Military Review

Rifle battle cruisers. Unrealized projects

55
In this article we will look at the latest projects of the battle cruisers, which were created in the USA, Japan and England.


Соединенные Штаты Америки

History the creation of the US linear cruisers began well and ... oddly enough, it ended well, although it should be noted that the merits of the American admirals and designers in this there is no.

As a matter of fact, the idea of ​​a battle cruiser was formulated in the USA as early as 1903, when Naval College in Newport came up with the idea of ​​an armored cruiser that had weapons and armor comparable to the squadron, but exceeding the latter in speed. It was assumed that such ships should catch up and bind the enemy battleships by combat until the main forces approached, so the cruiser should be equipped with 305-mm artillery and provide protection against it. In such views, the experience of the Spanish-American war was very well viewed, when the battleships of the United States did not keep pace with the main forces of Admiral Servers. At the same time, the success of the armored cruiser “Brooklyn”, which caught up and shot the enemy ships, was largely due not to the quality of its design, but to the inability of the Spanish gunners to hit the target. If the Spaniards had a training comparable to their American "colleagues", then ... no, in the battle of Santiago de Cuba, they would hardly have won in this case, but they could well damage or even sink Brooklyn and save at least half of their armored squadron from destruction. Well, American sailors should pay tribute - a remarkable success at sea did not blind them, and did not eclipse the shortcomings of the materiel of US armored cruisers.

The findings of the Naval College could only be welcomed - the Americans initially saw the battle cruiser as a ship to participate in the battle of the main forces, their views turned out to be very close to the German ones, and it was the Germans who were able to create the most successful battle cruisers of the world in the period before the First World War. . At the same time, the first US projects were, perhaps, even more advanced than their German counterparts.

While German shipbuilders and admirals achieved the high speed of their battlecruisers by weakening the protection and reducing the main caliber in comparison with the battleships being built simultaneously, and for some time they could not decide on equal displacement of battleships and battlecruisers, nothing in the United States It was. Their first draft of the battle cruiser was an analogue of the Wyoming dreadnought (26 000 t, 12 * 305-mm guns in six two-turrets, 280-mm armor and 20,5 knots speed)


Probably the most famous photo of the battleship "Wyoming"


But with a narrower and longer hull, to obtain a high speed hull, the length of the battle cruiser should have reached 200 m, which on 28,7 m exceeded that of the Wyoming. Armament was weakened, but quite enough to fight with battleships - 8 * 305-mm guns in four towers, and the speed had to reach 25,5 knots. At the same time, the reservation was not only kept at the level of “Wyoming”, but perhaps we could even say that it was superior to it. Although the thickness of the armor, decks, barbets, etc. remained at the level of the battleship, but the length and height of the main armored belt should have surpassed those of the "Wyoming". In this case, the displacement of the battle cruiser was to be 26 000 T, that is, to be equal to the corresponding battleship.

Conceptually, the project turned out to be extremely successful for its time (the exact date of development is unknown to the author, but probably it is 1909-1910), but in those years the United States gave priority to the construction of dreadnoughts, therefore the “American Dreflinger” was never laid. However, this project was quickly outdated, but it was not through the fault of its creators - it was just the change of the “305-mm” battleships that led to the era of super-dreadnoughts ...

The next project of a US cruiser, whether embodied in metal, would definitely claim to be the world's best battle cruiser — supposed to be its analogue to the Nevada battleship, keeping the last reservation, but reducing armament to 8 * 356-mm guns and ensuring the ship’s speed in 29 nodes. Taking into account the fact that the TK for such a ship was presented in 1911 g, and it was supposed to lay it in 1912 g, such a battlecruiser would definitely leave far behind all British, German and Japanese battlecruisers.

Of course, for such TTX something had to be paid: the price was the increase in displacement over 30 000 t (for those years - extremely much), and also not the greatest, by American standards, the range of “all” 5 000 miles with the economic course. And if the Americans were ready to agree with the first (displacement growth), the second was completely unacceptable for them. On the one hand, of course, you can blame the US admirals - for their European counterparts the 5 000 miles looked more or less normal, but the Americans, already looking to Japan, as a future enemy at sea, wanted to get ships with truly ocean range and less than 8 000 miles were not agree.

As a result of the above reasons, several variants of the design of the linear cruiser were presented for consideration, in which, all other things being equal, the thickness of the armor consistently decreased from 356 mm to 280 and 203 mm. And only in the latter case the range of 8 000 miles was reached. As a result, the American sailors preferred the latter option and ... again they put the case on the back burner, considering the construction of dreadnoughts to be a priority. However, it was here, making a choice in favor of the course range due to the critical weakening of the reservation, the Americans forever left the projects of the best for their time ships of this class, to an amazing “something” called the battle cruiser Lexington.



The thing is that in 1915, when the American fleet again returned to the idea of ​​building battlecruisers, admirals completely changed their views on the role and place of this class of ships in the structure fleet. The interest in battlecruisers fueled the Battle of Dogger Banks, which demonstrated the potential of ships of this class, but it is surprising that now the Americans have adopted a new concept of battlecruiser, which is completely different from either the English or the German. According to the plans of US admirals, linear cruisers were to become the backbone of the “35-node” formations, which also included light cruisers and destroyers capable of reaching the speed indicated above.

Without a doubt, the technological level of that time made it possible to bring the speed of large ships to the 35 nodes, but, of course, only at the cost of huge sacrifices with other martial qualities. But for what? This is completely unclear, because some sane concept of using “35-node” connections has never been born. In general, the following happened: in an effort to gain super speed in 35 nodes, the Americans were not ready to sacrifice their firepower and range: therefore, we had to reduce the booking and survivability of the battle cruiser to almost zero. The ship received 8 * 406-mm guns, but its body was very long and narrow, which excluded some serious PTZ, and the booking did not exceed 203 mm!

