Military Review

Line cruisers such as "Ishmael." H. 4

80
In previous articles we looked at history design, especially weapons and armored battle cruisers such as "Izmail", now try to assess the fighting qualities of these ships in general.


I must say that this is very difficult to do.

On the one hand, if you compare "Izmail" with its foreign "colleagues", it turns out that the domestic ship is very much "on horseback". Officially, the Russian ships laid 6 December 1912, so that their closest counterparts should be considered "Tiger" in England (laid in June 1912 g) and "Lutz" in Germany (laid 15 May 1912 g) - you can, of course, take " Hindenburg ", but generally speaking the difference between them is not too great.

So, with all the shortcomings of twelve Russian 356-mm guns described by us, even with the initial speed of the 731 projectile, m / s, they certainly surpass the 8 * 343-mm gun of the English battle cruiser Tiger in their firepower. It goes without saying that the domestic 747,8 kg projectile was much more powerful than the English 635-kg “heavy”, but the difference in the initial speed between them was not too large (759 m / s for the British gun) and for the muzzle energy the English 13,5-inch the artillery system was losing Russian by about 9%. In other words, not only did Izmail outperform the Tiger in the number of main-caliber shafts one and a half times, so his guns were individually more powerful.

If we compare the "Ishmael" with his German "same age" on the tab - the battle cruiser "Hindenburg", then the gap is even greater. With all the undoubted merits of the German 305-mm cannon, its projectile weighed only 405,5 kg, and although the Krupp artillery system gave it a very high speed 855 m / s, it still lost to the domestic 356-mm gun by almost 35%. And there were only eight guns on the Hindenburg, against a dozen of Ishmael.

As for booking, this nomination "Izmail" occupied an honorable second place - behind the Derflinger and Izmail battlecruisers, without a doubt, was significantly superior to "Tiger". Of course, the advantage of less than 9 mm in the thickness of the Izmail armor belt is hardly significant, but behind him the citadel of the domestic ship was covered with 50 mm armor reassembly, which goes into 75 mm bevel, while the Tiger had no such bulkhead at all, and the bevel was only 25,4 mm thick. True, the Tiger artillery grains received box-shaped booking 50,8 mm thick, which, perhaps, together with 25,4 mm bevel, probably corresponded to the Russian 75 mm bevel, but the British cruiser’s engine and boiler rooms did not have such protection. The 229 mm armor of the English cruiser, as well as the Russian, defended the board to the middle deck, but the "Izmail" armor fell to 1,636 m in the water, and the "Tiger" - only 0,69 m. However, for the last 0,83 m Russian the belt had a bevel, and the British ship had a separate 229 mm belt under the 76 mm belt, which defended the submarine at the height of 1,15 m.

However, the main drawback of the British 229 mm armor belt was that it was too short and did not protect the bow and stern towers of the main caliber - there the board of the Tiger protected only 127 mm armor (while the thickness of the barbet behind it was only 76 mm). The Russian 237,5 mm armor was much longer, and protected the board in front of all four 356-mm towers.

The main caliber of Ishmael also had better protection - 305 mm front of the towers, 247,5 mm barbet against 229 mm of Tiger armor, and the only thing that the British battle cruiser had the advantage of was the upper belt and the protection of casemates (152-mm against 100 mm ). Ishmael's horizontal protection — the 37,5 mm upper and 60 mm average decks — of course significantly exceeded those of the Tiger, which had one 25,4 mm thickness of armored deck. True, the forecastle deck and the upper linear cruiser of the British Cruiser had increased to 25,4 mm, but in general, this, of course, did not provide the armor resistance of the horizontal protection of “Izmail”. The “Ishmael” conning tower had a wall thickness of 400 mm, “Tiger” - 254 mm.



As for the “Luttsov”, then, oddly enough, although in terms of booking, “Izmail” was inferior to him, it cannot be said that the defense of the domestic ship was completely incomparable. The height of the Lutzova armor belt was higher - 5,75 m versus 5,25 m, but at the same time 300 mm, the thickness of the “German” was only 2,2 m high, and the rest was only 270 mm, decreasing to the upper edge to 230 mm. Of course, the 237,5 mm armor of the Russian belt is still weaker, even with the above reservations, but the situation is somewhat improved by the 50 mm armor reassembly and the 75 mm bevel - Lyuttsova had a bevel thinner, only 50 mm, there was no armored partition at all.

Comparison of the thickness of armor barbets and towers, although not in favor of the Russian ship, but the difference is extremely small - the front of the tower at Izmail is even thicker (305 mm against 270 mm) barbet - thinner (247,5 mm against 260 mm), but thinner only half an inch, and thicker than, for example, the "Seidlitz" (230 mm). Ishmael’s horizontal protection is definitely better than Lutzow’s - 37,5 mm upper deck and 60 mm average is noticeably better than 25,4 mm upper and 30 (up to 50 mm in the main caliber towers) of the Lutzow. Therefore, we can state that the booking of “Izmail” was not only “somewhere between” “Tiger” and “Luttsovy”, but was much closer to the German battle cruiser than to the English one.

