229 mm armor and strengthening the bevels from 25,4 mm to at least 50 mm, then “Tiger” is beyond any doubt, although it would not have surpassed Derflinger, it was possible to talk about some kind of project comparability. So, "Seidlits", no doubt, was inferior to "Queen Mary", but still a fight with him presented a serious danger for the British battlecruiser. "Queen Mary" was stronger, but not absolutely - but in the case of a duel between "Tiger" and "Derflinger" the latter had an overwhelming advantage.

At this point, it was possible to finish the comparison between “Tiger” and “Derflinger”, if not for one “but”. The fact is that just in 1912, when the Germans began building the magnificent Derflinger, the British laid the first battleship of the Queen Elizabeth series - the difference in the timing of the bookmark was less than 7 months. Let's look at what kind of ship it was.

As is known, the British built four battleships like the Iron Duke and the battle cruiser Tiger according to the 1911 r program. According to the program of the next, 1912, it was supposed to build three more “343-mm” super-mid-range and a battle cruiser, the projects of which, in general, were almost ready (the battle cruiser, by the way, was to become the second Tiger ship). But ... as Winston Churchill wrote: "The British fleet always travels first class." The fact is that England had already laid down the 10 battleships and the 4 battlecruisers with 343-mm guns, and other countries responded. Japan ordered the British with a battle cruiser with 356-mm cannons, which were slightly more powerful than the British 13,5-inch. It became known that the new American dreadnoughts also received 356-mm artillery. According to information received from Germany, Krupp was experimenting with might and main with various models of 350-mm cannons, and it is them who will have to get the latest dreadnoughts like "Koenig." Accordingly, the time has come for a new breakthrough. Consider what happened to the British.

Artillery


Chief caliber battleship "Queen Elizabeth"


History Winston Churchill, with the full support and endorsement of John Fisher, "pushed through" the tab of the 381-mm dreadnoughts, on which guns did not exist yet, is well known. Without a doubt, if the efforts of the British gunsmiths were not crowned with success and 381-mm did not work, the Admiralty would firmly put itself into a puddle, building ships that could not be armed. However, Churchill took a chance and won - the British 15-inch gun was a real masterpiece of artillery. External ballistics of the latest artillery system was beyond praise. And the firepower ... The 381-mm / 42 artillery system sent an 871 kg projectile with an initial speed of 752 m / s. Two-gun turrets, built with the experience of operating similar turrets with 343-mm guns, have become the benchmark for reliability. The maximum elevation angle was 20 degrees - while the firing range was 22 420 m or 121 cables - more than enough for the era of the First World War.

16 152-mm guns MK-XII with a barrel length 45 caliber - the only reproach to which could be only their low placement, which made the casemate flooded with water, but this was the norm for the battleships of that time. Unfortunately, the British did not think out again how to design the supply of ammunition to the dungeon, which is why 152-mm projectiles and charges were supplied rather slowly, which forced to store a significant amount of ammunition directly from the guns in the dungeon. The result is known - two German projectiles that simultaneously pierced the Malaya’s 152 mm armor, ignited charges, a fire (cord burned), and the flame rose above the masts. All this completely brought the casemate out of order and led to the death of several dozen people. The British themselves considered the placement of medium artillery as the most unfortunate element of the Queen Elizabeth project.

Reservation

If the main caliber of Queen Elizabeth type battleships deserves the most excellent epithets, then the protection of this type of dreadnoughts is quite ambiguous. In addition, its descriptions, alas, are internally contradictory, therefore the author of this article cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data presented below.



The Queen Elizabeth vertical armor protection was based on 4,404 m high armor. From the top edge throughout 1,21 m its thickness was 152 mm, the next 2,28 m had 330 mm thickness, and on the “end” 0,914 m up to the bottom edge armor thickness was 203 mm At the same time, in the normal displacement of the armored belt at 1,85 m was below the waterline. This meant that the most massive, 330 mm part was located on 0,936 m under water and 1,344 m - above sea level.

Bronepoyas stretched from about the middle of the barbet of the first main-caliber tower to the middle of the fourth barbet. Then, the armor belt got thinner in the bow and stern first to 152 mm, and then to 102 mm, ending with a little before reaching the stem and stern stem. However, one should not think that there was a “gate” to the “Queen Elizabeth” in the cellar of the bow and stern towers. The fact is that, in addition to booking the board, they were protected by traverses going at an angle from the main armor belt and closing on the barbet. Thus, the protection of the supply pipes of these towers consisted of two layers of 152 mm armor plates, one of which was at an angle to the diametral plane - such protection could only be dreamed of by Lion and Tiger. In addition to the 152 mm corner traverse, Queen Elizabeth also had 102 mm traverses in the bow and stern, where sections of the armored belt 102 mm were completed. Mention should also be made of the 51 mm anti-torpedo bulkhead, which also served as an additional protection for artillery cellars.



On top of the main armored belt, the Queen Elizabeth had a second, upper armored belt 152 mm thick, extending to the level of the upper deck. The casemate also had 152 mm protection with 102-152 mm by traversing the stern. In the nose, 152-mm armor plates "converged" to the barbet of the second main-caliber tower. The 381-mm cannon turrets had 330 mm frontal armored plates and 229 mm (possibly still 280 mm) side walls, 108 mm - the roof. The barbets defended 254 mm with armor in some places to the level of the upper deck (where the barbet was overlapped by a neighboring barbet or superstructure), thinning consistently to 229 mm and 178 mm, and lower, opposite 152 mm of the armor belt, 152 mm and 102 mm armor. The nasal cabin was defended (according to various data) by armor of variable thickness 226-254 mm (or 280 mm) aft - 152 mm.

As for the horizontal armor protection, then it is all very difficult. On the one hand, on the basis of the available drawings, we can conclude that horizontal armoring within the citadel was provided by an 25 mm armored deck with bevels of the same thickness. Outside the citadel, the armored deck had 63,5-76 mm in the stern and 25-32 mm in the nose. In addition, within the citadel, the upper deck had a variable thickness in different areas of 32-38-44-51 mm. The casemate additionally had a 25 mm roof. But if this description is correct, then we conclude that the horizontal protection of Queen Elizabeth roughly corresponds to that of Iron Duke battleships. At the same time, some sources (A. A. Mikhailov, “Queen Elizabeth-type battleships”) indicate that on the 381-mm superdreads the horizontal protection was weakened relative to the previous series battleships.

In general, the following can be said about the protection of Queen Elizabeth type ships. It is very good (although not completely so that, as we will see below), it protected the battleships of this series from projectiles of 305-mm guns. But a number of its elements (upper armor belt, barbettes, etc.) did not represent a serious defense against more powerful 356-mm, and even more so, 381-mm projectiles. In this regard, the British again created a ship, very unimportantly protected from the guns of the caliber that he carried himself.

Power plant

Initially, the British designed the super-midrange with 10 381-mm guns, located in the same way as was done on the “343-mm” super-midnights, while their speed should have been the classic for British ships 21 node. But the extraordinary power of 381-mm artillery led to the fact that even with eight main-caliber trunks the newest battleship was significantly superior to any ten-battleship with 343-mm guns. On the other hand, the space and mass of the “saved” tower could be used to increase the power of the undercarriage and achieve a speed much higher than the 21 node.

Here it is necessary to make a small "lyrical" retreat. According to O. Parks, the battle cruiser "Queen Mary", laid down in 1911 g, cost the English taxpayers in 2 078 491 f. Art. (unfortunately, it was not specified whether this tool cost). At the same time, the King George V series of dreadnoughts, laid in the same 1911 g, along with guns, cost the British treasury an average of 1 960 000 f.st. for the ship. The Iron Dukes following them were even cheaper - 1 890 000 f.st. (although it is possible that the price is indicated without weapons).

At the same time, "Tiger" turned out to be even more expensive than "Queen Mary" - O. Parks quotes a fantastic amount of 2 593 100 f. with guns. According to other sources, "Tiger" was worth only 2 100 000 f. Art. (but perhaps without guns). In any case, it can be stated that the battlecruisers cost the British more than the battleships at the same time. And, in spite of the hurricane energy of John Fisher, who saw the main ships of the fleet in battlecruisers, the British more and more often wondered if they needed super-expensive, but weakly protected ships, which are extremely dangerous to use in a general battle, even not in line, but as a fleet avant-garde fleet?

As you know, D. Fisher left the post of First Sea Lord in January 1910. And the new First Sea Lord Francis Bringjemen finally voiced what many have been thinking about for quite a long time:

“If you decide to spend money on a high-speed, heavily armed ship and pay a lot more than your best battleship is worth, then it’s better to protect it with the heaviest armor. You will get a ship that can really cost one and a half times more than a battleship, but which in any case can do everything. To invest the cost of a first-class battleship into a ship that cannot withstand in a hard battle is an erroneous policy. It is better to spend the extra money and have what you really want. In other words, the battleship must be replaced by a high-speed battleship, despite the high cost. ”


Incidentally, oddly enough, but the Queen Elizabeth did not become super-expensive ships at all - their average cost with weapons was the 1 960 000 f.st., that is, cheaper than the battle cruisers.

A similar approach met with the full approval of the sailors, with the result that the design of the battleship was redesigned at much higher speeds than previously thought. The power rating of the Queen Elizabeth power plant should have been 56 000 hp, in which the newest dreadnoughts with a normal 29 200 t displacement should have developed the 23 node, and when forcing to 75 000, hp - 25 nodes. In reality, their speed may have been somewhat lower (although Malaya developed 25 knots. On tests), but it was still very high, fluctuating within 24,5-24,9 knots.

Of course, such results could not be achieved with the use of coal, so the queen-type battleships of the Queen Elizabeth became the first British heavy ships to completely switch to oil heating. The reserve of oil was 650 t (normal) and 3 400 t full, in addition, the full load included the presence of 100 t coal. According to some reports, the range was 5 000 miles on 12,5 nodes.

In general, the project turned out not just successful, but revolutionary in the creation of battleships. The ships built on the principle of “only big guns” were much stronger than squadron battleships, and were named after the first battleship of this type dreadnoughts. The introduction of 343-mm guns on battleships opened the epoch of super dreadnoughts, but if so, then Queen Elizabeth type ships could rightfully be called “supersuperdrednoutes” - their advantage over ships with 343-356-mm artillery was big enough for that.