But surprisingly different. Already knowing that the British had laid down the “Hood” and presenting its combat capabilities (the design documentation of the last British battle cruiser was transferred to the United States), and having received from the British an analysis of the damage to their ships received during the Jutland battle, the concept of a battle cruiser is maximum speed and firepower with a minimum of protection. In essence, the designers of the United States only retreated - understanding the insignificance of underwater protection, they increased the width of the hull to 31,7 m, providing for a PTZ more or less decent for those years. The speed had to be reduced to 33,5 knots, but the ship remained utterly awkward - with a displacement above 44 000 T (more than Hud by approximately 3 000 T!) And armed in 8 * 406-mm, its sides were protected only 178 mm armor! The forehead of the towers reached 279 mm, barbettes - 229 mm, chopping - 305 mm. This level of booking was somewhat superior to the Ripals and Rinaun before upgrading them, but, of course, it was completely inadequate to act against any heavy ship of the world, and there is no doubt that the Lexingtons (this was the name of the series of American battle cruisers) categorically inferior to “Hood” in terms of protection, and in terms of the overall balance of the project. In general, the construction of six Lexington battlecruisers was completely unjustified by any tactical considerations, contrary to world experience gained during the First World War, and would be a huge mistake of American shipbuilding ... if these ships were completed in their original designation.

That just did not happen. In essence, the following happened - after learning the tactical and technical characteristics of the post-war British and Japanese ships, the Americans realized that their newest battleships and battlecruisers, in general, were no longer at the peak of progress. More perfect and large ships were required, but it was expensive, and besides, they could not pass through the Panama Canal and all this created enormous problems even for the first economy of the world, which after the First World War was the United States. Therefore, US President W. Garding, who came to power in 1920, initiated a conference on the reduction of naval armaments, which became famous for the Washington Maritime Agreement, during which the United States, among other commitments, also refused to complete the construction of six Lexingtons. At that time, the average technical readiness of the first and last American battlecruisers was on average about 30%.

By itself, the rejection of the construction of huge and extremely expensive, but completely out of line with the requirements of modern maritime war, US linear cruisers can already be considered a success, but this is not why the end of the Lexington was successful. As is known, two ships of this type were nevertheless introduced into the US Navy, but already by ships of a completely different class - aircraft carriers. And, I must say, “Lady Lex” and “Lady Sarah,” as American sailors called aircraft carriers Lexington and Saratoga, became, perhaps, the most successful aircraft carriers in the world rebuilt from other large ships.


Demonstration of reworking of a Lexington-class battle cruiser


This was facilitated by some design solutions that looked somewhat strange on the battlecruisers, but quite appropriate on aircraft carriers, which allowed some historians even to put forward the version that the Americans had laid down the possibility of such a restructuring in the project. According to the author of this article, this version looks very doubtful, because at the design stage of Lexington it was hardly possible to assume the success of the Washington agreement, but it is impossible to completely deny this version. In general, this story is still waiting for its researchers, well, we can only state that despite the completely absurd TTX linear cruisers of the Lexington type, the history of designing US linear cruisers led to the emergence of two remarkable, by prewar standards, aircraft carriers.


Excellent couple: "Lady Lex" and "Lady Sarah"


With which we congratulate the US Navy.

Japan

After the United Fleet replenished four Congo-class battlecruisers, three of which were built at the same Japanese shipyards, the Japanese focused their efforts on building battleships. However, after the Americans voiced their new shipbuilding program in 1916, the 10 battleships and the 6 battlecruisers, the Mikado subjects opposed theirs, in which, for the first time in recent years, the battle cruisers were present. We will not now focus on the features of the shipbuilding programs in Japan, we only note that 1918 g finally adopted the so-called program "8 + 8", according to which the sons of Yamato had to build 8 battleships and 8 battle cruisers ("Nagato" and "Mutsu" included in it, but the previously built 356-mm battleships and battlecruisers - no). The first was to lay two battleships of the Kaga type and two battlecruisers of the Amagi type.


"Amagi"


What can be said about these ships? The Toza and Kaga battleships became an upgraded version of the Nagato, which improved “little by little” - the firepower was enhanced by adding a fifth main caliber tower, so the total number of 410-mm guns was reduced to 10. The reservation also received some reinforcement - although the Kaga armor-belt was thinner than that of the Nagato (280 mm vs. 305 mm), but it was inclined, which completely equalized its reduced armor resistance, but the horizontal defense became slightly better.

However, in terms of its combat qualities, the Kaga was a rather strange sight for the post-war battleship. His body armor was somewhat in line with, and in some way inferior to that of the battle cruiser “Hood”. However, as we wrote earlier, the “Hood” was built in the era of 380-381-mm dreadnoughts and, although its booking was very perfect for its time, it only to a limited extent protected the ship from the shells of these guns.

At the same time, by the time the Kaga and Toza battleships were being designed, naval progress had taken the next step, moving to even more powerful 16-inch guns. The magnificent British 381-mm artillery system accelerated 871 kg projectile to the initial speed 752 m / s, but the American 406-mm gun mounted on the Maryland-type battleships fired 1 016 kg with a projectile with an initial speed 768 m / s and the Japanese The 410-mm gun fired a projectile weighing exactly one ton with an initial speed of 790 m / s., That is, the superiority in power of the 406-mm guns was 21-26%. But with increasing distance, the British fifteen-inch was losing more and more noticeably to the Japanese and American guns in armor penetration - the fact is that the heavier projectile slows down its speed, but the speed of the sixteen-inch guns was initially higher ...


410-mm gun shot of the battleship "Nagato". The same gun was planned to be put on the "Kaga" and "Amagi"


In other words, the Hud booking was to a limited extent protected from 380-381-mm projectiles, and (at best!) It was very limited - from 406-410 mm. It is safe to say that, although in certain circumstances the “Hood” could withstand the hit of 406-mm projectiles, its protection was not intended and was too weak for this. And given the fact that the Kaga was armored worse than the Hud, we can state a certain parity of the offensive-defensive qualities of these ships. “Hood” is worse armed, but somewhat better protected, although it is not able to withstand long shelling of 410-mm projectiles. At the same time, the booking of his opponent (280 mm armor belt tilted, 102-160 mm armored formwork with 76-102 mm bevels) is quite vulnerable to British 381-mm "green fight". That is, the protection of both ships from the shells of their "opponents" looks equally weak, but the Japanese battleship nevertheless, due to a larger number of trunks of the main caliber and heavier projectiles, had more chances to strike critical for Hud more quickly. But the British ship was much more fast (31 ties against 26,5 bonds), which gave him certain tactical advantages.

