Military Review

Rifle battle cruisers. "Hood" and "Ersatz York". H. 2

46
History the projections of the last (of those built) British battlecruiser “Hood”, according to F. Kofman, aptly noted, “reminds the saga of how the Admiralty tried to create a very bad ship. But at the last moment this “idea” was either canceled altogether, or underwent such extensive changes that the final version had completely different qualities compared to the original one. ”


Recall that after the construction of the five magnificent battleships like "Queen Elizabeth" and then the same number of less high-speed and somewhat better protected Royal Soverens, the British were going to lay down another "Queen Elizabeth" and three "Sovereigns" in order to bring the number " 381-mm "high-speed battleships up to six, and the ships of the line - up to eight. Such a development of linear forces was more than reasonable, because it provided the line and high-speed wing with the strongest and sufficiently protected ships. In Germany, the construction of “21-node” battleships armed with 380-mm guns was delayed, so that by the time the first four Bayerns could be completed, the British would have twice as many Royal Royals. At the same time, the Germans did not build high-speed battleships at all, placing the task of the “high-speed wing” on battlecruisers, but with all the merits of German ships of this class they could not resist the Queen Elizabeth ships.



Thus, the 1914 program, providing for the construction of four "381-mm" battleships, was both reasonable and logical. However, these plans were prevented by the war and the laying did not take place: it was assumed that the ships of this program would not have time to enter service before the end of hostilities. Then Winston Churchill and his friend and teacher D. Fisher came to power, and from that moment the English shipbuilding unexpectedly demonstrated a number of bizarre movements in the creation of battleships and battlecruisers.

First, the Ripals and Rinaun, the first 381-mm battle cruisers in the world, were very fast, but had extremely weak protection. After that, the “big light cruisers” of the Koreijs, the Glories and the Furyes were laid, which historians later considered light linear - however, they could not resist the linear cruisers of Germany. All these ships were created on the initiative of D. Fisher, but in May 1915 of the “Era Fisher” ended irrevocably: he left the post of First Sea Lord, and this time - forever. It was possible to assume that with the departure of D. Fisher, the era of designing large strange ships would also cease, but there it was! In 1915, the reasons that had been forced to abandon the construction of battleships a year earlier lost their meaning - the war took a protracted nature and could not see the end-edge.

So, it was decided to return to the battleships, but ... which ones? The British considered their "Queen Elizabeth" and "Royal Soverins" quite successful, and were going to take one of these battleships as a basis, but to build new ships on an improved project. Of course, the admirals had to indicate the direction of modernization, especially since they had already managed to acquire some combat experience. The sailors demanded to increase the height of the freeboard, raise the mine-artillery battery by one deck space (i.e., rearrange the guns from the main deck to the forecastle deck) and - the most original - reduce the draft to 4 meters!

You can, of course, assume that the ideas of D. Fisher were transmitted by airborne droplets and led to serious complications, but this is not so. The fact is that D. Fisher substantiated the small draft of his line and "big light" cruisers by the need to act in small parts of the Baltic, but the British admirals in 1915 had completely different reasons. They believed that such ships would be much better protected from the torpedo weapons, at the same time it will be much easier to fight for survivability on them. In addition, a decrease in precipitation with an increase in width would allow a constructive anti-torpedo protection to be placed.

The thing is that the Royal battleships fleet were in constant readiness for Armageddon - a general battle with the German fleet of the open sea. Accordingly, battleships and battlecruisers constantly had full reserves of fuel and ammunition, and in addition, military needs led to the appearance of various cargoes not provided for during the design, and all this led to overloading. The actual draft of the British battleships began to reach 9-10 meters, and this was unacceptable for a number of reasons. Firstly, damage to the hull from a mine or torpedo at such a depth led to the entry of water under very high pressure, which made the struggle for survivability more difficult. Secondly, a large draft reduced the already not too high freeboard, making the battleships very “wet”. Accordingly, mine artillery, located in the casemates at the level of the main deck, was flooded with water in fresh weather and could not fulfill its function.

Of course, the designers did not support the idea of ​​ultra-low draft at all, explaining to the military the technical difficulties of creating such a “punt” with a very long and wide body, eventually agreed on the draft in 7,3 m, apparently increasing the latter to 8 m. Here it is very important understand that speaking of 8 m, we mean the draft in full load: for example, the battleships "Remmilles" and "Rivendzh" had such in 9,79 m and 10,10 m, respectively. Thus, according to the plans of the shipbuilders, the draft of the projected battleships should have decreased by about 2 meters from that which the last British ships of this class actually had.

As a result, the Queen Elizabeth battleship was taken as a basis, but the new battleship (project A) turned out to be much longer and wider - the maximum length should have been 247 m against 196,8 m, and the width - 31,7 m against 27,58 m in the prototype. Draft in full load was supposed to be 8 m, normal displacement - 31 000 t. It was assumed that with such a body a new battleship with equal to the "Queen Elizabeth" power of the mechanisms (75 000 hp) could develop a significantly higher speed - 26,5-27 knots The armament was represented by eight 381-mm guns, anti-mine caliber - a dozen of the newest, not yet adopted 127-mm artillery systems. It was assumed that this caliber will be a good compromise in ammunition power and rate of fire between the 102-mm and 152-mm guns.