Battleship Malaya


But the main reason for which we devoted so much time to the construction of these in every respect advanced ships, is that they had to form the “high-speed wing” necessary for reconnaissance and coverage of the head of the enemy’s column in a general battle. That is, the Queen Elizabeth-type battleships were supposed to perform exactly the functions that the battlecruisers in Germany created during the Grand Fleet. And if so, then the Derflinger-type battlecruisers would have to face in battle no longer with the British battle-cruisers, or rather, not only with them. Before the "Derflingerov" loomed the prospect of a battle with the squadron "Queen Elizabeth", and this was a completely different opponent.

The armor penetration data of the 305-mm guns of the Germanic battlecruisers is somewhat different, but even the most modest of them, given in "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting" (254 mm on 69 kbt and 229 mm on 81 kbt) against the background of actual results demonstrated in the jutland battle, look somewhat optimistic. But even taking them for granted, we see that neither the main-caliber artillery, both the towers and the barbets, nor the waterline covered with 330 mm for the armor-belt, is generally invulnerable to the German shells for 75 with great luck, fragments of armor and projectile will pass after the last one explodes in the process of armor penetration). In essence, only German 305-mm projectiles piercing 152 mm armor belts and exploding inside the ship are of some danger - in this case their fragments will have enough kinetic energy to break through the 25 mm armor deck and damage the engine and boiler rooms. The Germans 305-mm projectiles have practically no chances to pass through the barbets as a whole, but they have a good chance of hitting the barbet's armor and penetrating it with the cumulative impact energy and projectile explosion. In this case, red-hot fragments will fall into the feed pipes, which may well cause a fire, as happened in the Zeidlitz stern towers. A considerable danger was also represented by the shells that fell into the dungeon of the British battleship (recall the fire at Malaya!)

In other words, the ship's armored protection type "Queen Elizabeth" was not invulnerable to 305-mm guns - some "windows", if hit with which 405-kg German "armor" could do things, these battleships had. The problem was that even the thickest armor of the “Derflinger” - the 300 mm section of the armor belt — was penetrated (calculatedly) by an 381-mm projectile at a distance of 75 KBT. In other words, the Derflinger reservation, which very well defended the ship against 343-mm artillery fire, did not at all hold on the 15-inch armor-piercing shells. Much to the happiness of the Germans, the quality of such shells in the battle of Jutland was very low among the British, one could speak of them rather as a semi-slaughter. There is no doubt that if British sailors were at the disposal of the armor-piercing shells created later under the Greenboy program, the line cruisers of Admiral Hipper’s 1 reconnaissance group would have suffered much more serious losses. However, even the existing shells caused very heavy damage to German ships.

Without a doubt, the magnificent defense of the German battlecruisers allowed them to hold out for some time under the fire of 381-mm guns, and their artillery could cause some damage to the “Elizabeth” type battleships. But on the whole, on the basis of their tactical and technical characteristics, the Derflinger-class battlecruisers, of course, were not equivalent and could not withstand high-speed British battleships. And this leads us to an amazing dualism in assessing the latest German battlecruisers built.

Without a doubt, the “Derflingers” were magnificent ships that the British themselves recognized. O. Parks writes about the series head cruiser:

"Derflinger" was a wonderful ship, of which the British were of the highest opinion "


There is no doubt that Derflinger left far behind both the Seidlits that preceded it and the entire line of British battlecruisers, including Queen Mary and Tiger, in its qualities. Thus, the "Derflinger" uniquely belong to the laurels of the best pre-war battlecruiser of the world, and the best of the German battlecruisers.

But at the same time, the Derflinger is also the worst German battleship, and the reason for this is very simple. Absolutely all German battlecruisers were built as a “high-speed wing” with the line forces of hoheeflotte. And absolutely all the battlecruisers of Germany, starting from the “Von der Tanna” and “Seidlits”, inclusive, were able to fulfill this role more or less successfully. And only the ships “Derflinger” were no longer suitable for this, since the British could not resist the “high-speed wing” of the British, made up of battleships of the type “Queen Elizabeth”.

Without a doubt, this conclusion may seem to someone "far-fetched." But you need to understand that any warship is not built to surpass any other ships in one or several characteristics, but in order to perform its inherent function. The German admirals required ships capable of acting as a “fast wing” under the main forces of the open sea fleet. They built them, and later the world classification brought them to the list of battle cruisers. “Derflingers” became the best battlecruisers in the world ... just at the time when the British assigned the functions of a “high-speed wing” to high-speed battleships - a new class of ships that the battlecruisers could not withstand. Thus, Hohzeeflotte was deprived of the instrument he needed, and that was the only thing that mattered in a naval battle.

Alas, we are compelled to state that in 1912 r the British naval thought put the checkmate and checkmate to the high-speed heavy ships of the German fleet - having implemented the concept of the high-speed battleship, the British were far ahead.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Battle Cruiser: Fon der Tann vs Indefatigeble
Battle Cruiser: Fon der Tann vs Indefatigeble. H.2
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion. H. 2
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion. H. 3
Rifle battle cruisers. "Seidlits" vs "Queen Mary"
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Derflinger vs. Tiger
Congo-class battlecruisers
Rifle battle cruisers. "Derflinger" against "Tager". H. 2
82 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NF68
    NF68 31 May 2018 15: 32
    +3
    As always an interesting article.
  2. DimanC
    DimanC 31 May 2018 16: 11
    +2
    The battle of Jutland was that test of the theory of probability, under which, in fact, the ships were designed. Please note: the British, in fact, lost one ship from each series. Only the “Tiger” remained apart, perhaps the series was too small. However, the death of the English ships must first be attributed to the characteristics of gunpowder and the notorious English tradition to keep as many charges as possible as close as possible to the guns.
    1. saigon
      saigon 31 May 2018 17: 02
      +1
      The design of German ships solved only one problem — the battle in the North and in the North Sea with the British fleet.
      It was more difficult for the British ships to be able to fight anywhere in the ocean and with any enemy, which complicated the design of ships.
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 31 May 2018 18: 33
        +1
        This is true. But the British at the same time were “captured” by their traditions: they did not modify the docks, therefore, there were restrictions on the size and displacement of ships. Well, and, of course, that thought could not suddenly and immediately step up to a ship of the Huda type.
        1. saigon
          saigon 1 June 2018 17: 13
          0
          Vague suspicions arise at the expense of the docks, there was not enough money for everything even in England
  3. seti
    seti 31 May 2018 16: 16
    +2
    We look forward to continuing.
  4. avt
    avt 31 May 2018 16: 21
    +4
    good For the passage about ,, Queen Lisa "and in particular about
    Alas, we are compelled to state that in 1912 r the British naval thought put the checkmate and checkmate to the high-speed heavy ships of the German fleet - having implemented the concept of the high-speed battleship, the British were far ahead.
    Special thanks to. True, after the war they somehow swelled up to Huda " wassat And more, they didn’t travel the first class, the USA began to do it for them, putting a beautiful point in the history of artillery battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin.
    1. avt
      avt 31 May 2018 17: 09
      +3
      Quote: avt
      Gulf of Tonkin.

      wassat someone then pulled me to Vietnam ??? Tokyo has beguiled Tonkin! wassat
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 31 May 2018 20: 41
      +1
      Quote: avt
      True, after the war they somehow swelled up to Huda "

      Well, the Hood was built as part of the concept of battlecruisers. But what type of trendsetters were "blown away" is well described in the ... um ... book of A. Rowan and D. Robens, "Trends in the development of the British battleship from Jutland to the Washington Agreement. 1916-22. Unrealized projects of the English dreadnoughts "
      So the fact that they weren’t even laid down in a normal way, unlike the American South Dakot and the Japanese Kaga and Amagi, is that the economy of a warring country is not rubber at all to carry out new projects and maintain an agrarian fleet ...
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 June 2018 01: 02
      +2
      Quote: avt
      Special thanks to.

      Taki separate please! laughing hi drinks
    4. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 1 June 2018 12: 25
      0
      Quote: avt
      Special thanks to. True, after the war they somehow swelled up to Huda "


      Well, all the same, the difference between the super dreadnoughts of 25 knots and 31 knots is still a cruiser, albeit a linear one :)
  5. sevtrash
    sevtrash 31 May 2018 17: 40
    0
    ... "Derflinger" clearly owns the laurels of the best pre-war battlecruiser of the world, and the best of the German battlecruisers. But at the same time, the Derflinger is also the worst German battle cruiser ... Without a doubt, this conclusion may seem “far-fetched” to some ...
    Thus, many conclusions can be drawn. For example, the appearance of Sivulf made the worst BOD 1155.1 outside of the relativity 61, 1134, 1134b, 1155. The advent of f22 made Su27 the worst. The appearance of Armata made the Leopard 2-7 + the worst. To some extent, an oxymoron.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2018 17: 57
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      Thus, many conclusions can be drawn. For example, the appearance of Sivulf made the worst BOD 1155.1 outside of the relativity 61, 1134, 1134b, 1155. The advent of f22 made Su27 the worst. The appearance of Armata made the Leopard 2-7 + the worst. To some extent, an oxymoron.

      I absolutely agree - an oxymoron. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the article. You will find a gaping hole in your logic (the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote about Derflinger), or show with your finger?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. sevtrash
        sevtrash 31 May 2018 19: 14
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A gaping hole in your logic (the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote about Derflinger)

        Oh how! Your logic, apparently, seems to be such a rail, cast-iron, direct and monolithic.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        find yourself, or show a finger?

        Do such a favor.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 June 2018 00: 55
          +1
          Quote: sevtrash
          Oh how! Your logic, apparently, seems to be such a rail, cast-iron, direct and monolithic.

          Please, do not tell me about your associations :)))) I am not a psychologist, but just the author of articles on VO, right?
          Quote: sevtrash
          Do such a favor.

          “Derflinger” made the worst thing not the appearance of a ship, but the fact that already at the time of creation he could not fulfill the function assigned to him. The 1155 BOD at the time of its creation could very well fulfill the function for which it was intended, that is, to fight the enemy submarines, and even with the advent of Sea Wolf it continued to meet its objectives - not because it was cooler than Sea Wolf, but because there were all 3, that is, some percentage of the total number of US nuclear submarines.
          The same with the Su-27 - at the time of creation, he answered the task of gaining air supremacy. And even the appearance of F-22 did not immediately “push it off” because he stopped responding to his tasks only after F-22 massively went into the series
          In general, you managed to confuse the concepts of "bad / worst" and "outdated"
          1. ser56
            ser56 1 June 2018 14: 50
            +1
            in my opinion, you were carried away - Deflinger could serve as a high-speed wing, but not against all British LCs ... only the latest super dreadnoughts were dangerous for him ...
            those. following you:
            "not because he was cooler than Sea Wolf, but because there were only 3 of them, that is, some percentage of the total number of US nuclear submarines." You can add - not all LCs were over ... hi
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 June 2018 15: 23
              0
              Quote: ser56
              in my opinion, you were carried away - Deflinger could serve as a high-speed wing, but not against all British LCs ... only the latest super dreadnoughts were dangerous for him ...