In general, it can be stated that the Japanese battleships of the Kaga type combined very powerful weapons and reservations, unable to resist these weapons. The British themselves recognized the protection of “Khud” as completely inadequate for the increased level of threats, and saw the need to strengthen it in every way (which was done in the post-war projects, which we still reach). And we must not forget that the “Hood” was, after all, a ship of military construction. But what did the Japanese count on by laying a battleship with weaker protection after the war? The author does not have the answer to this question.

By and large, Kaga-type battleships were a kind of battlecruiser, with very powerful weapons, completely inadequate reservations and a very moderate speed for their time, thereby avoiding “gigantism” - the ship managed to be laid down in less than 40 thousand. tons of displacement (although it is unclear whether this is a standard or normal displacement, the author, however, is inclined to the last option). Of course, the Kaga was better armed and much faster than the American Maryland, but the lack of sane protection against 406-mm shells badly spoiled the matter. In addition, the “Kaga” analogue should be considered not “Maryland”, but “South Dakota” type battleships (1920 of, of course, not pre-war) with their dozen 406-mm guns, 23 speed knots and 343 mm on-board armor.

So, why this is such a long introduction to the battleships, if the article is devoted to the battle cruisers? Everything is very simple - while creating the Amagi-type battlecruisers, the Japanese diligently copied the British concept - with a slightly larger displacement compared to the Kaga battleships (according to various 41 217 - 42 300 t vs 39 330 t), the Japanese battlecruisers had so much the same powerful weapons (all the same 10 * 410-mm guns), higher speed (30 knots versus 26,5 knots) and significantly weaker armor. The main armor belt got a “lowering” from 280 to 254 mm. Bevels - 50-80 mm versus 76 mm (according to other data, "Kaga" had bevels 50-102 mm). The thickness of the armor was 102-140 mm versus 102-160 mm. The maximum thickness of the barbets of the main-caliber towers “moved out” from 356 to 280 mm.

Rifle battle cruisers. Unrealized projects

Booking scheme for the Amagi battle cruiser


“Amagi” type battlecruisers would have looked great in the battle of Jutland, and there is no doubt that if Admiral Beatty had such ships, the Hipper 1 reconnaissance group would have to be salty. In battles with the battle cruisers of Hohzeeflot, Amagi would have had an overwhelming firepower, while their defense was, in general, quite sufficient against 305-mm projectiles, although in principle Derflinger and Lyutzov still had some chance to snap back. . Nevertheless, the booking of the Japanese battlecruisers did not guarantee absolute protection against 305-mm armor-piercing shells and in some situations could have been punched by them (although with great difficulty, there were still chances for this).

However, the protection capabilities of Amagi against full-fledged 343-356-mm armor-piercing shells are highly questionable, against 380-381-mm - negligible, against 406-mm - completely absent. So, oddly enough, comparing the booking of Japanese battlecruisers with the American Lexington, we can talk about some parity - yes, formally Japanese armor is slightly thicker, but in fact neither one nor the other from 406-410-mm projectiles of "opponents" not defended at all. Extremely thin eggshell armed with jackhammers ...

Without a doubt, the construction of such ships was not justified for Japan, which, as we know, was fairly constrained in means and capabilities compared to its main competitor - the United States. Therefore, the Japanese should consider the Washington Maritime Agreement as a gift to Amaterasu who protected the sons of Yamato from creating completely useless warships.

"Akagi" and "Amagi" were to be converted into aircraft carriers, but "Amagi" suffered greatly during the earthquake, being still unfinished and went for scrap (the unfinished battleship "Kaga" was converted instead). Both of these ships gained fame in the battles of the initial stage of the Pacific War, but nevertheless it should be recognized that technically these ships were inferior to the Lexington and Saratoga - however, this is a completely different story ...

Germany

It must be said that all the projects of the “gloomy Teutonic genius” after “Ersatz Yorke” are nothing more than pre-sketch sketches carried out without much enthusiasm. In February-March, 1918 r absolutely everyone in Germany understood that no laying of heavy ships would take place before the end of the war, and no one could predict what would happen after it ended, but the situation on the fronts was getting worse and worse. Therefore, there was no “struggle of opinions” of admirals and designers, projects were largely created “on the machine”: perhaps, therefore, the latest sketches of the German battle cruisers had much in common.

So, for example, they all armed themselves with super-powerful 420-mm main-caliber guns, but the number of guns differed - 4; 6 and 8 guns in two-gun turrets. Probably the most balanced project on 6 was such guns - it is interesting that the two towers were located in the stern, and only one - in the bow. Despite the seeming extravagance, such an arrangement of towers had its advantages - in the stern two towers separated the engine rooms, and they could not be incapacitated by hitting one projectile, moreover, the similar arrangement of the towers gave the best firing angles compared to the “two in the bow” - one in the stern.



Vertical booking was traditionally powerful - in the Mackensen and Ersatz York projects, the Germans, by the large Hamburg account, copied Dreflinger's defense, limiting it to a slight improvement (and in some cases to deterioration), and only now, finally , made a step that seemed promising for a long time and brought the thickness of the armored belt to 350 mm, thinning to the bottom edge to 170 mm. Above the 350 mm area, the 250 mm was located, and a second 170 mm armor belt was provided. The main-caliber barbets of the caliber had 350 mm of armor above the upper deck, 250 mm for the 170 mm second belt and 150 mm for the 250 mm section of the main armor belt. Interestingly, the 350 mm armor belt was the only side defense in the sense that it continued in the bow and stern much further than the barbets of the main-caliber turret installations, but where it was completed, the board had no protection. The normal displacement of this battlecruiser was close to the 45 000 t and it was assumed that he could develop the 31 node.