In principle, this project could have been considered very successful if not for one “but” - the thickness of its armor belt did not exceed 254 mm! Unfortunately, the author of this article could not figure out why this happened, since Russian-speaking sources almost do not contain information about this project. Logically, we can assume that using the same tools and the same power plant used on the Queen Elizabeth in the new project, the British should have received a citadel of approximately the same length, but with the increase in the ship’s length than on 50 m, the protection of its extremities should have become longer and, accordingly, heavy. In addition, within the citadel, the British battleships traditionally received the protection of the entire side up to the upper deck, and it can be assumed that this time they did the same. Accordingly, due to the increase in the height of the freeboard, the British probably had to increase the height of the upper armor belt, and perhaps the main one (which is most likely because the same F. Kofman indicates that the 254-mm armor belt had a greater height), which led to the need to "thin butter over the sandwich".



However, regardless of the reasons that caused such a weakening of the body armor, there is no doubt that this “innovation” killed the project at the root. Ten inches of armor did not look absolutely sufficient even against 305-mm guns, and it was known that the newest Kaiser ships would get much more powerful artillery systems. At the same time, 254-mm armor could count a maximum to hold the high-explosive 380-mm projectile, and then, probably, not at all combat distances. Quite recently (when designing Queen Elizabeth type battleships), seamen declared the protection of the battlecruisers too weak and declared a desire to get well-protected high-speed battleships - and suddenly such.

But this project also had another drawback - the excess width, which limited the number of docks into which the ship could be led. Therefore, in the second version (project “B”), the width of the ship was reduced to 27,4 m (by analogy with “Queen Elizabeth”). The power of the power plant was also reduced to 60 000 hp, with which the ship could develop no more than 25 knots. Armament and booking remained the same as the project "A". The displacement decreased to 29 500 T, but the sediment increased by 60 cm, reaching 8,6 m.

The project "B" also did not suit the British, but for further work was taken "Royal Sauverin". British shipbuilders presented the C-1 and C-2 projects based on it: both battleships received eight 381-mm and ten 127-mm guns, the speed was reduced to 22 nodes, which allowed the power plant to have a nominal power of 40 000 hp The ships differed slightly in size, while the "C-1" had all the same width 31,7 m as the project "A". In C-2, it was slightly reduced, and was 30,5 m. C-1 had a slightly larger displacement (27 600 t against 26 250 t) and a smaller draft (8,1 m against 8,7 m). Alas, both ships carried the same, completely inadequate 254-mm reservation.

Then the British tried to develop "Queen Elizabeth" but with a high board and draft in 8 m (project "D"). Alas, here they were also disappointed - compared to projects A and B, the maximum length was reduced (to 231 m), the width remained as in project A (31,7 m), which imposed known limitations on docking the battleship. Draft exceeded the planned and amounted to 8,1 m. It was assumed that with the power installation capacity of 60 000 HP the ship will be able to develop 25,5 bonds. The main caliber was represented by the same eight 381-mm in four towers, and the mine caliber - by a dozen 140-mm guns. The displacement at the same time was 29 850 t, and the vertical protection of the case was limited to 254-mm armor plates.

On the whole, it can be stated that in all the submitted projects, the sailors' wishes for high-booting and less sediment were fulfilled to varying degrees, while the British battleships received, finally, constructive anti-torpedo protection (it is indicated that it was rather primitive, but not less). However, the price for this was a critical weakening of the reservation, so none of the five projects reviewed above can be considered successful. All five projects were submitted to the commander of the Grand Fleet D. Jellico, and the admiral, quite predictably, “hacked” them all. At the same time, he told the Admiralty in general that the Royal Navy absolutely did not need new battleships. This was motivated by the fact that the Grand Fleet already has a tangible superiority in numbers over Hohzeeflott (which was absolutely true even with the completion of Bayern type battleships), while the quality of British battleships turned out to be quite satisfactory, “there are no big claims to existing battleships ".

Strangely enough, but D. Jellico did not see the point at all of the further construction of an “intermediate” type of battleship with a speed of 25-27. In his response to the Admiralty, the commander of the Grand Fleet said that two types of ships should be built: "21-node" battleships and "30-node" high-speed battle cruisers. Interestingly, domestic sources have significant differences on this issue: for example, the above speeds are given by A.A. Mikhailov, while F. Kofman argues that they were talking about "22-nodal" battleships and "32-nodal" cruisers. Thus, D. Jelliko essentially took a “step back” on the road to the high-speed battleship - instead of combining the classes of battleship and battlecruisers into one (at least to perform the functions of a high-speed wing), he again proclaimed the separation “low-speed battleship - high-speed battle cruiser” . What made D. Jellico to take such a step?

On the one hand, the charge of retrograde seems to be suggesting, but if you think about it, it is not. Apparently, the problem was that D. Jelliko strongly overestimated the capabilities of the German battle cruisers.

The fact is that, according to available data, the British assumed that the last German ships of this class (of the Derflinger type) developed at least 30 nodes. This well explains the desire of D. Fisher to give the RIPALS and Rinaun 32-nodal speed: The First Sea Lord bluntly said that the Royal Navy except the Tiger did not have the same high-speed ships that the Germans would receive. Perhaps, of course, it was just a maneuver to build the battlecruisers so sweet to D. Fisher’s heart, but it is possible that the old sailor really believed what he was saying. And if this is true, the situation from the bridge of the flagship battleship Grand Fleet could look very different than from our cozy chairs.