              Sergei, the British had the vanguard - a fleet of battlecruisers, which organizationally included the Queens. The Germans had the 1th reconnaissance group. They could not collide in the general battle in principle (they collided). Line cruisers and high-speed battleships are piece goods that fulfill their unique tasks. But BOD - that's never a piece, a dozen BOD of the 1155 project, taking into account the presence of dozens of other BODs that perform exactly the same tasks, could have been seen by Wolfe in the eye. Sea Wolves, despite the fact that there are three of them, also performed exactly the same functions as dozens of Los Angeles. And if you do not understand this, then why then even undertake to talk about some scientific methods there?
              1. ser56
                ser56 2 June 2018 12: 40
                +1
                Andrey, you get personal and don’t see the essence - I pointed out to you your contradictions ... you continue them further ...
                "Line cruisers and high-speed battleships are piece goods that perform their own tasks that are unique to them" is finely serial, I would say ... and tasks perform different, including classic LCs or BRKRs (trade protection - fight at the Foklands, support of light forces).
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Sea Wolves, despite the fact that there are three of them, also performed exactly the same functions as dozens of Los Angeles.

                the product is also "piece" ... and as for their tasks, I would refrain from simplifications - the best ships are usually sent for special tasks ... a good example of using Novik in 1MB is essentially EM, but it was used in a special way ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  2 June 2018 14: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: ser56
                  Andrey, you get personal and don’t see the essence - I pointed out to you your contradictions ...

                  And I explained why they are not. Kindly re-read the comment again, since the first time does not work
                  Quote: ser56
                  and the tasks are performed by different, including classic LK or DBKR

                  No need to tell me about the spherical problems of battlecruisers in a vacuum - I know them better than you. You better teach the materiel and find out why the German DBKR and battle cruisers were built. So most of the BRKR and all LKR were built exclusively as scouts at the squadron and high-speed avant-garde. Dot. exception - the very first BRKR and ShiG - they were built for the colonial service
                  Quote: ser56
                  the item is also "piece" ..

                  Send a link to the calculator?
                  1. ser56
                    ser56 2 June 2018 14: 53
                    +1
                    "Please be kind enough to re-read the comment again, since the first time fails," can someone learn to write clearly? bully
                    "You better teach the materiel and" some schoolgirling ....
                    "Send a link to the calculator?" what for? I have in the OS, do you know this so badly? repeat Well, compare the number of nuclear submarines Si Wulf and LCR, it is possible on the fingers ... bully
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      3 June 2018 17: 17
                      +2
                      Quote: ser56
                      can someone learn to write clearly?

                      And which particular fragment of my comment turned out to be too complicated for you?
                      Quote: ser56
                      "You better teach the materiel and" some schoolgirling ....

                      Sergei is not scholarship, but a statement of fact - you do not know why the Germans built their battlecruisers. Well, if you do not know this, what else can I advise you?
                      Quote: ser56
                      Well, compare the number of nuclear submarines Si Wulf and LCR, it is possible on the fingers ...

                      The Germans built 7 LCR. The United States today has 54 non-strategic nuclear submarines in its fleet, including 4 Ohio, 3 Sivulfa, 15 Virginia and 32 Los Angeles. Of these, 50 (except Ohio) have similar tasks.
                      Separating 3 Sivulf separately, as you do, is also absurd how to separate “Queen Mary” from the British LCR and say that she has “special tasks” that differ from other LCR.
                      1. springrain
                        springrain 3 June 2018 20: 18
                        +1
                        Good afternoon!

                        I want to thank you for the series of excellent articles. The conclusions about some superiority (although not decisive) of the Lyon type cruisers over the German Moltke and Seidlitz cruisers seemed very interesting.

                        Nevertheless, I completely disagree with your conclusion in this article. You write that Queen Elizabeth was a fleet of the British fleet. However, it should be noted that in the fleet of battlecruisers they fought only in the Battle of Jutland, and only because the British had the opportunity to "look into the cards" of the enemy. At the same time, they had to perform several tasks: to prevent the beating of their cruisers, the lack of protection of which was recognized after Dogger Banks, to prevent the Germans from breaking away, and to seriously damage German ships. In fact, only the last was succeeded.

                        It should be remembered that in the Battle of Dogger Banks the British “Fischer cats” had difficulty reducing the distance to the German cruisers and, as soon as possible, began to finish off the “Blucher”. Thus, it is doubtful that the Queen Elizabeth battleships, inferior in speed by 2-3 knots, could keep up with the same Derflinger.

                        I also want to say that the conclusion "the best cruiser is the worst cruiser" is pure sophism. If the Derflinger, allegedly, could not resist the new battleships, then the rest of the ships could not.

                        If you apply your own logic, it turns out that the Rurik armored cruiser, which has earned praise from you earlier, is the worst armored cruiser in Russia because it was supposed to meet with Von der Tann, battleships of the Sevastopol type in terms of protection are not comparable with “Konigami”, and “Empress Maria” should then be evaluated in comparison with “Bayern”, which will obviously not be in her favor.

                        In my opinion, ships should also be evaluated in terms of real results - and here the British battlecruisers that destroyed the Lutz, two armored cruisers and several light, as well as the German ones that destroyed three classmates, a couple of armored cruisers and a number of other ships, will be out of competition.

                        At the same time, the combat survivability of the German cruisers is also worthy of approval - it is unlikely that any of the British ships could survive so much time under the concentrated fire of the entire fleet.

                        In conclusion, it must be said that conclusions from the results of the Battle of Jutland were made by both sides. The Germans created the Mackensen cruiser project, where they immediately got rid of three shortcomings of the previous project: they strengthened the defense in the area of ​​torpedo tubes, increased the security of towers and barbets, and finally radically increased firepower. The British also built the "Hood" - a fast battleship that can catch up and destroy any classmate at the time of his appearance.
                      2. ser56
                        ser56 4 June 2018 12: 00
                        0
                        "Was my comment too complicated for you?" he is simply wrong ...
                        "You do not know why the Germans built their battlecruisers. Well, if you do not know this, what else can I advise you?" probably you wrote your opus, so that readers know your knowledge and understand? Looks like you couldn’t do it ... bully And I don’t need to advise, take care of yourself ...
                        "Allocate 3 Sivulfa separately, as you do it" from a sore point to a healthy one ... it was you who singled out .... bully
          2. sevtrash
            sevtrash 1 June 2018 16: 39
            0
            Your logic is flawed. First declare Derflinger the best, in the next sentence the worst. Oxymoron in its purest form. In the class of battlecruisers, Derflinger is universally recognized as the best. Comparing it with a battleship is rather strange. Compare with the destroyer. By your logic, it may lose - the speed of the destroyer is higher.
            As for the tasks, here are the tasks of battlecruisers in Parks: reconnaissance in battle; support and assistance to smaller reconnaissance cruisers; independent expeditions to surround enemy raiders; pursuit of the retreating fleet of the enemy and, if possible, placing him in a hopeless position by concentrating fire on the backward ships; rapid encirclement of the enemy during hostilities. Which of them could Derflinger perform? Oh yes. If you put Queen Elizabeth, Malaya, Barham around him, then of course. Otherwise, it may get away from them. Is this nothing that Derflinger’s speed is 2-3 knots higher? It's about a high-speed wing, by the way.
            In general, as always - at first some conclusion with a claim to epoch-making, and then a fitting of facts. request

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Please, do not tell me about your associations :)))) I am not a psychologist, but just the author of articles on VO, right?

            Yes, it seems that you were attracted to hole associations. wassat
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 June 2018 17: 04
              +2
              Quote: sevtrash
              Your logic is flawed.

              Just inaccessible to you, that's all :))) Actually, the same can be said about most of the logic in general.
              Quote: sevtrash
              Derflinger's class of battlecruisers is universally recognized as the best. Comparing it with a battleship is rather strange. Compare with the destroyer.

              And I would compare it if the destroyers were assigned the tasks of battlecruisers. But they didn’t. But the British high-speed battleships were created for tasks similar to those under which the Germans built their battlecruisers.
              It’s just the fact that Queen Elizabeth and Derflinger were created to solve the SAME tasks that you cannot understand. Not a question, but in your place I would not flaunt it laughing
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 2 June 2018 13: 55
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It’s just the fact that Queen Elizabeth and Derflinger were created to solve the SAME tasks that you cannot understand. Not a question, but in your place I would not flaunt it

                It may come as a surprise to you, but Queen Elizabeth was conceived as an improved design for the battleship Iron Duke. The key word is battleship. Comparing the battleship and battlecruiser is illogical. And their speed is different. And the tasks. And a place in the squadron. How can this level of logic be displayed? lol
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Just inaccessible to you, that's all :)))

                Well, if you have Queen Elizabeth become battle cruisers - then - yes, your logic is inaccessible to understanding. However, not the first time. You have it a little peculiar. Either the British were not able to shoot, the German sailors were all cowards and worthless, battleships became cruisers. Such a strange logic wassat I look forward to continuing your advanced thoughts. good
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  2 June 2018 22: 17
                  +1
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  Well, if you have Queen Elizabeth become battle cruisers - then - yes, your logic is inaccessible to understanding.

                  Exactly!
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  Compare the battleship and battlecruiser is illogical

                  Sergey, this is very logical, but you will never understand this! love
              2. volodimer
                volodimer 2 June 2018 21: 09
                0
                Andrey, I watched your discussion with Sergey all day and I apologize for trying to intervene. Nevertheless, the fact that the British took a step towards Iowa does not negate the fact that QE were primarily battleships, and the tactics of their use returned them to a well-known framework anyway. Yes, they could “catch up”, but their main task: after a possible tactical advantage, this is the classic line in the squadron. And the task of the battlecruisers is to start a battle on successful conditions, and to flee, if they did not work out or to stay, at the approach of the main forces, if you're lucky. There is still some difference. Yours faithfully!
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  2 June 2018 22: 09
                  +2
                  Dear Vladimir!
                  Quote: volodimer
                  I apologize for trying to intervene.