It seems to be possible to say that the Germans "loomed" a very well balanced ship, but, unfortunately, the project had an Achilles heel, its name was the horizontal defense of the ship. The fact is that (as far as the author knows) its base was still made up of an armored deck 30 mm thick without bevels, only in the cellar area reaching 60 mm. Of course, taking into account other decks, the horizontal protection was somewhat better (at Ersatz York, it was 80-110, possibly 125 mm, although the latter is doubtful), but remaining at the level of previous battlecruisers, it was of course completely inadequate.

In general, we can say that the development of the battle cruisers, which were supposed to follow the "Ersatz York", froze at a stage that does not allow how to assess the direction of German naval thought. We see a desire to strengthen the vertical protection, speed and power of the main caliber, but if Germany had not lost the First World War and resumed the construction of battle cruisers after it, then the final project would most likely be very different from the pre-sketched options that we developed at the beginning of 1918.

United Kingdom

Alas, the volume of the article did not leave us room for the analysis of the battle cruisers of the project "G-3". However, it may be for the best, because the latest project of a British ship of this class is completely worthy of a separate material.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Battle Cruiser: Fon der Tann vs Indefatigeble
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion
55 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. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 15 August 2018 06: 43
    +10
    Plus sign article smile
    Regarding the projects of the "Teutonic genius", do not forget one small but essential thing - the Germans designed all their heavy ships for the climatic conditions of a certain theater. And this is the North Sea and the Baltic (conditionally). Even the famous "Bismarck" was developed under these conditions. Therefore, the thickness of the horizontal armor was considered sufficient for combat in the North Sea. hi
    Everything ran to work drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 August 2018 09: 40
      +5
      Greetings, dear Rurikovich!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Regarding the projects of the "Teutonic genius", do not forget one small but essential thing - the Germans designed all their heavy ships for the climatic conditions of a certain theater.

      That is true, but the combination of 250 mm of the second belt and 30 mm of horizontal armor is completely unacceptable at any ballistics and distance - that is, any 380-mm shell will be cocked when the second armor belt is broken, and the 30 mm deck will not protect from its fragments. hi
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 15 August 2018 20: 48
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but the combination of 250 mm of the second belt and 30 mm of horizontal armor is completely unacceptable at any ballistics and distance - that is, any 380-mm shell will be cocked when the second armor belt is broken, and the 30 mm deck will not protect from its fragments. hi

        Well, as if purely logically argue winked So it is so, but this is the SECOND belt, the upper one. The main one is 350mm (in some variants 300mm, for example GK 3521 or GK 4021) in combination with an armored deck of 50-60mm, judging by the outline drawings). Therefore, formally, the upper armored deck of 20-30 mm plays only an additional role. Like the same 2-3 "Hood" armored decks, giving a total of 76-102 mm. Therefore, in total, the armored decks of the German battle cruisers of the 18th year were within the same 70-100 mm. Approximately at the level of all large ships of the WWII Germans (plus-minus 10-20mm)
        Well, it will pierce a 380mm shell of 250mm armor, well, it will explode on a 30mm deck. Well, it will break through ... But this is only part of the defense, despite the fact that below is still 50mm the main armored deck of the lower belt. By the way, the thickness seems to be well seen in the drawings.
        PS I will never believe that the Germans (GERMANS!) Will go to the deterioration of the protection of their ships based on the lessons of Jutland ... wink
        With all respect, Andrew hi
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 15 August 2018 21: 05
          +1
          I will add. There were also the concepts of very fast cruisers in the style of "Glories", but I think that they would not be stupidly embodied in metal. The Germans are not British, they will not spend resources on experiments. For a cruiser with weakened armor (in comparison with more balanced "comrades") and with 2-storey stokers is something ... So to consider 30mm horizontal armor of the Germans is something from an incredible area ... So, for a change, it was suggested, knowing in the 18th year that they will not be built ... hi
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 August 2018 22: 10
          +1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          The main one then goes in 350mm (on some versions of 300 mm, for example GK 3521 or GK 4021) in combination with the armored deck in 50-60mm, judging by the sketch drawings).

          The fact of the matter is that the main armored belt did not play any role here :)))) The horizontal armored deck passed only a dozen or two centimeters below the upper edge of the main armored belt, that is, in fact, this belt protected what is lower than the armored deck, but but only:). As for the thickness - it is absolutely reliably known that the 60 mm deck on the Mkensen and Erzats York projects was only in the area of ​​the GK towers, otherwise the only 30 mm. Protection was supplemented by 50-60 mm anti-torpedo bulkheads raised to the level of an armored deck (a kind of bevel analogue) but this is vertical rather than horizontal protection.
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Well, it will penetrate the 380mm shell of the 250mm armor, well, it will explode on the 30mm deck. Well, it will break through ... But this is only part of the defense, despite the fact that below is still 50mm the main armored deck of the lower belt

          You do not understand :)) 30 mm deck - THIS IS THE MAIN ARMOR DECK, below it there is no protection :)))
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 15 August 2018 22: 21
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You do not understand :)) 30 mm deck - THIS IS THE MAIN ARMOR DECK, below it there is no protection :)))

            Strange ... request
            Here is a drawing of the GK 4531, a three-tower battlecruiser for operations as part of a battleship squadron
            There is the main armored deck 60mm plus the top 20
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 15 August 2018 22: 21
              +1
              Damn, the photo is not inserted request
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 15 August 2018 22: 29
                +1
                Option GK 4021, the main armor deck is 50mm, but with a series of battlecruisers-raiders under development of 30000t and 4 main guns (380-420mm), yes, the main armored deck is 30mm. But I already said that this is a remake of "Glories" and they should not be considered for the main ships.
                But all the options for 3 and 4 tower cruisers in 45000t. have main armored decks of 50-60mm yes hi
                You have the GK 4531 version in your article. He should have had a 60 + 20mm horizontal reservation
                Double check hi
                I still can’t insert the drawings request
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 15 August 2018 22: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  You have the GK 4531 version in your article. He should have had a 60 + 20mm horizontal reservation