You and I, dear readers, know that the Germans were able to put into operation only three Derflinger-class battlecruisers armed with 305-mm cannons, while their speed did not seem to exceed 27, the maximum is 28 nodes. But “three is not a heap”, these ships could not form an independent connection, especially since by the time the third of them (the Hindenburg) was put into operation, the second (the “Lutzov”) had already died. In any case, Derflingers could act only in the same line, together with Moltke and Von der Tann, which were nevertheless somewhat less fast in everyday use.

The British high-speed battleships calculated the speed of 25 nodes, but in fact they did not reach it (on average, it was between 24,5 and 25 knots) and the difference in speed between the Queen Elizabeth squadron and the squadron of German battle cruisers was relatively small. As a matter of fact, in the Jutland battle of Quina, Evan-Thomas caught up with the battle cruisers of Hipper's 1 reconnaissance group, despite the fact that they were formally inferior in speed. Therefore, the somewhat better speed qualities of the Hochzeeflot battlecruisers in a squadron battle did not give them a great tactical advantage over British high-speed battleships, and they could not fight on an equal footing with the Quinas.

The subsequent series of Germanic battlecruisers, the Mackensen and Ersatz York, received more powerful artillery, retaining approximately the same level of protection. Accordingly, it was impossible to expect a breakthrough in speed from them, and there wasn’t one there - ships of this type calculated on the achievement of 27-28 knots. Interestingly, a sensible improvement of the British Queen Elizabeth type could give the ship, in terms of its tactical and technical characteristics, very close to Ersatz York - that is, eight 381-mm guns, increased to 32 000 - 33 000 t normal displacement, booking at the level of the same “Rivendzha” and speed within 26,5-27 nodes (Ersatz York ”- 27,25 knots). Such a British ship would be the best suited to oppose the newest German battlecruisers. He did not have any fundamental advantages over his German counterpart, but this is not surprising: for its dimensions, Ersatz York could be considered an almost perfectly balanced high-speed battleship. An equivalent ship could be built within its displacement, but a superior ship could not.

Thus, from the standpoint of opposition to Hohzeeflotte, the development of queen-type battleships of the Queen Elizabeth type would be optimal for the Royal Navy, but ... we know this. And John Jellico believed that the German battlecruisers, having received the new 350-380-mm guns, will have a speed of at least 30 nodes. Together with the already built ships of the Derflinger type, they could form an “30-node” high-speed wing — while D. Jellico saw that the Queen Elizabeth still did not reach the estimated speed, albeit slightly. But he obviously did not want to build 26,5-27-hubs, to actually get 26-26,5-hubs, and then wrestle with how to resist the German 30-hub cruisers.

Thus, the position of D. Jellicho was absolutely logical and justified, only based on an incorrect postulate - the allegedly existing 30-nodal speed of the German battle cruisers. But if we accept this postulate as a given, we will easily understand the concerns of the British commander. Formally, in 1915 g, he had 10 battlecruisers against German 5s, but of these, only four ships of the Lyon and Tiger types were more or less in line with the latest Derflinger type cruisers, and the six older 305-mm The cruisers could not even catch them. At the same time, the British expected that after the “Luttsov” at least three ships of a similar type would enter service, but with heavier artillery (350-380-mm), which the British ships lost even in their traditionally strongest line - the power of artillery. At the same time, D. Jelliko rightly did not consider the "Ripales" and "Rinaun" (and even more so - the "Koreijes") capable of opposing the German ships of the same class. These considerations and dictated his views on the further construction of heavy ships for the Royal Navy: refusing the battleships, D. Jellico demanded modern and high-speed battle cruisers. The requirements for them from the Commander Grand Fleet were as follows:

1. Ships must carry eight main-caliber guns - a smaller number of them not only reduces the weight of the side salvo, but also creates difficulties in zeroing;

2. In this case, 381-mm guns should be considered as minimally acceptable, if it is possible to install heavier tools, then this should be done;

3. Mine caliber weapons must be at least 120-mm, and their number must not be less than a dozen;

4. You don’t need to get involved in torpedo tubes, it’s enough to have two airborne ones, but the torpedoes should be increased;

5. The average armor belt should be at least 180 mm, the top one at least 100 mm, and due to the increase in artillery fighting distances, the lower armor deck should be at least 60 mm thick. Interestingly, about the main belt D. Jellico did not say absolutely nothing;

6. As for speed, then, in the opinion of the author of this article, those who claim that D. Jellico demanded 30 nodes are right.

In addition, the commander Grand Fleet expressed other, less significant wishes, sometimes - rather strange properties, such as the presence of a single mast (according to D. Jellico, two masts allowed the enemy to better determine the speed and course of the ship). He thought it was possible to increase the draft to 9 m.

It is necessary to say that the Admiralty fully supported the requirements of D. Jellico and the work began to boil - two groups of designers pored over the design of the newest battlecruiser. General management was carried out by the head of the Shipbuilding Office Tennyson d'Einkort.