                  In no case is it worth it - with an adequate interlocutor, I am always ready for a constructive dialogue, even if our points of view are opposite. And what's more, even if I did not manage to convince my opponent of my innocence, I always admit to him the right to his point of view, which is different from mine, regardless of how reasonable it is. What is fundamentally important to me is the culture of discussion. We have been meeting with Sergey for more than a year, and as a result of discussions I have long since lost all respect for him.
                  Quote: volodimer
                  There is still some difference. Yours faithfully!

                  You see so, and I have nothing against it. But if you want to listen to the point of view of a person who has been studying the history of the Navy for the first (and not the second) decade (with which, again, you do not have to agree hi ) then I have to tell you the following.
                  After the RNE (in fact, in some places before the RNE), the point was formed that the main forces of the fleet for the general battle should include the so-called “high-speed wing” whose task was (in different fleets a little differently, I'm talking about some average understanding):
                  1) Reconnaissance and maintaining contact with the main forces of the enemy in order to bring their main forces into battle in the configuration most advantageous for themselves
                  2) Putting "Crossing-T" (coverage of the head of the enemy’s main forces) while the enemy’s main forces are connected in battle with our main forces
                  3) Chasing the remnants of the enemy fleet and finishing off the lagging ships of the enemy
                  So, Vladimir, the British created their DBKR to protect their communications. But when they recognized the need for a “high-speed wing” with the main forces of the fleet, they decided that armored cruisers would do for that. In fact, they were not good, because their booking was too weak, but the British did not pay attention to it.
                  Their battle cruisers became a continuation of the armored ones - that is, the British saw them as ships for fighting in communications and for participating in the general battle as a high-speed wing.
                  The Germans were completely different. With the exception of Fürst Bismarck and Scharnhorst with Gneisenau, they built their DBKR as reconnaissance forces. “Blucher” they were sympathetic, thinking that “Invincible” is a “Dreadnought”, with only 234-mm artillery, but then they (with a big delay relative to other powers!) Came to the need for a fast wing.
                  So, they built their Fon-der-Tann and so on exactly like the ships of the “high-speed wing”. The Germans did NOT have a class of battlecruiser ships (they were called large cruisers), and they (unlike the British) never considered their large cruisers as a means of communication warfare. Hence the difference in approaches - the Germans were not overwhelmed by the TTX of the BRKR, they immediately created ships that could hold out under heavy artillery fire for at least some time.
                  In other words, the large German cruisers were created as a “high-speed wing” in the squadron. There were no other goals for them!
                  At the same time, the British, after some time, finally realized that the weak protection of their battlecruisers did not allow them to perform the functions of a “high-speed wing”. But instead of strengthening the protection of their battlecruisers, they chose to increase the speed of their battleships :)))) That is, Queen Elizabeth should have become (and have become!) A high-speed wing at the Royal Navy squadrons.
                  Therefore, you are deeply mistaken in believing that
                  Quote: volodimer
                  they could “catch up”, but their main task: after obtaining a tactical advantage, this is the classic line in the squadron

                  Nothing like this! They had no place in the line, they had (after the start of the linear battle) to cover the enemy’s head, then - to chase him .. But in the line for Queen Elizabeth, according to the then views, there was no place!
                  Thus, both fleets (both English and German), even at different times, felt the need for a “high-speed wing” in the squadron, and the Germans assigned this duty to their “large cruisers,” and the British to their battleships, but when they realized that they couldn’t do it, they created the Queen Elizabeth fleet of battleships.
                  In other words, despite the difference in names, the "battle cruisers" of Germany and the battleships of the Queen Elizabeth type had an absolutely identical purpose :) hi
                  1. sevtrash
                    sevtrash 3 June 2018 09: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Despite the difference in names, the German battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth type battleships had exactly the same purpose:

                    The battleships Queen Elizabeth are considered as an improved version of the battleships Iron Duke and are compared with the battleships Koenig and Byern. This is a fact, no matter how you would like to introduce them as battle cruisers.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    What is fundamentally important to me is the culture of discussion.

                    Everyone can watch at least this discussion, including your answers, my comments and the comments of serg56 and evaluate them. And other discussions with you are also easy to read and evaluate your culture. You have repeatedly started / begin to translate the discussion into personal attacks, apparently when there were not enough / not enough arguments in defense of your positions. It's ugly to blame from a sick head for a healthy one. negative
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      3 June 2018 16: 59
                      +1
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      The battleships Queen Elizabeth are considered as an improved version of the battleships Iron Duke and are compared with the battleships Koenig and Byern.

                      Yeah, they were considered. In the initial version - with 10 381-mm guns and a speed of 21 knots. But then the British realized that by removing one tower they would still maintain superiority in firepower but could add to speed, which would give them a fast battleship capable of operating in the “high-speed wing” and the tactical purpose of the ship changed.
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      It is a fact,

                      In your universe, no doubt.
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      how would you not like to introduce them as battle cruisers.

                      For those in the tank I can repeat again. Both the British and Germans needed a “high-speed wing” under the main forces of the fleet. The British first formed it from battlecruisers, and later from high-speed battleships. The Germans came from large cruisers (they didn’t have the term “battle cruiser”). And yes, I know that you still didn’t understand anything from my explanations, you can don’t bother telling me this laughing
                      By the way, the British included their 5th squadron, composed of their battleships of the Queen Elizabeth type, not in the linear fleet, but in the fleet of battlecruisers. That is, organizationally, they attributed the Queens to the battle cruisers
                      In general, I would advise you to read G. Staff and O. Parks on this subject, but to the point from my advice ...
  6. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 31 May 2018 18: 49
    +5
    Bravo! good
    That's just the answer (and the Germans built their large cruisers in response to the English) to the increased caliber of the enemy built "Mackensen". And interestingly, they were designed for 15 "guns, but with a whim of the Kaiser, the caliber was limited to 14". So, if the next generation possessed the Derflinger protection (the tower booking was only increased and a number of minor details), then 600kg shells were already much more dangerous ...
    The whole point is that the Germans were a little behind the British, because the “Buyers” did not have time for Jutland, and the “derflingers” had to face uncles with big broads. And so, in the context of the development of ships, everything went in a logical way. The British made their breakthroughs, and the Germans silently answered them. Because they were a step behind. By the way, in the penultimate paragraph you perfectly described it. And the fact that ships of different generations can collide on the battlefield is a question for the course of history, the development of industry and the human factor.
    Bravo again! hi
    Ps. For what the German cruisers were designed for and to confront the one against whom they were intended, they answered perfectly at the given moment in time. But the ships sometimes even become obsolete on slipways ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 June 2018 00: 56
      +3
      Thank you, dear namesake! drinks
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And interestingly, they were designed under the 15 "guns, but on a whim of the Kaiser, the caliber was limited by the 14."

      We will talk about them in the next article, which I am just finishing :)))))
  7. Potter
    Potter 31 May 2018 19: 21
    +2
    Thanks for the great sequel. The British were half a step ahead of the Germans; they could do this because of their financial capabilities unlimited to WWI. But the Germans' answers were more perfect.
  8. Potter
    Potter 31 May 2018 19: 23
    +1
    Derflinger is handsome. Without even analyzing the performance characteristics, only seeing the ship is handsome. But the Germans arrived in time in the form of 350 mm guns, we are waiting for the continuation.
  9. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 31 May 2018 20: 06
    +5
    The Germans remained faithful to themselves, very stubbornly, consistently and in some ways selflessly, they built the best second in strength fleet.
    1. yehat
      yehat 31 May 2018 22: 47
      +1
      the Germans needed to stretch for at least 3-4 years without a war, somehow expand their influence and foreign bases in order to feel on equal terms with the British.
      Tirpitz in his book wrote that they never thought about leadership, especially since they entered into a discriminatory agreement with the British on the construction of the fleet "2 keels against one."
      The Germans needed just a strike, high-quality and quite dangerous fleet that could threaten half of the English fleet, and not cruising, but with limited autonomy and draft (the Kiel channel) for maximum sorties to Spain or Greenland. And by the age of 16-18 they would have reached this goal without war. But the British could not stand the race economically and technologically, and therefore they constantly provoked a conflict around 1908. Since about 1906, the British have marked a noticeable technological lag, despite the very serious composition of engineers and large investments.
      1. ser56
        ser56 1 June 2018 14: 54
        0
        the Germans didn’t have these years - they were the ones who lost the arms race at sea - in Russia the Ishmaels would have entered into service .... however, like on land ...
        "noticeable technological lag of the British" if not a secret - what are you talking about? It was the British who went ahead in speed and in caliber, but there were errors in the concept of "cats", but no more
        1. yehat
          yehat 1 June 2018 15: 17
          +1
          German armor was better
          gun barrel design was better for the Germans
          welding technology was better developed by the Germans
          survivability fighting technologies are better among Germans
          mine action and mine protection are better among Germans
          you can continue to continue.
          1. NF68
            NF68 1 June 2018 15: 48
            0
            Quote: yehat
            German armor was better
            gun barrel design was better for the Germans
            welding technology was better developed by the Germans
            survivability fighting technologies are better among Germans
            mine action and mine protection are better among Germans
            you can continue to continue.


            In fairness, it should be noted that the English Eri armor was still better in quality than the German cemented Krupp armor.
            1. yehat
              yehat 1 June 2018 17: 17
              0
              I did not see this armor on any ship in the description.
              everywhere Garveyevskaya
              1. NF68
                NF68 1 June 2018 21: 44
                0
                Quote: yehat
                I did not see this armor on any ship in the description.
                everywhere Garveyevskaya


                In the magazine Modelist-Designer there was an article about the PMV battlecruisers and that armor was mentioned there.
            2. yehat
              yehat 1 June 2018 22: 39
              0
              I read about armor
              "eri" never found - the British made the same cemented armor with slight differences. Krupp's armor was with a higher chromium content, more fragile, but at the same time lighter, harder and less ductile. It was effective when using the remote booking, its weaknesses were reflected in the growth of calibers + the large thickness of the armor plates (armor belt, cutting, barbets, etc.) and when using shells with Makarov caps (GreenBoy shells, which the British never acquired). As a result, despite the fact that at the height of the arms race and armor, German armor was not so much worse. and less profitable, in real conditions, its use has benefited more to the Germans.
              1. NF68
                NF68 3 June 2018 15: 29
                0
                Quote: yehat
                "eri" never found - the British made the same cemented armor with slight differences.