                  The GK 4541 variant was supposed to have a 50mm main and 20 mm upper armored decks
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    16 August 2018 07: 05
                    +1
                    Andrey, and you throw it to me for soap [email protected]
                    But in general, I can only repeat - the upper deck does not interest us (it is on top of the second armored belt) and the lower one had a variable thickness 30 -60 mm, and the latter only in the areas of the main team
                    1. Rurikovich
                      Rurikovich 16 August 2018 19: 41
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But in general, I can only repeat - the upper deck does not interest us (it is on top of the second armored belt) and the lower one had a variable thickness 30 -60 mm, and the latter only in the areas of the main team

                      I will not argue. I repeat again - this option exists in the projects of 18 yes But only in 30k ships with 2 towers GK. In all other 45k ships with 3 and 4 turrets GK armored deck 50-60mm yes Reset email address and I will throw off the scheme hi
                      PS. I admit my mistakes when I'm wrong, but here I still stand my ground yes
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                      knocks the wrong one
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        17 August 2018 14: 12
                        0
                        Andrey, give me yours, I'll send a test letter :) Or maybe you grabbed a period at the end? [email protected]
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 15 August 2018 22: 49
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            As for the thickness - it is absolutely reliably known that the 60 mm deck on the Mkensen and Erzats York projects was only in the area of ​​the GK towers, the rest was only 30 mm. Protection was supplemented by 50-60 mm anti-torpedo bulkheads raised to the level of the armored deck (a kind of bevel analogue) but this is a vertical rather than horizontal defense.

            I do not argue. Both "Derflingers", and "Mackensens", and "Erzatz Yorks" had 30mm horizontal protection, the alleged cruisers of projects of the 18th year had:
            1. With indices for 3 30 mm thickness of the main deck armor
            2. With indices for 4 50mm and more thickness of the main deck armor
            Believe me, the summary table of booking these projects before your eyes yes
      2. yehat
        yehat 30 August 2018 11: 27
        0
        what about other unrealized projects of the Japanese? for example, they wanted to make an analogue of Nelson.
  2. Conductor
    Conductor 15 August 2018 07: 02
    +3
    I take off my bandana in front of Andrey!
  3. IImonolitII
    IImonolitII 15 August 2018 10: 03
    +3
    Once registered on the site, only to put advantages to such articles. Thanks for the work!
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 15 August 2018 21: 11
      +1
      Quote: IImonolitII
      Once registered on the site, only to put advantages to such articles. Thanks for the work!

      And I was looking for Finnish. laughing Found a tuta. fellow
  4. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 15 August 2018 15: 16
    +10
    and the inability of the Spanish gunners to hit the target. If the Spaniards have training comparable to their American "colleagues", then ...

    For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that the very small number of hits by the Spaniards on American ships is due more to the situation with the materiel than to the skills of the Spanish gunners. With artillery with a caliber of more than 57mm, the Spaniards had, as they say, "light mascara" - despite the fairly good passport options, actually the artillery of the Spanish ships was simply useless, as were the shells for it. Entertainment with barrel firing here only exacerbated the situation, since live firing from guns, if carried out, was extremely rare and quite a bit, which did not allow to identify the problem in time. As a result, during the war, the guns could not roll, the locks wedged, the shells either dangled freely in the barrels, or simply did not enter even after attempts to hammer them in, plus the need to clean the locks after several shots from powder carbon deposits and "wash" the barrel from the outboard hose water ... On Spanish websites, I met mentions (I don't know how true) that after the first shots on many Spanish ships, the gunners almost cried when faced with the complete incapacity of their own artillery with a caliber larger than 57mm. A little later, this was encountered on ships that survived the war, but armed with the same "old" artillery, which in practice turned out to be absolutely useless.
    The quality of the training of Spanish gunners is actually quite difficult to assess - it is clear that it could not be above the average, and even average, but how much below this level, it is impossible to say, there is no real practical information. Although the Spaniards themselves did not harbor illusions about the preparation - according to the memoirs of Admiral Cervera, for the years 1897-1898, i.e. 12 months before the start of the war, the core of the Spanish fleet (3 BrKr type "Infanta Maria Teresa") conducted only one practice shooting, and it is not clear whether these were full-fledged firing, or simple stem. Rather, they are stemmed - Armada Hispaniola, despite the construction of new ships, was at the end of the XNUMXth century a poor fleet that could not afford to spend expensive shells on exercises, and the presence of Armada ships to demonstrate the flag, with a small number of these (ships, in sense) caused the need to hang them out in foreign ports more than in domestic ones during exercises, and this again pulled money from the modest military budget ...
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 15 August 2018 20: 53
      +8
      Quote: arturpraetor
      In fairness, it is worth noting that a very small number of Spaniards hitting American ships is determined more by the situation with materiel than by the skills of the Spanish commandants.

      Artyom hi , You would be honored to describe the battle of Santiago de Cuba, we would be very grateful to you !!! And then Andrei Nikolaevich is already loaded .... You have the information, so share it with us drinks
      We will be very grateful hi
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 15 August 2018 21: 09
        +3
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Artyom, you would be honored to describe the battle of Santiago de Cuba, we would be very grateful to you !!!

        I would be honored with a series about the Spanish-American, and then for half a year 0,75 1-th article hangs and asks for continuation laughing But so far I have, ahem, a text-creative crisis. After writing a hell of a bunch of articles on AI (offhand 36 pieces), I somehow turned sour, even an already finished article on B-13, I won’t drop everything here. Creativity continues, but in a slightly different field. So with articles yet.
        And there is a lot to write about Spanish-American - for example, there were 6 pieces of this or that intensity of naval battles, and the Americans won only at Santiago de Cuba and Cavite. True, those 4 battles were small skirmishes, but still we don’t know anything about them. Meanwhile, it has its own interests. In short, if you write, then the cycle.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 15 August 2018 21: 40
          +2
          Quote: arturpraetor
          In short, if you write, then the cycle.