Interesting was the design method. First, the shipbuilders determined the maximum size of the ship that they can afford (taking into account the possibilities of docking). It turned out that the battlecruiser should be extremely 270 m long, 31,7 m wide, and the draft, as mentioned earlier, should be no more than 9 m. These dimensions made it possible to create a high-speed and high-grade ship within 39 000 - 40 000 t ., and then began the method of elimination. Armament was identified in 8 * 381-mm in four two-gun turrets, and a dozen 140-mm. The power of the machines, which would provide speed in 30 knots, should have been at least 120 000 hp Also, the ship had to get sufficient fuel reserves in order to ensure the range of travel corresponding to that the British expected from this class (unfortunately, there is no exact data for the first project, but for further options the normal fuel supply was 1200 t, and the full 4 000 t).

And when the characteristics of weapons and equipment were determined, which it was impossible to sacrifice, then further design went "from the opposite." In other words, having calculated the weight of all the necessary - weapons, hull, vehicles and fuel, and minimizing it from the maximum possible displacement, the British designers received the reserve they could spend on other needs, including booking. Alas, as it turned out, the newest battlecruiser could get the maximum 203 mm side armor, and, apparently, this option seemed unacceptable to designers. Therefore, the Shipbuilding Directorate proposed not one, but two projects of the battle cruisers.

The key difference between them was that in the second project a power plant was used, using so-called thin-tube boilers, so named because the water-heating tubes installed in them had a relatively small diameter. The efficiency of such boilers significantly exceeded the traditional ones using wide pipes, but the Admiralty for a long time did not agree to use the novelty, believing that the old boilers are more reliable and easy to maintain. Nevertheless, it was impossible to ignore progress, and thin-tube boilers began to be installed on the ships of the Royal Navy — first on destroyers, then on light cruisers. Practice has shown that the admiralty’s fears are, in general, in vain; nevertheless, it continued to oppose the installation of such boilers on large ships. Tubular boilers were offered to be installed on the "Tiger"



and on the queen-type battleships of the Queen Elizabeth, it was expected that with the same weight of the power plant the ships would be able to reach 32 and 27 knots, but the admirals rejected these proposals. They did not want to see the thin-tube boilers in the new project, but then Tennyson d'Einkort managed to make an offer that could not be refused.

The second draft of the cruiser had only one fundamental difference - thin-tube boilers of the same horsepower 120 000. But due to the mass savings of the power plant, the battle cruiser turned out to be faster on the 0,5 node, its onboard booking was brought to 254 mm and with all this it turned out easier on the 3 500! The hull decreased in length by 14 m, the draft is reduced by 30 cm.

The Admiralty was unable to refuse such an abundance of benefits, after considering the projects, approved the second option (with thin-tube boilers) and further design proceeded on its basis. In total, four projects were prepared (No. 3-6), and three of them (No. 4-6) were supposed to be armed with 4; 6 and 8 with 457-mm tools, the displacement was to be 32 500; 35 500 and 39 500 tons. The speed was maintained at the level of 30 nodes (for the project with 6 * 457-mm - 30,5 knots), and the armor belt was again reduced to 203 mm.

Surprisingly, but the fact is that the admirals did not at all “value” the booking of the ship. We have already said that even the 254 mm for the battle cruiser looked like an overly weak defense, but the attempt by the Shipbuilding Directorate to return even to such armor did not meet with the support of sailors. In variants 4-6, booking became a victim of monstrous 457-mm guns, and in variant No. 3, in which the main caliber consisted of 8 * 381-mm and which eventually became the main, the admirals preferred to reduce armor from 254 mm to 203 mm in order to bring the speed from 30 to 32 nodes. It was assumed that for this the cruiser would need to be equipped with an 160 000 hp power plant, the normal displacement should have been 36 500 t.

Subsequently, this option, of course, refined. The power of the machines was reduced to 144 000 hp, having found the reserves of weights (including due to savings on the power plant) and at the expense of reducing the displacement and decreasing sludge while maintaining the speed of the 32 node. The ship received a very high board (a bow height of 9,7 m, the forecastle at the very bottom - 7,16 m, feed - 5,8 m).

As for booking, unfortunately, the author has not found his schemes, and from the descriptions it looks like this. The battle cruiser received an extensive 203 mm belt of armor, and apparently he (as well as the Invincible and Rinaun armor belts) covered both the machine and boiler rooms and the areas of the art calves of the main caliber towers. Further, the belt was thinner in the bow and stern to 127 and 102 mm, the citadel was closed by a traverse with a thickness from 76 to 127 mm, supposedly there were several of them in the bow and stern. Over 203 mm there were two more armored belts, at first - 127 mm, above - 76 mm. The armor deck within the citadel was 38 mm thick - both in the horizontal part and on the bevels. Outside the citadel, it most likely passed below the waterline and had 51 mm in the bow, and 63 mm in the stern. Above the armor deck outside the citadel was another intermediate deck (25-51 mm in the bow and 25-63 mm in the stern). In addition, there was a thick forecastle deck, which had a variable thickness from 25 to 38 mm, and in the stern, where the forecastle ended, the main deck had an 25 mm. The thickness of the battle-room armor was 254 mm aft (for controlling torpedo firing) received 152 mm.