                Most likely the chemical composition of the German and English cemented armor was still somewhat different. And the method of hardening the surface layer of armor could also have a difference.
          2. ser56
            ser56 2 June 2018 12: 45
            0
            about armor is debatable! at least close quality - a few% within the margin of error
            this did not affect the quality of the English guns - on the contrary, their concept of a heavy projectile became generally recognized ...
            did welding provide any significant advantages in 1MV?
            OBZh is important, but there have always been national characteristics ...
            mine business was best at the RIF in 1MV, our experience was transferred ...
            don’t you find that these are all fleas against the background of a comparison between Queen and Baer?
            1. yehat
              yehat 3 June 2018 16: 02
              0
              their heavy projectile concept has become universally recognized

              and where did you get the idea that the monopoly on the concept of a heavy projectile is English?
              and what was it generally accepted?
              As early as 1907, Russian gunners came to the conclusion that a heavy projectile was more profitable and began to implement this concept by remaking guns and shells with new battleships, but light shells remained in warehouses.
              The Germans did not come to the conclusion that a heavy shell was so needed. The Italians did not even consider the heavy projectile profitable until the end of ww2. The Americans used both a heavy shell and a light one. Even the British themselves used different shells. Probably the only nation that has fully accepted the concept of heavy is Japan. But they had their own reason — limited resources.
              1. arturpraetor
                arturpraetor 3 June 2018 16: 09
                0
                Quote: yehat
                Russian gunners as early as 1907 came to the conclusion that a heavy projectile was more profitable and began to implement this concept

                EMNIP in the 305 / 35-mm guns were "light" and "heavy" shells, for firing at close and long (by that standards) distances. When launching a series of ammunition for the 305 / 40-mm guns, they simply decided to save money, and the French concept of "light" shells prevailed at that time .... But I speak from memory, and I could be wrong.
                1. yehat
                  yehat 3 June 2018 17: 22
                  0
                  when they designed the cannons for Ishmael, it was already understood that light shells for these guns had excess range and excess penetrating power when shooting at close range, and there was no reason to refuse to weight them. And they made only heavy shells because the lungs were not needed. Although when the Americans began to upgrade these guns to the 406mm caliber, they showed that our "heavy" shells in their understanding were very light and made them much heavier.
              2. ser56
                ser56 4 June 2018 12: 05
                0
                "and what was it generally accepted?" then you show it yourself ...
                “Russian gunners in 1907 came to the conclusion” precisely - having experienced the action of the Japanese, that is, English shells.
            2. NF68
              NF68 3 June 2018 20: 00
              0
              Quote: ser56
              about armor is debatable! at least close quality - a few% within the margin of error
              this did not affect the quality of the English guns - on the contrary, their concept of a heavy projectile became generally recognized ...
              did welding provide any significant advantages in 1MV?
              OBZh is important, but there have always been national characteristics ...
              mine business was best at the RIF in 1MV, our experience was transferred ...
              don’t you find that these are all fleas against the background of a comparison between Queen and Baer?


              At the expense of welding during the construction of ships before or during the WWII, I did not hear anything. At the expense of ship armor of the 1930-1940's, not so long ago there was information that, at that time, British cemented armor type CA was the best in the world. Not much of this armor was inferior to the German type KS, and the armor of ships of all other countries of the world was very noticeably inferior to the English and German. Japanese armor was the worst, here the role was played by the backlog of Japanese technology. American armor was not much better than Japanese. As for the quality of English 305 mm. ship cannons, they were noticeably inferior to the German 305 mm / 50, but the German gun was almost 1 / 3 more expensive than the English gun.

              The comparison of the Queens and the Bayerns is interesting, but they still did not have to really meet in battles. At long distances, more than 18-19 km. the Queen’s guns will have an advantage.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 4 June 2018 10: 02
                0
                Quote: NF68
                Japanese armor was the worst, here the role was played by the backlog of Japanese technology.

                As for the quality of Japanese armor, many copies are broken. Almost all conclusions about its low quality are based on American post-war tests. That's just ...
                Evaluation of the low quality of Japanese armor type VH (as 0.86 from American Class A armor, according to other sources, as 0.839) was made on the basis of only two shots at one armor plate.
                1. Are there too few statistics for a generalized conclusion? Compare, for example, with the shooting of "experimental compartments" in Russia and the RSFSR.
                2. "It remains a question whether this plate was rejected during production." © V.L. Kofman "Japanese battleships of the Second World" Yamato "and" Musashi.
                3. The most important thing. Even if you do not pay attention to doubts about the quality of the stove, there is one more “but”. At the same time, the Americans also tested another 183-mm thick VH plate of armor, which was recognized as the best plate of all the plates tested by the American Navy (presumably American?) In the range of 6-8 ". However, the results the tests were not recorded and were not used in assessing the quality of the VH armor. The question is, why? Why did the mediocre results go, so to speak, "in credit", but the good results did not?
                The Japanese themselves also checked the plates from the VH armor with shelling, but no criticism was noted about its quality.
                © Vladimir Sidorenko
              2. ser56
                ser56 4 June 2018 12: 07
                0
                "armor 1930-1940's" sorry, but we talked about the times before and during 1MB ....
                "Japanese armor was the worst, here the role was played by the backlog of Japanese technology." who argues after breaking the alliance with Britain ...
                “At long distances, over 18-19 km.” Do you believe in such distances in the North Sea? hi
                1. NF68
                  NF68 4 June 2018 15: 24
                  0
                  Quote: ser56
                  "armor 1930-1940's" sorry, but we talked about the times before and during 1MB ....
                  "Japanese armor was the worst, here the role was played by the backlog of Japanese technology." who argues after breaking the alliance with Britain ...
                  “At long distances, over 18-19 km.” Do you believe in such distances in the North Sea? hi


                  In a distance of more than 18-19 km. I believe. Although for most of the year, visibility in those parts is not more than 20 km. Not for nothing that the Germans after Jutland increased the elevation angle of the Bayernov trunks by increasing the firing range to 23 km., And on the battleships that were supposed to build after the Bayerns, they decided to increase the shooting range up to 33 km. although even at the end of the 1930's, the maximum range at which it was still possible to fire GK battleships against short-range targets such as the same battleship was no more than 27-28 km.

                  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BD%
                  D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%
                  D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%
                  D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_%C2%ABL-20%C2%BB
                  1. ser56
                    ser56 6 June 2018 11: 48
                    0
                    . in Jutland, the distance did not exceed 16500 yards * 0,91 = 15 km ... hi
                    1. NF68
                      NF68 6 June 2018 15: 55
                      0
                      Quote: ser56
                      . in Jutland, the distance did not exceed 16500 yards * 0,91 = 15 km ... hi


                      I repeat: it was after Jutland that, having carefully studied all the information at their disposal, the Germans increased the elevation angle of Bayern Group as a result of which “The maximum firing range increased to 23 km, and the battleship next to Bayer could already shoot at 33 km. From which it follows that the Germans admitted it was possible to fire at greater distances than to Jutland.
                      1. ser56
                        ser56 6 June 2018 18: 17
                        0
                        I don’t see the point in the dispute - it’s one thing a technician, another thing an opportunity - even Bismarck fought with 23km in the Danish Strait, but fell from a distance of about 16 ...
      2. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 1 June 2018 19: 06
        0
        Sorry, I did not understand. what is there to pull? Just ignore the Austrian ultimatum to the Serbs.
  10. sds127
    sds127 31 May 2018 22: 16
    +1
    thank you. interesting
  11. yehat
    yehat 31 May 2018 22: 38
    +3
    author, please, in the analysis, touch and compare the effectiveness of fire control, because without this comparison of ships does not look very complete, especially since high-speed ships can significantly change their position, making it difficult to aim.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 June 2018 01: 00
      +1
      Quote: yehat
      author, please in the analysis touch and compare the effectiveness of fire control

      Sorry, but this is not possible. I have already written about this several times, but it is not difficult for me to repeat - I more or less imagine how the British LMS “Dreyer table” worked, etc. but I know absolutely nothing about German. In fact, they just knew that they had some kind of machine gun, and according to Pashen (and he is still an artilleryman) he was inferior to English.
      In fact, a lot depends on the LMS ... but not all. For example, the Tiger had the best SLA of the British battlecruisers, but it showed the worst shooting result among the 343-mm cruisers (I say offhand, I have to check).
      1. yehat
        yehat 1 June 2018 08: 24
        +1
        there was an article about the LMS and in general, the calculations they provided were close in accuracy,
        but besides the LMS itself, there are rangefinders, there are specific communication systems, the number of posts, their security, there are shooting systems, training, the location of observation posts and their height, etc. You can compare it!
  12. Potter
    Potter 1 June 2018 10: 54
    +1
    Georg Haase, senior artillery officer, "On Derflinger in the Battle of Jutland":
    https://coollib.com/b/325849/read
    Information on the organization of artillery service on the battle cruiser "Derfflinger"
    Artillery fire control posts
    In total, the cruiser had three posts: a) front post, 6) rear post and c) observation post.
    a) The front post occupied the rear of the bow conning tower and was protected by 12-inch armor. It contained combat alert: a senior artillery officer and a third artillery officer (for medium caliber), one midshipman, two rangefinders, three artillery weather officers at central aiming devices and five communications service sailors. Under them, separated by a sheet metal lattice floor, there were six communication service sailors, under which, in the pear-shaped base of the conning tower, one non-commissioned officer, 2 communication service sailors and 1 galvanic non-commissioned officer were placed as a reserve. In total, there were 23 people in the front post.

    b) Rear post - respectively in the aft conning tower. It was the second artillery officer.
    c) Observation post on forsars. It contained: 1 observing officer, a signalman with a headphone, a senior artilleryman and transmitting information about the fall of shells, which he observed using optical tubes. In addition to him, there was another non-commissioned officer - an observer for medium artillery and two sailors of the communications service.
    Central posts

    The cruiser had two separate central posts: one for 12-inch artillery, the second for medium artillery. Here, all the commands from the gunners were transmitted via pipes and telephones, and the installation of artillery devices for transmitting data to guns took place here. All artillery devices, including machine guns, were located here.
    Central aiming devices
    To observe the shooting, the senior gunner had a periscope, the lens of which went out through the roof of the conning tower (in battle, the concessions of the conning tower were closed with armor caps). The central guns (Richtungsweiser) were connected to the periscope of the senior artilleryman. At the tip of the periscope, the senior gunner simultaneously moved the center-pointing arrows in the towers, with which the horizontal gunners combined the fixed arrows of the towers. The periscope had a second eyepiece on the side, with the help of which a special non-commissioned officer constantly monitored the exact aim of the periscope on the chosen target.