          That's wonderful! good An alternative to an alternative, but the people in my face ( repeat ) asks. I’ve been looking for something interesting for a long time about the Spanish-American War of 1898 in the Kolobov style, but something doesn’t come across winked
          So the text-creative crisis is reparable ... You see, a new turn in writing a series of articles on an interesting topic, in order to reveal the little-known facts of sea battles in the New World, will push to new creative heights wink
          Personally, I look forward to repeat hi
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor 15 August 2018 21: 50
            +4
            Quote: Rurikovich
            I’ve been looking for something interesting for a long time about the 1898 Spanish-American war in Kolobov’s style, but something doesn’t come across

            And it is not in runet. In general, this war is very poorly represented in our country, at best they will remember about Santiago and Cavite (the second is not always) at sea, and the siege of Baler on land (but if you try). Well, they will lead conspiracy theories about the death of "Maine", where can we go without it? laughing In principle, I have not seen a single sane description of the entire war - so, separate episodes, or too "gallop across Europe", spitting on the details. I have to find information about this war in English and Spanish-speaking sources - and even there there is not so much information, and the bulk of the work is still ahead. Meanwhile, in a certain sense, this war is very indicative and interesting.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 15 August 2018 21: 56
              +2
              Quote: arturpraetor
              And it is not in runet. In general, this war is very poorly represented in our country, at best they will remember about Santiago and Cavite (the second is not always) at sea, and the siege of Baler on land (but if you try). Well, they will lead conspiracy theories about the death of "Maine", where can we go without it?

              Well, you will be the first to seriously take up this work in describing an unknown (for a wide range of readers) war yes Anything is more useful than doing an alternative (there is a wide field of activity, but still ...) drinks
              1. arturpraetor
                arturpraetor 15 August 2018 22: 13
                +4
                Quote: Rurikovich
                Anything is more useful than doing an alternative (there is a wide field of activity, but still ...)

                And my alternatives are generally more endearing to "draw boats" (more precisely, every technical part is interesting, but the fleet is above all), I have been suffering from this business for a long time. But since I am a rare, exceptional and enchanting bore, I first make a basis on which you can already figure out all sorts of different samples. This time, he freaked out a bit with the creation of the basis - there will be enough textual volume for a novel, and such a thick one, for about 250 pages of Word text laughing
                And at the expense of usefulness - "whatever the child does not amuse himself, if only he does not hang himself" hi Although I am not a child, otherwise the same applies to me. I have several hobbies, and I take them in turns. Sometime, maybe even this year, a series of real stories will come again, but for now it's a turn for another. And my colleague Andrey, as far as I know, also started writing articles, not because it is "more useful", but because he was already digging real money on this topic, systematizing the information, making notes ... And so almost finished articles were obtained, which remained to be formalized and published. In the same way, I came to writing articles on real history - this is a hobby, one of many, and therefore periodic.
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 15 August 2018 22: 53
                  +2
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  In the same way, I also came to write articles on real history - this is a hobby, one of many, and therefore periodic.

                  In short, we are waiting !! drinks yes hi
                  1. Nehist
                    Nehist 16 August 2018 01: 12
                    +1
                    I will join your expectation!
        2. Comrade
          Comrade 16 August 2018 05: 16
          +2
          Guys, since I started talking about promising topics. No one plans to post in the near future a text about Russian battleships of Russian-Japanese? I have plans to post a note on this topic in the coming weeks, so I ask in order to avoid overlays. If anyone has intentions, please unsubscribe.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 16 August 2018 06: 15
            +1
            Quote: Comrade
            No one plans to post in the near future a text about Russian battleships of the Russian-Japanese

            Here Andrei and Ochenkov Ivan (Senior Sailor) operate on this topic. So you can safely give all your best !!! good hi
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            16 August 2018 07: 01
            +3
            Quote: Comrade
            Guys, since I started talking about promising topics. No one plans to post in the near future a text about Russian battleships of Russian-Japanese?

            I - definitely not, I now have Varyag, Izmail in the near future, then a comparison of the "standard" US LCs with British R and Baden - I plan the rest according to the modern fleet :) hi
      2. yehat
        yehat 6 November 2018 17: 47
        0
        and what is there to describe? Americans won in a completely losing tactical position due to the state of the Spaniards materiel.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 August 2018 07: 17
      +2
      Greetings dear colleague!
      Thank you, I didn’t. Of course, I am aware that the crafts of the Spaniards (Gontoria, etc.) caused a lot of complaints, but that’s how it is ... However, the other thing is true - if such shortcomings surfaced only in battle, then obviously the Spaniards did not exhaust themselves with training :)
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 16 August 2018 14: 33
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Of course, I am aware that the crafts of the Spaniards (Gontoria, etc.) caused a lot of complaints, but so ...