The armor of the towers exceeded that of the Rinaun (229 mm) and had 280 mm forehead, 254 mm side walls and 108 mm roof. But alas - the barbets were exactly the same (178 mm), that is, in this respect, the new project was inferior even to "Tiger". The head of the Shipbuilding Department himself appreciated the protection of the new battlecruisers "at the" Tiger "level, and it probably was like that - certainly the 203 mm main armor belt covering the machines of the boilers and the main artillery was better than the 229 mm Tiger armor belt protecting only Machines and boilers - the side opposite the GK artillery was covered with only 127 mm plates. But the barbettes, alas, were weaker protected.

As for the weapons, there were two options. Both of them included 8 * 381-mm in four two-gun turrets, but option "A" suggested placing 12 * 140-mm gun mounts and four torpedo tubes, in version "B" it was proposed to increase the number of 140-mm guns to 16, and torpedo tubes cut to two, with option "B" was heavier on 50 tons. Accordingly, the displacement of the battle cruiser was 36 250 t in variant “A” and 36 300 t in variant “B”

It took the Admiralty ten days to review projects and on 7 on April 1916, it approved option “B”.

If we compare this ship with the German Ersatz York, we will see the obvious and, literally, overwhelming superiority in booking the latter. So, for example, in order to get into the cellar of a German battle cruiser through the main armor belt, the British projectile had to first overcome 300 mm, and then 50-60 mm vertical armor (anti-torpedo armored), while the German one - 203 mm and 38 mm bevel (the only advantage of which was its inclined arrangement). To penetrate the horizontal part of the deck over the side, the German projectile was enough to break through the 127 mm medium or 76 mm upper armor and pierce the 38 mm horizontal armor, the English - at least 200-270 mm side and 30 mm horizontal deck armor. If we consider only horizontal booking (for example, when a shell hit the deck along the axis of the ship), then the protection of the English and German battlecruisers is approximately equivalent.

Medium artillery "Ersatz York" is located in the dungeons and had much better protection. On the other hand, openly standing 140-mm guns of the British ship were located much higher above sea level and were not flooded - in various combat situations this or that option could be preferable, so here we can talk about approximate equality. The main caliber of the battle cruisers, despite the difference in concepts of its creation (“heavy projectile - low initial speed” among the British and “light projectile - high initial speed” among Germans), should probably be considered equivalent in their combat capabilities. As for speed, there was an obvious advantage over the British battle cruiser, which was supposed to develop the 32 knots. against 27,25 ties Ersatz York. Without a doubt, the English ship could catch up with the Germans, or escape from it, and, in principle, the newest 381-mm armor-piercing shells of the “Greenboy” could well defeat the German defense if they were lucky. However, for the Ersatz York guns, the British battle cruiser, with its booking roughly equivalent to the Tiger, was literally a “crystal” one — its defense made its way to any point at almost every conceivable combat distance. In this respect, the battle cruiser of the project “B” was not much different from the “Rinaun” (the sharpened dining knife doesn’t care about the thickness of the apple peel).

The Admiralty placed an order for three battlecruisers of type “B” 19 on April 1916, and on July 10 they received the names: “Hood”, “Hove” and “Rodney”. Three days later another ship of this type, the Anson, was ordered. The shipyards began preparations for the construction and collection of materials for the first three battlecruisers at the beginning of May, and less than a month later, on November 31 1916, the main ship of the series “Huda” was laid.



But - an amazing coincidence! It was on this day that the grandiose clash of two strongest fleets of the world took place - the Jutland battle.

To be continued ...
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
Rifle battle cruisers. "Derflinger" against "Tiger"? H. 3
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Rinaun and Mackensen
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Rinaun and Mackensen
Rifle battle cruisers. Large light cruisers "Koreydzhes"
Rifle battle cruisers. "Hood" and "Ersatz York"
46 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. kvs207
    kvs207 11 July 2018 06: 42
    +10
    Bravo, Andrey.
    I'd love to see your cycle, combined into a single whole. I’m not talking about the book, but something like my site, blog, etc.
    1. Vedzmin
      Vedzmin 11 July 2018 14: 25
      +1
      I support you, I wrote to the author about this several times. Perhaps in the form of a large publication in some historical journal.
    2. pacific
      pacific 13 July 2018 00: 19
      0
      I also thought about it.
      Moreover, this cycle about linear cruisers is not the only one.
  2. Potter
    Potter 11 July 2018 08: 00
    +2
    Thank! A lot of interesting and partly new information for me regarding options that preceded the construction of Hood.
    Indeed, the best is the enemy of the good! In an effort to answer imaginary challenges, the British abandoned the development of excellent, balanced ships. And they began the construction of a variety of monstrous vessels.
    The finale is known; it came 25 years later with Bismarck’s main caliber shells.
    1. Kuroneko
      Kuroneko 12 July 2018 06: 20
      0
      Quote: Potter
      Indeed, the best is the enemy of the good! In an effort to answer imaginary challenges, the British abandoned the development of excellent, balanced ships. And they began the construction of a variety of monstrous vessels.

      This was periodically sinned by ALL maritime powers, without exception. This is inevitable.
      Quote: Potter
      The finale is known; it came 25 years later with Bismarck’s main caliber shells.