    Similar devices were installed for medium artillery. The periscope had a device for introducing corrections for parallax.
    A device for determining “sup” and accounting for the installation of the pillar
    Captain 2nd rank Paschen invented a special device, the essence of which was as follows: setting their course and speed, and the course and speed of the enemy automatically received “sup.” The same device automatically determined the setting of the rear sight: Setting the course and speed of the enemy, we received the target setting , which could only be corrected for the wind. Such devices were installed in very many places on the ship and were characterized by impeccable action. When the senior gunner asked "sup", he was simultaneously sent a report from the captain’s device of rank 2 Paschen a "sup", determined from the readings of the rangefinder.

    Rangefinders

    There were 7 Zeiss rangefinders on the cruiser. One of them was in the front artillery post. Each rangefinder was serviced by two rangefinders. Measurements were satisfactory up to a distance of 110 cab. The senior gunner had a counter that automatically gave the average of the readings of all rangefinders. The result was transmitted to the guns as the initial installation of the sight.
    Towers
    The towers had an alphabetical designation starting from the nose: A, B, C and D - 1) Anna, 2) Bertha, 3) Casar and 4) Dora.
    The charge of the 12-inch guns consisted of two caps: the main one in a copper sleeve and the additional one sewn into silk. Cartridges and cartridges were stored in strong tin cases.
    One shot took 30 seconds of time.
    In the battle of Jutland, they fired four-gun salvos for a long time, every 20 seconds. (one gun from the tower).
    The tower’s servants consisted of 1 officer — the tower commander, the foreman of the tower, and 75 people. servants. Their distribution was as follows: 1) in the gun compartment - 4 non-commissioned officers and 20 servants, 2) in the transfer post - 1 non-commissioned officer and 12 people. servants, 3) in the compartment of the distribution board - 1 galvanic non-commissioned officer and 3 galvaners, 4) in the shell cellar - 1 non-commissioned officer and 18 people. servants and 5) in the charging cellar - 1 non-commissioned officer and 14 servants. During the battle, 12 people joined them. spare, who entered the place of patients and vacation.
    Fall Pointers
    These devices were available in the central, front, rear and observation posts. They were turned on at each salvo by closing the circuit breakers by the volley command in the corresponding posts. The senior artilleryman heard a ringing in his head phone (characteristic beating) at the same time three pointers to the signs of the central, front and observation posts.
    Personnel
    The artillery was served by: 10 officers - the senior artilleryman, the second, third and fourth artillerymen, three tower commanders (the 4th tower, due to a shortage, was commanded by the foreman of the tower), two observing officers, one liaison officer, one ranging officer, 4 naval officers midshipman, 6 conductors, 750 non-commissioned officers and sailors (including 1 galvanic conductor, 9 galvanic non-commissioned officers and 20 galvaners).
    The device for shooting on the pitching
    This device was introduced in the German fleet after the Battle of Jutland and was tested for a decade. It is a gyroscopic device that produces a shot when the optical axis of the sight is aimed at the target. This device took into account the angular velocity of the ship's rolling in such a way that the gun fired earlier - with fast rolling and after a longer time - with slow rolling.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 June 2018 17: 11
      0
      Unfortunately, everything you quoted does not help the comparison. At the time I brought together the known to me about the SLA in a tablet

      You just understand ... Here Haze says
      Quote: Potter
      Captain 2 of Paschen rank invented a special device, the essence of which was as follows: setting their course and speed, both the course and the speed of the enemy automatically received a “sup”.

      In fact, everything is much more complicated - it’s one thing to consider the VIR of a ship going straight ahead, and if it maneuvers? Turns, and naturally loses speed at the same time? The first British models could not take this into account, then they learned, but what about the Paschen device? And such (key!) Issues - a carriage and a small cart
  13. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 June 2018 11: 56
    0
    The English ship has a better perspective for the future when the combat distance will increase and the value of horizontal booking will increase accordingly.
  14. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 1 June 2018 12: 03
    +1
    And despite the hurricane energy of John Fisher, who saw almost the main ships of the fleet in battlecruisers, the British thought farther and farther - did they need ultra-expensive, but at the same time weakly protected ships that are extremely dangerous to use in a general battle, the way even not in line, but as the fleet’s fleet vanguard?


    But the battlecruisers justified the costs incurred on them.
    I will explain. If the battleships fought in several battles and created a greater threat by their existence and the covering of high-speed forces (which is also good), the battle cruisers fought actively from the very beginning of the war. In addition, in the Battle of Jutland, the fleet wing of both the Germans and the British fulfilled their tasks as beaters - alternately luring the enemy into a general battle.
    It is not the fault of fleet forces that complete defeat did not happen.
  15. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 1 June 2018 12: 15
    +3
    But at the same time, the Derflinger is also the worst German battleship, and the reason for this is very simple. Absolutely all German battlecruisers were built as a “high-speed wing” with the line forces of hoheeflotte. And absolutely all the battlecruisers of Germany, starting from the “Von der Tanna” and “Seidlits”, inclusive, were able to fulfill this role more or less successfully. And only the ships “Derflinger” were no longer suitable for this, since the British could not resist the “high-speed wing” of the British, made up of battleships of the type “Queen Elizabeth”.


    It’s more likely that it’s more correct to say that with the advent of the Queen Elizabeth fleet of luxurious ships, the Derflinger battlecruisers ceased to have a noticeable advantage in maximum speed and their “survival” at a meeting came down to who will be able to maintain maximum speed longer - we know that German battlecruisers could.
  16. Alexander Trebuntsev
    Alexander Trebuntsev 1 June 2018 13: 28
    0
    Quote: DimanC
    ... Nevertheless, the death of the English ships must first be attributed to the characteristics of gunpowder and the notorious English traditions to keep as many charges as possible as close as possible to the guns.

    There was a documentary English film a few years ago about the English fleet. There they were just talking about the manic habit of British naval sailors to have the maximum possible number of charges, especially the main caliber. There have been repeated cases when, at the height of the battle, the main caliber ammunition ran out. So they tried to accommodate the notorious cardid to the maximum. Even some kind of admiral was called, and the admiralty was simply obsessed with this. The same hood then died due to ignition of the cardid.
  17. ser56
    ser56 1 June 2018 14: 45
    0
    Not bad! it makes it difficult to read a lot of numbers in the description, especially the reservation ... in my opinion, it would be clearer to reduce part of this information to a table, but this is only a wish.
    I note some contradiction in the author:
    "But a number of its elements (upper armored belts, barbets, etc.) did not present serious protection against more powerful 356-mm shells, and even more so, 381-mm shells."
    "about Queen Elizabeth type ships could rightfully be called" super superdreadnoughts "- their advantage over ships with 343-356-mm artillery was great enough for this."
    if you compare Queen with standard US battleships (especially with 12 guns) or ishmaels, then there is no particular superiority ... bully
    I note the author’s curious thought about the speed of Quinn, in the sense that our Sevastopols were created in a close concept of application, but they came to it earlier and developed in ismail ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 June 2018 15: 31
      0
      Quote: ser56
      I note some contradiction in the author:

      ??? :))))
      Quote: ser56
      "But a number of its elements (upper armored belts, barbets, etc.) did not present serious protection against more powerful 356-mm shells, and even more so, 381-mm shells."

      Yeah. Despite the fact that the lower armored belt still represented
      Quote: ser56
      “Queen Elizabeth” type ships could rightfully be called “super superdreadnoughts” - their advantage over ships with 343-356-mm artillery was great enough for this

      That is, the fact that the 381-mm Quin shells easily penetrated any reservation of the 343-mm dreadnought including the 305-mm armored belt, but the 343-mm guns could not penetrate the 330-mm armor - this does not count.
      Quote: ser56
      if you compare Quinn with standard US battleships (especially with 12 guns) or ismail, then you won’t see much superiority ... bully

      Glasses, as I understand it, indicate blindness that does not allow you to study the materiel? :)))) You do not see the difference between a little more than 20-knotted American irons, with a completely miserable tower design and Quins? :))))
      Quote: ser56
      I note the author’s curious thought about Quinn’s speed, in the sense that our Sevastopols were created in a close concept of application

      Were not. 23 ties of our Sevastopol flowed from a different concept. Which, as a recognized genius of the history of the Navy, generally speaking, you should know
      1. ser56
        ser56 2 June 2018 12: 56
        0
        1) Glasses mean problems with eyesight, they are not required for blindness ... This is a small touch that shows both rudeness and not the ability to formulate thoughts ... bully
        2) I see the difference, but I don’t see the significant superiority of Queen over Pennsylvania with almost equal displacement. Speed ​​is good, but 12 guns are noticeably more serious than 8 in the probability of being hit by a comparable projectile (635 / 871kg) on ​​target, like the best booking. Well, you can calculate the mass of a volley yourself. hi
        3) In fact, Poltava has developed all 24 ... as for my genius, I see you have a wounded pride, no more, with a bad education .... request
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 June 2018 13: 59
          +1
          Quote: ser56
          Glasses mean problems with eyesight, they are not required for blindness ...

          And again, past. Blind people really need glasses (moreover, they are very dark or black), because:
          a) They do not see anything, but this does not mean that their eyes do not feel anything. Glasses protect their eyes from mechanical damage - a blind man cannot see a tree branch flying pebbles flying under his face from under the wheels of a car, splashes, etc.
          b) Out of respect for others. The fact is that it is inconvenient for a blind person (like any person) to keep his eyes closed all the time. At the same time, eyes that always look at the same point and do not respond to light and so on look creepy.
          Quote: ser56
          This is a small stroke that shows both rudeness and not the ability to formulate thoughts ..

          No, this is a shallow stroke, indicating the depth of your genius. laughing
          Quote: ser56
          I see the difference, but I do not see the significant superiority of Queen over Pennsylvania

          Of course you don’t see. To do this, you still need to study the material part, to which your genius is clearly not condescending. For example, you did not bother to study what the Pennsylvania three-gun towers were - why? The booking scheme, as I understand it, you ignored too.
          In addition, you are unfamiliar with a word such as "context." If it were, then you saw that, although this is not explicitly stated anywhere, it is obvious from the context that I compared the Queens with the ships of their contemporaries, and Pennsylvania was built later than the Queens.
          Quote: ser56
          but 12 guns is noticeably more serious than 8 in the probability of being hit by a comparable projectile (635 / 871kg) on ​​the target, like the best reservation

          Hand face. You know, I already want to write a cycle about American "standard" battleships - so that you at least learn a little about them. However, if your American reservation suddenly became better than English, and 635 kg of a shell has a "comparable" effect with 871 kg ... Tell me, did you read anything about the fleet besides "Ships and battles"?
          Quote: ser56
          In fact, Poltava has developed all 24 ...