        There most of the complaints are the workmanship. By themselves, the Ontoria cannons (in Spanish Hontoria, but the H at the beginning is not readable) were quite good theoretically, albeit at the level of somewhere in the mid-1880s, and were a cross between French and British gun technology. In the 1890s, they were even modernized, increasing their technical rate of fire in order to "modernize" them - and, it seems, it even theoretically worked. However, in practice, everything was ruined by the low quality of shells and guns. But what is really there - for the same "Infants" guns were made not by a specialized artillery plant, but by a shipbuilding plant, ie. at the shipyards in Bilbao, which, by the way, have just been built. Of course, there was no place to expect quality. Shell production suffered from unskilled labor and large tolerances. But small-calibers were kind of produced at the old factory in Trubia, along with shells for them, respectively, there was experience, and equipment, and the workmanship turned out to be quite at the level (sort of like). And somewhere I saw the statistics of hits of Spanish shells at Santiago - there, if I remember correctly, most of the hits are from 57-mm guns.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        However, another thing is also true - if such shortcomings of the materiel surfaced only in battle, then obviously the Spaniards did not exhaust themselves with training :)

        But how can I say .... Actually, the Armada leadership seemed to know that everything was not all right with the artillery materiel. However, due to the economy (which was just monstrous), or for other reasons, it was believed that this is not so critical. Could, by the way, push everything to the lack of experience of the commandants - they say that these are not guns, they are inexperienced people. But the same Server, before sending its squadron, indicated that the state of the artillery materiel on the ships of the entire fleet was deplorable, and it was impossible to win the war with these guns - but no one listened. That is, most likely, they knew about the jambs of artillery, but the scale of these jambs was greatly underestimated.
        As for training, they cost money, but the Spanish fleet did not have money. Our savings in the fleet before the NEC are babble in comparison with Spanish: with high costs for shipbuilding and maintenance of the available infrastructure, the Spanish sea budget was almost the smallest in Europe, not only in a specific form (currency), but also in relative terms (percent of annual expenses). There was already not enough money for active training. But even in this case, everything is not so simple with accuracy - as if guns larger than 57mm are considered to be ineffective, the small thing cannot give a large percentage of hits, and it breaks out quickly, but even in this situation it was possible to achieve an EMNIP 35 of hits on American ships. But for the Americans themselves, even though they conducted training firing, what accuracy was there? 163 hits on 7 with over a thousand shots? Less than 2 percent, despite the fact that the battle did not go at great distances? And how many percent of hits did the 1 TOE give, with subsidence in combat training? I think a few more request That is, even taking into account the fact that the Americans had 343-mm cannon of battleships, so to speak, "no ice", Russian poorly trained gunners fired better than supposedly trained Americans, which also gives its own characteristics to the quality of American training ... As sailors, they were undoubtedly good - but it is not enough to be a sailor, you also have to be a naval sailor, and then the times of the United States, in my opinion, did not come.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. ser56
    ser56 15 August 2018 17: 28
    +2
    Curiously, does the author plan to say about RI (LCR of the Izmail type) and Italy (LCR of the Francesco Caracciolo type)?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 August 2018 17: 45
      +3
      Quote: ser56
      Curiously, does the author plan to say about RI (LCR of the Izmail type) and Italy (LCR of the Francesco Caracciolo type)?

      About "Izmail" - definitely, but about the Italians still not, since they were listed not as battle cruisers, but as battleships
      1. ser56
        ser56 16 August 2018 11: 18
        +1
        at a speed of 25-28 knots? wink Sorry, you rarely find information about them ... request
  7. DimanC
    DimanC 15 August 2018 18: 49
    +1
    Yes, it will be very, very interesting to read about G-3. We are waiting, sir. Apparently, there was not enough space in the article, otherwise it would have been possible to "ride" a very extravagant concept of 7 (seven !!!) chimneys of the first projects of Lexington. By the way, the photo shows one of the latest options with "conservative" two pipes ...
  8. DimanC
    DimanC 15 August 2018 18: 51
    +1
    It is also worth recalling, and the mattresses were almost the first to decide to create a turboelectric transmission. And interestingly, she worked for them. belay
  9. NF68
    NF68 15 August 2018 19: 26
    +2
    Interesting. To whom and why did my comments in this material prevent it from being deleted?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 15 August 2018 21: 06
      +1
      Quote: NF68
      Interesting. To whom and why did my comments in this material prevent it from being deleted?

      This is nothing, the site is probably still under modernization, because from the moment of conversion, notifications about answers do not go request
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 15 August 2018 22: 29
        +1
        Likewise. Yesterday or the day before yesterday, the "new" mark only appeared, before that, a generally bare forum. There are still no alerts.
        1. arturpraetor
          arturpraetor 15 August 2018 22: 36
          +2
          You're in luck! My mark "new" appeared about an hour ago)) But, by the way, it already works fine, and not with a 15-minute interval, which is good news.
      2. NF68
        NF68 16 August 2018 20: 42
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        This is nothing, the site is probably still under modernization, because from the moment of conversion, notifications about answers do not go


        Notifications do not go to me either. But my comment on this topic was deleted only in this material.
  10. Potter
    Potter 15 August 2018 20: 37
    +1
    Thank. An interesting analysis. I look forward to continuing with the Ishmaels.
  11. prodi
    prodi 15 August 2018 21: 33
    +1
    The very idea of ​​a battlecruiser, faster, cheaper, slightly less armed and less armored - was correct, it was only necessary to protect cars and cellars as much as possible. Booking towers could save. Lexington's initial project seems to be more balanced than the final one in terms of armament (it was possible two 3-guns in front, two 2-guns in the rear).
    1. NF68
      NF68 16 August 2018 20: 43
      0
      Quote: prodi
      You could save on tower reservations


      Then such a battlecruiser can very quickly lose the main gun with all the ensuing consequences.
      1. prodi
        prodi 17 August 2018 09: 50
        0
        of course, but it’s less cost than being sunk. And the ability to peck two battle cruisers of the battleship would be. In general, this idea (of battle cruisers) was the first to come to naught as the main battery increased, because it was already very difficult to make just a reduced full-fledged copy of a battleship, and by WWII the battleships did not have any modernization stock (relative to the cost, of course)
        1. NF68
          NF68 17 August 2018 17: 22
          0
          Quote: prodi
          of course, but it’s less cost than being sunk. And the ability to peck two battle cruisers of the battleship would be. In general, this idea (of battle cruisers) was the first to come to naught as the main battery increased, because it was already very difficult to make just a reduced full-fledged copy of a battleship, and by WWII the battleships did not have any modernization stock (relative to the cost, of course)