      Hih, it’s not so reliably “known,” I assure you. ^ _ ^ "Huda" could completely sink the "Prince Eugen." And there are evidence in favor of this. This is not to mention the fact that the “Hood” probably did not explode because of its “imbalance” - but as, say, a “victim of progress” (it was installed on it by the very dubious UP - Unrotated Projectile anti-aircraft guns). BK which could ignite the Eugen.
  3. DimanC
    DimanC 11 July 2018 08: 36
    +1
    Shchikarno :-) In general, it is amazing how strong the traditions were on both sides of the strait: some were afraid of something and could not establish a “normal” high-speed battleship, while the latter were so chasing speed that they simply swept away everything else
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 11 July 2018 12: 11
      +2
      It was just that some had extremely limited resources and obviously superior opponents, which implied the construction of well-balanced ships, while others had the most powerful fleet in the world and the ability to experiment as they pleased. In order to correct possible miscalculations in shipbuilding due to application tactics. Another thing is that some were so lazy that they could not realize their many advantages and for some reason put crystal ships in line, but that's another story.
      1. dumkopff
        dumkopff 11 July 2018 12: 33
        +1
        Regarding crystal: In a previous article, it was noted that German battlecruisers also used to break through to the “thickest places” (for example, broken Seydlitz barbets in a Dogger Bank battle). But the British cellars exploded loudly with the most sad consequences for the ships, while the Germans all burned, but did not explode.
        1. DimanC
          DimanC 11 July 2018 15: 54
          0
          Sobsna, if not for the English powder, the Germans would hardly have drowned anything there. The British showed that a ship of the first rank can also be sent to the bottom by shelling it with shells. I note that torping by torpedoes was not common at that time, as in WWII
      2. DimanC
        DimanC 11 July 2018 15: 52
        0
        It should be noted that the development of German ships was quite smooth, without jumps. Only their almost fundamental refusal to build the most powerful models is surprising. To the campaign, their budget was also formed from loans from bankers
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 11 July 2018 16: 35
          +1
          Moreover, bankers of one very well-known nationality. Subsequently, Aloizych did not just love them ;-) Which of course does not excuse him.
        2. NF68
          NF68 11 July 2018 19: 33
          0
          Quote: DimanC
          It should be noted that the development of German ships was quite smooth, without jumps. Only their almost fundamental refusal to build the most powerful models is surprising. To the campaign, their budget was also formed from loans from bankers


          There, the shallow depths of the Baltic and North Seas and the Navy on the shores of these seas played even greater importance. Before the WWII, because of this, the Germans had a very long, expensive and tedious way to deepen the fairways and parking lots of ships. Before WWII, the Germans needed once again to properly dig up the soil from the bottom of the sea since the depths were small for new heavy surface ships with greater draft.
    2. prodi
      prodi 12 July 2018 09: 46
      0
      A full-fledged high-speed battleship is too expensive and complicated. It seems that the battlecruiser was supposed to be fast, but due to what? Less trunks of hl caliber - obviously, but less booking, coupled with less displacement and, preferably, length; or just stupidly increasing the power of cars in the size of a battleship?
      1. NF68
        NF68 12 July 2018 15: 10
        0
        Quote: prodi
        A full-fledged high-speed battleship is too expensive and complicated. It seems that the battlecruiser was supposed to be fast, but due to what? Less trunks of hl caliber - obviously, but less booking, coupled with less displacement and, preferably, length; or just stupidly increasing the power of cars in the size of a battleship?


        Nevertheless, the Germans, after a careful study of the results of the Battle of Jutland, nevertheless decided to build precisely after the Bayerns the high-speed battleship L-20 whose weapons should be significantly more powerful than the Bayerns, and the maximum speed in 26 nodes will be slightly lower than those previously built German battlecruisers, but noticeably higher than the Bayerns:

        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. prodi
          prodi 12 July 2018 15: 33
          0
          so what? These are battleships. 26 nodes - typically, 8 more powerful trunks (instead of the smaller 12 caliber) - controversial (in terms of armored opponents)
          1. NF68
            NF68 12 July 2018 18: 26
            0
            Quote: prodi
            so what? These are battleships. 26 nodes - typically, 8 more powerful trunks (instead of the smaller 12 caliber) - controversial (in terms of armored opponents)


            It is debatable or not debatable, but in reality, even before the start of the WWII and especially after it, almost all the countries most developed in terms of the Navy built and designed mainly battleships and battlecruisers with the number of HA barrels equal to 8 or 9 larger than 12 caliber such an armament option during the WWII in practice has shown its advantage over other weapons options.
            1. prodi
              prodi 12 July 2018 18: 35
              0
              I do not argue with statistics, although it was too little in the history of battleships
              1. The comment was deleted.
  4. dumkopff
    dumkopff 11 July 2018 12: 35
    +1
    It reads like an exciting novel. That's just "Well, as always ... In the most interesting place."
  5. Fagotron
    Fagotron 11 July 2018 12: 38
    +4
    By the way, about the speed of the Queen Elizabeth battleships. During the persecution of the Italians before the Matapan massacre in 1941, the chief mechanic of Worspite assured Admiral Cunningham that the battleship would issue and would support 25 knots without problems! That is, if the "old man" could show this at the 26th year of life, then reports of failure to achieve design speed during testing can be ignored. Sometimes it happens on ships - a good machine team, having thoroughly mastered the power plant, squeezes out a better result from it than the builders.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 July 2018 13: 19
      +2
      Quote: Fagotron
      Sometimes it happens on ships - a good machine team, having thoroughly mastered a power plant, squeezes a better result out of it than builders.