          Even such a genius as you might have guessed that the concept is laid in the design of the ship, in fact, the results achieved are by no means related to it. 23 nodal speed that Sevastopol should have achieved under the PROJECT is a consequence of a certain concept of building a fleet and the place of battleships in it. So the concept of Sevastopol is not close to the concept of a high-speed battleship.
          Quote: ser56
          as for my genius, I see you have a wounded vanity, no more, with a bad education ...

          No, Sergey, I just ran out of beads. I endured your antics for a long time, but I’m tired of it, and I communicate with you exactly as you deserve it
          1. ser56
            ser56 4 June 2018 12: 24
            0
            "Blind people really need glasses" your encyclopedic education amuses with uselessness ... bully
            "seeing the depth of your genius" and I'm also beautiful hi
            "You did not bother to study," the little informational lyrics ...
            "then I compared the Queens with the ships of their contemporaries, and Pennsylvania was built later than the Queens."
            1) Hooray, after the points went specifics ... wassat we look at the dates - it was laid down in 1913, put into operation in 1916, we take Quin laid down in 1912, put into operation in 1915 .... One year - do you have such a big difference in terms?
            2) We take your points and see my text above - I wrote about standard battleships - Nevada was founded in 1912 ...
            "However, if your American reservation suddenly got better English"
            if not a secret - why is it worse? Compared to Quinn, standard battleships are so much better!
            "Tell me, have you read anything about the fleet besides" Ships and battles "?" actually it’s your surrender - you blurted out a strange thesis and don’t see how to get out without losing your face ... hi
            "that the concept is laid in the design of the ship, in fact, the results achieved are by no means related to it." what nonsense? laughing
            "So the concept of Sevastopol is not close to the concept of a high-speed battleship." exactly the exact opposite - that’s why they had the move required to obtain tactical superiority over the Germans ... bully
            "I communicate with you exactly as you deserve it" I’m not going to re-educate you, I don’t know how to behave - this is to the parents ... bully
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              5 June 2018 20: 26
              0
              Quote: ser56
              "You did not bother to study," the little informational lyrics ...

              Sergey, if you are applying for knowledge of the history of the Navy, then an indication of the towers and the reservation system should be more than enough :)))) It is assumed that you know the shortcomings of both in comparison with the English projects, and since you have found the opportunity to equate the American battleships with the English, then, obviously, you have some arguments in favor of the Americans, leveling their shortcomings. Which I would not mind hearing :))) Who knows, maybe, while studying English-language literature, did you learn something that is not in Russian-language?
              That's just when I read
              Quote: ser56
              if not a secret - why is it worse? Compared to Quinn, standard battleships are so much better!

              I understand that your level of perception of the issue is the very “ships and battles” that I mentioned. That is, you know that American LCs received "all or nothing" and, after the authors, by and large, children's literature, you think this is cool :)))) You did not understand this issue in detail.
              Quote: ser56
              you blurted out a strange thesis and don’t see how to get out without losing your face ...

              Everything is very simple. I am paid money for articles here, but not for disputes with you. At the same time, in order to clearly explain to a little person who understands the topic why the American standard battleship worse than the British needs a very voluminous text. Therefore, the "way out" is very simple - from me an article or a cycle devoted to American battleships. Immediately after the battlecruisers, I think.
              Quote: ser56
              "So the concept of Sevastopol is not close to the concept of a high-speed battleship." exactly the exact opposite - that’s why they had the move required to obtain tactical superiority over the Germans ..

              Which means that you know nothing about Russian battleships.
              Have you ever read about the construction of the fleet before the WWII? About the squadron of standard composition in 8 LC + 4LKR + 4 KRL + ​​32 esma?
              That is, in our country, as in England or Germany, the functional was supposed to be divided into battleships and the high-speed avant-garde of battle cruisers. You see, you have a very childish perception of the term “fast battleship” - for you, this is a battleship that moves fast :))))) But in reality, a fast battleship is a battleship with the speed of a linear cruiser that makes both classes unnecessary - a standard battleship and LCR. That is, a high-speed battleship is a completely different concept of the fleet, without any high-speed avant-gardes there - these battleships are their own vanguard. And nothing was Sevastopol
              And you don’t know that the superiority of Sevastopol over standard battleships is generally small - only 0,75 knots :))) Because the “standard 21-knot” LCs had to develop 21 knots without forcing EU. In our technical assignment, it was beaten that Sevastopol without afterburner should have developed 21,75 knots - 23 afterburner, and during the trials they were 23-24 knots (actually - 23 in the jump) they developed on the afterburner. The meaning of these 0,75 knots is to be guaranteed that the enemy line will not be faster. And only that. By the way, a number of German "standard 21-knot" under 24 knots went. For example, the Kaisers in the tests showed 22,1-23,4 knots :)))
              Quote: ser56
              that the concept is laid in the ship’s design, the results actually achieved are not related to it by anyone. "what nonsense?

              Sergey, this is not nonsense, but the truth of life :))) There is a concept of using a ship. It is primary. They plan on the performance characteristics of the ship, including speed. A project is being made from them. The ship is being built under the project. And sometimes it happens that the ship shows a higher or lower speed than it should be in terms of performance characteristics :)))) But this has nothing to do with the concept :))))
              Is that too difficult for you? Which of the above seems to you delirious? :)))
              1. ser56
                ser56 6 June 2018 18: 38
                0
                "then you should have more than enough indication of the towers and the reservation system."
                but I don’t see problems with the protection of “all-or-nothing” with standard battleships, and I also think that a wide belt (5,3 m) at 343 mm is noticeably better than a narrow belt (4 m) at 330 (actually 2,3 m), it’s possible the thickness of the barbets or frontal plates to see ... what to the towers - the problems with the common cradle are not practically substantiated ... hi
                "Which I would not mind hearing :)" see above ... and what is the problem with English?
                bully
                "the track behind the authors by and large children's literature believe that this is cool :)"
                in fact, this system was not invented by children's authors ... hi and somehow everyone gradually turned to her by the 30th years ... would you read something at your leisure ...
                “I get paid for the articles here, but not for the debates with you” I sympathize, but I recommend changing the terms of the contract, inserting payment for comments ...
                "American standard battleship worse than British needs a very voluminous text"
                extremely controversial point of view ... bully wait for its development ...

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You are very childish perceive the concept of "high-speed battleship" - d
                as I understand it, you have a banal not ability to perceive arguments, you can’t even understand the text ... by the way - rudeness - innate? Or, having written several cycles of articles on secondary sources, consider yourself a super-expert? : bully
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Because the “standard 21-node” LCs had to develop 21 bonds without forcing E

                Nevada actually had a contract of 20,5uz ... bully, that before forcing - do you think that she could achieve much greater speed? And where to get the steam? hi
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                tests they are 23-24 knots (actually - 23 in a jump)

                it’s even inconvenient for you to write that the Sevastopli entered during the war and were not really tested for speed for obvious reasons ... and Poltava “jumped” by 24,6 ...

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Which of the above seems to you delirious ?:

                that when issuing TTZs to Sevastopol, they had the experience of RPE, where our EDB had problems with speed ... hence the speed inherent ... therefore de facto turned out to be a fast battleship ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Have you ever read about building a fleet before WWII? About the squadron of standard composition in 8 LC + 4LKR + 4 KRL + ​​32 esma?

                reeked of youth and Tsvetkov ... still touched by the never-built "standard" squadron ... crying
  18. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    4 June 2018 01: 20
    0
    springrain,
    Quote: Springrain
    You write that Queen Elizabeth was a fleet of the British fleet. However, it should be noted that in the fleet of battlecruisers they fought only in the Battle of Jutland, and only because the British had the opportunity to "look into the cards" of the enemy. At the same time, they had to perform several tasks: to prevent the beating of their cruisers, the lack of protection of which was recognized after Dogger Banks, to prevent the Germans from breaking away, and to seriously damage German ships. In fact, only the last was succeeded.

    I apologize, but actually the Battle of Jutland was the only battle of the main forces of the German and English fleets. It goes without saying that the Queens were used exactly where else was they used? After all, they are not battle cruisers, but a high-speed wing with the main forces of the fleet.
    Regarding the tasks - alas, I absolutely cannot agree with you. The foremost task of the vanguard is to ensure that the main forces enter the battle in the best possible configuration. For this, the vanguard must solve 2 problems:
    1) Detect the main enemy forces
    2) Do not let the enemy vanguard discover their main forces
    So, with all due respect to Hipper, his first reconnaissance group failed both of these tasks, but Beatty completed them.
    Quote: Springrain
    It should be remembered that in the Battle of Dogger Banks the British “Fischer cats” had difficulty reducing the distance to the German cruisers and, as soon as possible, began to finish off the “Blucher”. Thus, it is doubtful that the Queen Elizabeth battleships, inferior in speed by 2-3 knots, could keep up with the same Derflinger.

    So they didn’t need to do this :))) In general, note that Hipper could not break away from the 5th squadron of Evan Thomas - this is, in general, a fact, and I see no reason to recall Dogger- jar.
    Quote: Springrain
    If the Derflinger, allegedly, could not resist the new battleships, then the rest of the ships could not.

    :))))) The question is not that the Derflinger could not resist the new battleships, but that it ceased to fulfill its function as a “fast wing”. Koenig completely retained the ability to fight in line with the main forces of the British (consisting of 305 and 343-mm battleships), therefore, despite a certain weakness before the Quins, he did not lose the ability to fulfill his function. And, generally speaking, Koenig was much better protected and better armed than Derflinger, for him the battle even with the 381-mm battleship was not hopeless.
    Quote: Springrain
    If you apply your own logic, it turns out that the Rurik armored cruiser, which has earned praise from you earlier, is the worst armored cruiser in Russia, since it was supposed to meet with Von der Tann

    At the time of the beginning of the construction of the Rurik, he was one of the best DBKR in the world - it was just that he was immediately outdated with the advent of battlecruisers, and in principle, you are right.
    Quote: Springrain
    battleships of the type "Sevastopol" in terms of protection are not at all comparable with the "Kenigami"

    Only now when they were laid, the Germans did not build Koenig, but Nassau and Helgoland, against which Sevastopol was completely nothing to themselves :)
    Quote: Springrain
    In my opinion, ships should also be evaluated in terms of real results.

    a very dangerous comparison :))))) So, for example, comparing the results, you will have to equalize battlecruisers of the Invincible and Lutzov type - both of these types of ships led to the death of one of their opponents (Admiral Hood inflicted decisive damage to Lyuttsov before the death, due to which he later died, but Luttsov and Derflinger annihilated Invinible).
    In general, of course you need to compare, but ... not in the forehead.
    Quote: Springrain
    In conclusion, it must be said that conclusions from the results of the Battle of Jutland were made by both sides. The Germans created the project of the cruisers "Mackensen"

    Excuse me generously, but Mackensen was laid down on January 30, 1915, and the Battle of Jutland took place on May 31 - June 1, 1916. The Germans couldn’t take into account the results of the battle a year and a half after its laying in the Mackensen project :) hi
    1. springrain
      springrain 5 June 2018 14: 07
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      So, with all due respect to Hipper, his first reconnaissance group failed both of these tasks, but Beatty completed them.