          The cost of a battle cruiser is likely to be higher than the cost of a battleship with the same armament. In my previously published commentary deleted on Wednesday, I assumed that the Germans, after the completion of 2 Bayerns and 7 battlecruisers armed with 350 mm. and 380 mm. GK Germans, with a more favorable development for them during WWI, would not build low-speed battleships and high-speed battle cruisers, but would begin to develop the previously proposed concept of a single combat ship-high-speed battleship armed with 8 420 mm. main guns. Maximum speed of an L-20 ea battleship:

          http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/schlachtschiff/01_main/26_l-20.html

          there should be 26 knots. Those. slightly lower than the previously developed and built battle cruisers with 350 mm. and 380 mm. GK, but noticeably higher than that of the Bayerns. The disadvantage of this project was the absence of a gradually thinning lower belt that continued downward and the relatively weak armor of the frontal plates of the main battery towers and the barbets of the main battery towers. But overall, this project was optimal at the end of WWI / early 20s.
          1. prodi
            prodi 17 August 2018 20: 07
            0
            I'm not sure that I can seriously discuss specific projects, although 8 trunks are very tempted to oppose them with 10-12, even of a slightly smaller caliber. In general, it is clear that the class of battleships is divided into dreadnought and battlecruisers. At the turn of the century, there was still freedom of choice - how to build, and both approaches worked. It is clear that a battlecruiser could not be noticeably cheaper than a battleship, but different countries could have different motives and possibilities. Its evolution towards a single ship of the line is understandable: with the growth of the main ship, respectively, the reservation, and displacement under it, and the capacity of the machines for all this increased. It all rested, inevitably had to, in something, in the likeness of Yamato. If such ships could be baked as destroyers, then the era of aircraft carriers (even despite their torpedo bombers) would come much later - somewhere, with the development of missile weapons
            1. NF68
              NF68 17 August 2018 22: 07
              0
              Quote: prodi
              I'm not sure that I can seriously discuss specific projects, although 8 trunks are very tempted to oppose them with 10-12, even of a slightly smaller caliber. In general, it is clear that the class of battleships is divided into dreadnought and battlecruisers. At the turn of the century, there was still freedom of choice - how to build, and both approaches worked. It is clear that a battlecruiser could not be noticeably cheaper than a battleship, but different countries could have different motives and possibilities. Its evolution towards a single ship of the line is understandable: with the growth of the main ship, respectively, the reservation, and displacement under it, and the capacity of the machines for all this increased. It all rested, inevitably had to, in something, in the likeness of Yamato. If such ships could be baked as destroyers, then the era of aircraft carriers (even despite their torpedo bombers) would come much later - somewhere, with the development of missile weapons


              8 / 9 trunks of HA with a slightly larger caliber are preferable than 10-12 trunks of a smaller caliber. In BI and Germany, this was understood before the start of the WWII. Therefore, in these countries they came earlier than other countries to build battleships and battle cruisers with main guns in the form of 8 barrels of the caliber 343-381 mm., And then of a larger caliber. Aircraft carriers could inflict massive strikes on battleships while being out of the area of ​​operations of battleships. In addition, carrier-based aircraft could strike at a variety of targets, including targets located at a great distance from the coast. The loss of a certain part of carrier-based aircraft partially reduces the effectiveness of carrier-based aircraft strike, but this significantly reduces the risk of losing the aircraft carrier itself from the fire of main battle ships. Losses of aircraft and pilots can be compensated relatively quickly. In addition, decked aircraft themselves can not only strike at enemy ships and land objects, but can also provide air defense and anti-aircraft defense of their naval formations and conduct reconnaissance at a great distance from their formations and over a very large area, which battleships are not capable of. Those. carrier-based aircraft as a means of warfare uda more versatile than the GC battleships and the battleships themselves.
              1. prodi
                prodi 18 August 2018 08: 19
                0
                Quote: NF68
                8/9 trunks of HA slightly larger caliber is preferable than 10-12 trunks of smaller caliber. In BI and Germany, this was understood before the start of the WWII. Therefore, in these countries they came earlier than other countries to build battleships and battle cruisers with main guns in the form of 8 trunks of 343-381 mm caliber., And then a larger caliber.

                I do not understand this. If a smaller caliber is sufficient to penetrate the armor, then there is a greater chance of hitting, more stock of shells and faster shooting
                As for WWII carrier-based aviation, she had a weakness (and remains) - non-flying weather
                1. NF68
                  NF68 19 August 2018 16: 11
                  0
                  Quote: prodi
                  I do not understand this. If a smaller caliber is sufficient to penetrate the armor, then there is a greater chance of hitting, more stock of shells and faster shooting


                  Armor-piercing shells of a larger caliber, at approximately equal initial and final flight speeds, penetrate armor of a larger thickness and even if the number of explosives in these shells is not much larger than in shells of a smaller caliber, then a larger caliber shell due to its larger weight can before the explosion penetrate further into the enemy’s battleship body, where the projectile explosion is most effective, and when the explosive detonates, it gives a larger number of large-sized parts, which again gives such an advantage. At greater distances, shells of a larger caliber have a slightly smaller spread in the salvo (provided that the quality of the shells and the charges to them are of equal quality).

                  As for WWII carrier-based aviation, she had a weakness (and remains) - non-flying weather


                  Bad weather for the GC battleships often also created problems when firing.
  12. Comrade
    Comrade 16 August 2018 00: 15
    +4
    Dear Andrey, the topic is very interesting, it is a pity that the projects of Austrian battlecruisers are not considered in the article. One of the options..
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 August 2018 07: 03
      +1
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear Andrey

      Greetings, dear Valentin, yes, of course it’s a pity, but alas, you can’t know everything :)))))) I do not have information about the Austrian or the French LCR, although they came up with something
    2. anzar
      anzar 16 August 2018 16: 39
      +2
      Comrade writes: One of the options ..

      Dear colleague, this is pre-design 1a. All that I have is a scheme with basic data .. ((
  13. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 17 August 2018 22: 14
    0
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
    You were right - grabbed a point recourse smile
    PS At Muzhennikov, by the way, recent projects are very sparingly described wink hi