      Rather, we need to see if the boilers were changed during the modernization :)))))
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 11 July 2018 15: 43
        +1
        Changed. They also stuck a bullet
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 July 2018 18: 29
        +3
        Worspite was the first to come under "great modernization."
        24 wide-tube Yarrow boilers were replaced by 6 high-pressure admiral water-tube boilers with narrow tubes. The new installation was designed for a capacity of 80 thousand hp compared to 75 thousand hp the same.
        Old turbines were replaced with new Parsons turbines with simple gearboxes with a capacity of 20 thousand hp on the shaft, which provided 300 shaft revolutions per minute. New screws were installed with a diameter of 3,66 m in increments of 3,23 m. The estimated speed with a full displacement (36096 tons) and a clean bottom was planned at 23,3 knots.
        © A.A. Mikhailov. Line ships of the Queen Elizabeth type.
        The Valiant and QE followed the same procedure, but 8 new boilers were installed on them. And the new 114mm wagon.
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 11 July 2018 23: 36
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          24 wide-tube Yarrow boilers were replaced by 6 high-pressure admiral water-tube boilers with narrow tubes.

          But what is it like the “wide-tube Yarrow boilers?” I don’t remember such.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 July 2018 19: 45
            0
            Quote: Saxahorse
            But what is it like the “wide-tube Yarrow boilers?” I don’t remember such.

            Apparently, these are the same traditional wide-tube boilers (Yarrow large-tube boilers) mentioned in the article, which the Admiralty did not want to refuse:
            The key difference between them was that in the second project, a power plant was used that used the so-called thin-tube boilers, so named because the water pipes installed in them had a relatively small diameter. The efficiency of such boilers far exceeded the traditional ones, which used wide tubes, but the Admiralty for a long time did not agree to use the novelty, believing that the old boilers were more reliable and easier to maintain. Nevertheless, it was impossible to ignore progress, and thin-tube boilers began to be installed on the ships of the Royal Navy - first on destroyers, then on light cruisers.

            Moreover, at the beginning of the twentieth century the Admiralty allowed thin-tube boilers in general only for MM and EM. And already starting with small missiles operating in conjunction with the fleet and staying at sea for a long time, it was recommended to use boilers like Yarrow large-tube boilers, which generally give better results than thin-tube express boilers.
            1. Saxahorse
              Saxahorse 12 July 2018 20: 37
              +1
              That's just what is mentioned and is perplexing.
              Water tube boilers are divided into
              1) Horizontal, they are sometimes called "thick-tube", differ in a small angle of inclination of the pipes.
              2) Vertical, with a large slope of the tubes, they are also called "thin-tube" boilers.

              Yarrow is just known for the second type of boilers, he himself invented them for his destroyers. And the British Admiralty at that time was fond of Babcock-Wilcox boilers, they resemble Belleville boilers and they are horizontal and therefore thick-tube.

              But the term "Yarrow large-tube boilers" seems to be some kind of fantasy, among the well-known models such do not appear.
  6. Vedzmin
    Vedzmin 11 July 2018 14: 28
    +1
    Andrey, thanks for continuing this cycle!
  7. NF68
    NF68 11 July 2018 16: 56
    0
    Interesting stuff!
  8. yehat
    yehat 11 July 2018 16: 56
    0
    I wonder how the height of the side affected the combat efficiency of German derflingers, Mackensen, etc.
    judging by the photo, their side height was not very, and the North Sea is still that joy.
    I did not find this in the articles
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 11 July 2018 18: 11
    +1
    The sailors demanded to increase the height of the freeboard, to raise the battery of mine artillery to one interdeck space (that is, to rearrange the guns from the main deck to the deck of the forecastle) and - the most original - to reduce draft to 4 meters!

    I think I know - what would result in: smile
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. 27091965
    27091965 11 July 2018 20: 13
    0
    The main caliber of battlecruisers, despite the difference in the concepts of its creation (the "heavy projectile - low initial speed" among the British and the "light projectile - high initial speed" among the Germans), should probably be considered equivalent in terms of combat capabilities.




    This table was published in the appendix to the book "My Memoirs, Admiral von Tirpitz," published in England, the projectile angle of 60 degrees. There are no Erzats York guns in it, but a general idea of ​​the effect of shells on the armor of German and English ships can be made.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 July 2018 09: 57
      0
      Quote: 27091965i
      This table was published in the appendix to the book "My Memoirs, Admiral von Tirpitz," published in England, the projectile angle of 60 degrees.

      Alas, it spoils everything. Well, the sea guns of those years did not have projectile angles of 60 degrees, the same 381 mm British woman had about 14 degrees at 75 kb and 42 degrees at maximum range with an elevation angle of 30 degrees
      1. 27091965
        27091965 12 July 2018 11: 20
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        , the same 381 mm British woman had about 14 degrees at 75 kbt and 42 degrees at maximum range at an elevation angle of 30 degrees


        You take into account the elevation angle of the guns, the table implies the angle of the ships.
      2. 27091965
        27091965 12 July 2018 11: 23
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        projectile angle of 60 degrees


        I was mistaken, not a fall, but a hit.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 July 2018 13: 03
          0
          Quote: 27091965i
          I was mistaken, not a fall, but a hit.