      This is not surprising, because thanks to the fact that the Germans knew the code of the Germans, they could “peep” at the enemy’s plans and knew about where and when to search. In addition, the German fleet was discovered by light cruisers, and not the 5th squadron.

      It should also be noted that for the class of battlecruisers the following tasks are usually distinguished:
      1) reconnaissance in battle
      2) light ship support
      3) operations against enemy raiders
      4) pursuit of a retreating enemy
      5) the environment of the enemy fleet during the general battle.
      Based on the above, it can be noted that the battleships of the type “Queen Elizabeth” performed several other tasks. So, they were never used for raids on the coast of Germany, did not participate in the cover of their light forces, did not take part in the second Helgoland battle, although, based on your logic, they should have.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      So they didn’t need to do this :))) In general, note that Hipper could not break away from the 5th squadron of Evan Thomas - this is, in general, a fact, and I see no reason to recall Dogger- jar.


      I will try to explain my idea: in Jutland, the Hipper ships initially went at 18 knots - less than the British, I suspect that in order to avoid a serious gap in battle formations. And by the time Evan Thomas entered the battle, the Lutz and Von der Tann had already suffered damage and their speed had decreased. At the same time, the British evening pursuit was clearly not a success.
      Under Dogger Bank, the adversaries marched almost at maximum speed, and the British could hardly catch up with the adversary, while having superiority in speed. You can also recall how the “Goeben”, which, according to a number of sources, had a speed of no more than 24 knots calmly left the “Empress Mary”. That is, it is very doubtful that the Queen Elizabeth would have been able to intercept the battlecruisers and force the enemy to fight as they wish. Rather, only in a situation where the Germans were forced to cover the deployment of their fleet, which happened in the general battle.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      :))))) The question is not that the Derflinger could not resist the new battleships, but that it ceased to fulfill its function as a “fast wing”.


      But Hipper didn’t know that his ships were worthless!)))) Seriously, the Derflinger was not inferior in armor and armament to the British battleships up to and including the Collosus series, Orion, King George V "and Iron Duke were noticeably better in firepower and equally worse in speed, while the defense (especially artillery) was almost identical. Thus, there are only 2 series of ships that had a serious advantage: “Queen Elizabeth” and “Rivenge”, while the latter could be easily torn off. That is, only 5 ships in the British fleet had the highest degree of danger for the Derflinger type and none were able to inflict fatal damage to the German cruisers. That is, the thesis about the inadequacy of the last German cruisers can be applied with huge reservations.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In general, of course you need to compare, but ... not in the forehead.


      Exactly. There are no ideal conditions. But at the same time, at the sounding of the TTX naked comparison, you undertake to assert that “Queen Elizabeth” as a battleship performed better freedom of work than “Derflinger” as a battlecruiser. I do not say that such conclusions contradict the text of the article itself. At least, a comparison of the German battlecruisers against the adequacy of the British battleships deserves a separate publication. In fact, we have a somewhat confused and insufficiently substantiated conclusion squeezed into the article, which you called "The battle of the battle cruisers."

      I absolutely do not want to belittle the designers of British battleships and the merits of Lord Churchill. Undoubtedly, the Queen Elizabeth type was an important stage in the development of this class of ships. But cruisers of the "Derflinger" type are also important from the standpoint of the fact that they, unlike their predecessors, received a reservation for the first time, allowing them to stand in line with the battleships. Thus, both the British and Germans came close to creating high-speed battleships, just from different angles.
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 5 June 2018 14: 25
        0
        You can also recall how the “Goeben”, which, according to a number of sources, had a speed of no more than 24 knots quietly left the “Empress Mary”.

        What's so strange about that?
        1. springrain
          springrain 5 June 2018 15: 34
          0
          Nothing at all. I wanted to say that in those days, the difference in speed of 3 knots was quite significant. At the same time, the estimated speed of Derflinger is 28 knots, that is, by the same 3 knots more than Queen Elizabeth
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        5 June 2018 20: 00
        0
        Quote: Springrain
        This is not surprising, because thanks to the fact that the Germans knew the code of the Germans, they could “peep” at the enemy’s plans and knew about where and when to search.

        Sorry, but you didn’t understand me. This is not about the fact that the British found the Germans out, but about the actions of the avant-garde during the battle. Hipper brought the ships of Beatty and Evan Thomas to their main forces - he simply had to flee to them, the battleships of the 5th squadron left him no choice. After this Beatty was already running, but he maneuvered so as to get Hipper away from his battleships and he succeeded - the unsuspecting Scheer buried himself right in the British line
        Quote: Springrain
        Based on the above, it can be noted that the battleships of the type “Queen Elizabeth” performed several other tasks. So, they were never used for raids on the coast of Germany, did not participate in the cover of their light forces, did not take part in the second Helgoland battle, although, based on your logic, should

        It’s hard for me to understand why my logic is so difficult to understand :)))) Let's do it again. The Queens were not battlecruisers. They were intended to perform the function of a high-speed wing with the main forces - this was their key task. The Germans had a similar function as large cruisers. How does this conclude that the Queens, by analogy with the battlecruisers, should operate somewhere in Helgoland Bay? :))))
        Quote: Springrain
        I will try to explain my idea: in Jutland, the Hipper ships initially went at 18 knots - less than the British, I suspect that in order to avoid a serious gap in battle formations. And by the time Evan-Thomas entered the battle, the Lutz and Von der Tann had already suffered damage and their speed had decreased

        I apologize, but the speed of these ships was not reduced during that period of the battle. Hipper walked at 18 knots before the battle, after it started he raised the speed to 21 knots, and when battleships appeared, he reached 23 knots.
        Quote: Springrain
        With Dogger Bank, opponents walked at almost maximum speed.

        20-23 knots :))))))
        Quote: Springrain
        That is, it is very doubtful that the Queen Elizabeth would have been able to intercept battlecruisers and force the enemy to fight as they wish

        I may surprise you, but this is not the task of the fleet avant-garde :))) His goal is to identify the position of the main forces, and then, when they are drawn into a linear battle, to place the crossing T. The vanguard of the enemy is interested in so far as it interferes complete this task. It does not interfere - there is no need to be distracted by it. On the other hand, the Quins simply turning towards LCR make them retreat, that is, they do not allow them to get closer to their main forces
        Quote: Springrain
        That is, only 5 ships in the British Navy had the highest degree of danger for the type of Derflinger.

        And it was with them that the Germans had to fight :)))
        Quote: Springrain
        and not one was able to inflict mortal damage to the German cruisers. That is, the thesis about the inadequacy of the last German cruisers can be applied with huge reservations.

        There is only one caveat - the British have no sane armor-piercing shells :)))) There are no others :)))
        Quote: Springrain
        But at the same time, at the sounding of the TTX naked comparison, you undertake to assert that “Queen Elizabeth” as a battleship performed better freedom of work than “Derflinger” as a battlecruiser.

        Sorry, but I already want to ask you to re-read the article again. I have not claimed anything like this. I argued that Derflinger could not play his key role as a fleet vanguard because the British, for their part, put Queens into the fleet vanguard, whom Derflinger could not fight
        1. springrain
          springrain 7 June 2018 14: 33
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I argued that Derflinger could not play his key role as a fleet vanguard because the British, for their part, put Queens into the fleet vanguard, whom Derflinger could not fight


          Nevertheless, ships of the Derflinger type were the first battlecruisers in the German fleet, whose reservation allowed them to survive for a sufficient time under shelling of the battleships, the same Von der Tann and Seidlitz made their way much easier. And if you compare with the rest of the European fleets, then by booking it can be written in battleships. The anti-torpedo protection of the German cruisers was also at a high level, which was confirmed more than once.
          It can also be noted that even during the disassembly of the Hindenburg in 1930, its design was carefully studied by the British, in Russian and Western historiography the project is evaluated very positively. So your best-worst score seems tense. However, this is my private opinion.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The Queens were not battlecruisers. They were intended to perform the function of a high-speed wing with the main forces - this was their key task. The Germans had a similar function as large cruisers. How does this conclude that the Queens, by analogy with the battlecruisers, should operate somewhere in Helgoland Bay? :))))


          I had in mind the fact that German cruisers in real life performed a slightly wider range of tasks, and cruising rather than battleship qualities were required of them. And Queen Elizabeth is the striking force of a linear fleet in its purest form.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          There is only one caveat - the British have no sane armor-piercing shells :)))) There are no others :)))


          If everything has changed so much, could you give me a link where you can read about these shells, you yourself could not find it yet.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I argued that Derflinger could not play his key role as a fleet vanguard because the British, for their part, put Queens into the fleet vanguard, whom Derflinger could not fight


          It seems to me that the question should be posed not only regarding the ability of the last German cruisers to withstand the Queens, but also generally about the adequacy of the continuation of the construction of two subclasses of battleships with the advent of high-speed battleships. At the same time, the British also cannot be called strict followers of this concept - after the Queens, the Rivenge series was launched at a speed of 21 knots and the Ripals and Rinaun cruisers, which, with excellent armor, returned almost to the Invincible level . To be honest, I can’t understand why changing a great battleship project and making a slow “iron” out of it, despite the fact that the savings are not significant.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            7 June 2018 17: 45
            0
            Quote: Springrain
            It seems to me that the question should be posed not only regarding the ability of the last German cruisers to withstand the Queens, but also generally about the adequacy of the continuation of the construction of two subclasses of battleships with the advent of high-speed battleships.

            Actually, this is what we are talking about - despite all the advantages of the Derflingers, they are outdated as a class
  19. NF68
    NF68 6 June 2018 19: 37
    0
    Quote: ser56
    I don’t see the point in the dispute - it’s one thing a technician, another thing an opportunity - even Bismarck fought with 23km in the Danish Strait, but fell from a distance of about 16 ...


    Why argue then? Real German specialists knew these matters better than we did, and if they did it, then they had good reasons.