          AND! Well, that’s completely different and fundamentally changes the matter, thanks!
  12. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 11 July 2018 23: 52
    0
    Of course, the designers completely did not support the idea of ​​an ultra-small draft, explaining to the military the technical difficulties of creating such a “punt” with a very long and wide hull, eventually converged on a draft of 7,3 m, most likely then increasing the latter to 8 m. Here it is very important to understand that when speaking of 8 m, we mean the draft in full load: for example, the battleships “Rammilles” and “Rivenge” had it at 9,79 m and 10,10 m, respectively.

    For some reason I remembered that at the time of the opening of the Suez Canal, its depth was 8 meters. In 1887 - 1898 the canal was deepened to 8,5 - 9 meters and expanded to 37 meters. In 1908, the deepening was brought up to 10 meters, and in 1912 they began to be further yielded to 12 meters and expanded to 60 meters, by 1924 the length of the canal was increased to 171 kilometers and the depth to 12 meters.
  13. Catfish
    Catfish 12 July 2018 00: 54
    +2
    Andrey, thanks! Everything is as always interesting and informative, but it would be nice to make captions for photographs. hi
  14. sds127
    sds127 12 July 2018 18: 11
    0
    as always, great and informative. that article that comments.
  15. pacific
    pacific 13 July 2018 00: 21
    0
    Thank you, Andrey, for the wonderful cycle. Are you going to write about battlecruisers from other countries (Japan, USA, Russia)?
    1. Potter
      Potter 13 July 2018 07: 10
      0
      An article about the Japanese was an integral part of this cycle, as the lead ship of the Congo series was built in GB and was an example of the development of English shipbuilding without English cockroaches in the head of the designer and customer.
      1. yehat
        yehat 13 July 2018 10: 51
        0
        I wonder how the Japanese came to the ships with 6 towers, how the Amaga was made.
        what did they do in comparison with the British in improving the accuracy of shooting
        1. Potter
          Potter 15 July 2018 21: 45
          0
          Well, this is LC. Prior to this, the Japanese had LK with 8 towers - 2x2 305mm and 6x2 254mm.
          Edginkort is also worth recalling - 14-305mm in 7 towers.
  16. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 13 July 2018 11: 19
    +2
    Thus, D. Gelliko essentially took a “step back” on the road to the high-speed battleship - instead of combining the classes of battleships and battlecruisers into one (at least to perform the functions of the high-speed wing), he again proclaimed the separation “low-speed battleship - high-speed battlecruiser” . What made D. Gellico take such a step?


    Not surprisingly, battlecruisers fought, battleships defended in the base or made useless exits, unable to catch anyone - the only exception was the battle of Jutland.

    As a matter of fact, in the Battle of Jutland, the Eve-Thomas “Queens” caught up with the battlecruisers of the 1st Hipper reconnaissance group, despite the fact that they were formally inferior to them in speed.

    Well, the technical characteristics had nothing to do with it - this was a tactical plan - so that some would have “caught up” with the battlecruisers (who acted as bait) and got involved in the battle - here they were pressed by the main forces of the high seas fleet.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 July 2018 13: 05
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Well, the technical characteristics had nothing to do with it - this was a tactical plan

      Yeah. True, the Germans didn’t have a foot about this plan, but what's the difference? Apparently, it was also necessary to melt the qualification wassat
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 13 July 2018 13: 51
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yeah. True, the Germans didn’t have a foot about this plan, but what's the difference? Apparently, it was also necessary to melt the qualification


        Weren't the Germans from the very beginning of the war trying to smash the British fleet in parts, risky releasing their battlecruisers as bait? And trying to lure the enemy with small forces within the limits of the main forces of the high seas fleet?
        Believe the raid on Hartlepool, Scarborough and Whitby they just needed to practice shooting at the civilian population?
        Or did they never measure the speed of the fleet of the Grand Fleet and their speed became "a sudden unpleasant discovery for them? :))
        The beater himself became a game and soon the roles changed again ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 July 2018 15: 48
          0
          Dmitry Vladimirovich, I challenged your second thesis, and not the first, namely - that, it turns out, Hipper specifically waited for the Queens to catch him in order to lead them to the main forces of the Hochzeflotte
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 16 July 2018 09: 46
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Dmitry Vladimirovich, I challenged your second thesis, and not the first, namely - that, it turns out, Hipper specifically waited for the Queens to catch him in order to lead them to the main forces of the Hochzeflotte


            I suppose this stereotyped tactic of the British fleet was familiar at that moment (I mean the extension of the fast-moving wing of the British battleships), at least Hipper could have foreseen this move of the British fleet - maybe it happened a little earlier than expected, but it was not entirely unexpected.

            But who built the plan on this was Reinhard Scheer, because only the fast-moving wing of the British battleships acted separately from the main fleet, and only it could be damaged and destroyed separately from the entire Grand Fleet.
            Agree dear Andrew, that to capture the British battlecruisers, it was not necessary to drag into the battle all the junk like Pommern and the hedgehog with it.
            For the battle with the British LC and the high-speed wing of the battleships - it made sense to lure them into the "embrace" of the high seas fleet. But again, their speed did not allow to defeat - at least high-speed battleships.