As for the power plants of the ships being compared, the maximum speed of the “Ishmael” at the rated power of the machines was to be 26,5 nodes, at the oversage - up to 28 nodes, that is, equal to that of the Derflinger type cruisers. “Tiger”, with its nominal 28,34 knots and “forced” 29,07 knots, had a definite speed advantage, but the language does not turn to call it significant.

From here it is very easy (and really want to!) To draw the following conclusion: occupying an intermediate position on booking, but surpassing their “same age” in armament, “Izmail”, without a doubt, in a real battle would be a much more dangerous opponent than “Lyuttsov” or "Tiger" - and if so, then the national naval thought deserves every possible approval.

However, this logic will, alas, be incorrect. And the reason is that, whatever one may say, the protection of a ship should be evaluated not from the point of view of “better or worse than this or that ship”, but from the position of matching the level of potential threats. And here, alas, the domestic project of the Izmail battlecruisers had nothing to boast about.

In the article “The battlecruisers' rivalry:“ Seidlitz ”vs.“ Queen Mary ”” we gave examples of how the British 343-mm projectiles pierced 230 mm “Seidlitz” armor at a distance of 70-84 cables. In one case (Jutland) at a distance of 7 for miles, a British ship broke through the 230 mm board, exploded when passing armor and its fragments pierced 30 mm barbet of the main caliber "Seydlitz" and caused a fire in the reloading compartment. In another case (Dogger Bank), the 8,4 mm barbet was broken from the 230 mile. In other words, the armor plates of the specified thickness did not even protect the German ship from the old ones, and in essence, the semi-armor shells of the British battle cruisers, whose detonators had almost no deceleration and undermined the ammunition when overcoming the armor plate or immediately behind it. But even such ammunition would appear to be quite capable of piercing 237,5 mm armor belts and 247,5 mm Barbet "Izmailov" at the main combat distances (70-75 cables). I would like to note that the barbets section between the upper and middle decks of Russian ships also looked vulnerable - it is doubtful that the 100 mm upper belt would detonate the 343-mm projectile, and by overcoming it only 147,5 barbet armor (or 122,5 mm barbet and 25,4 mm An armored overhaul would separate the British projectile from the transshipment compartments of the main caliber towers. True, Russian ships also had a “invulnerability band” - the fact is that the 247,5 mm barbet section did not end on the upper deck, but went down, closing part of the space between the upper and middle decks - in order to overcome the Russian defense on this section , the enemy shell had to pierce first either the 37,5 mm upper deck or the 100 mm upper armor armor, and only then meet with the 247,5 mm barbet armor. This “safety belt” probably protected “Ishmael” from being hit by 343-mm projectiles of the old model, the problem was only that from the entire height of the barbets, the meter with a small one was protected from the force. Below things were ... in something better, but in something not.

Formally, between the middle and lower decks, the feed pipes were protected quite well - with a combination of 237,5 armor and splinterproof 50 mm armored reassembly. But ... as we can see, the British 343 mm shells were able to overcome 230-mm armor without any special problems, and it was unlikely that the 7,5 mm extras could fundamentally solve anything. On the other hand, the 1920 experiments of the year showed incontrovertibly that 305-356-mm guns reliably protected only 75 mm armor from the fragments. Thus, the British projectile, which exploded during the 237,5 mm breakdown of the main armor belt "Ishmael", had every chance to pierce the 50 mm mm armored assembly with its fragments, and there ... and, alas, the supply pipes of the Russian battle cruisers did not protect anything - the armored barbet, like this sadly ended on the middle deck. Nevertheless, and taking into account that the 50 mm bulkhead nevertheless took place under a large slope, and the supply pipe, even without having armor, was still steel and had some thickness, there are certain chances not to miss the red-hot fragments of the projectile offices at "Ishmael" were.

Worse is the other - the presence of a “window” in the protection of barbets. There was an angle at which the enemy projectile, breaking 100 mm upper armor, hit the 12 mm deck, naturally breaking through it - and then only 50 mm armor separated it from the reloading compartments of the towers of the main caliber

Line cruisers such as "Ishmael." H. 4


However, similar problems had the battleships and battlecruisers of other powers - in those years it was the norm that barbety inside the ship hull were defended "in aggregate", that is, their armor protection was only more or less sufficient when the enemy projectile flew flatly, hitting the armor belt and barbet behind him. The fact that the enemy projectile can fly more steeply, and hit the upper, weaker armor belt or deck, and then penetrate the weakly protected barbet, apparently tried not to think.

In essence, a truly reliable protection from 343-mm projectiles of the old model (not counting the meter-long “safety belt” of barbets between the upper and middle decks) provided only the space behind the 75 mm bevels. Here, yes, no matter how weak the 237,5 mm armor belt "Ishmael", he certainly would have made the British 13,5-inch projectile detonate in the process of its overcoming, and 75 mm bevel reliably protected from shrapnel. In this case, the Russian system of “spaced” armor really worked, providing confident protection against English projectiles ... just until the British had adopted the new, full-fledged “Greenboy” armor-piercing projectiles.

And again, someone may reproach the author of this article with a certain bias - how can this be so, because during many publications he explained the adequacy of protection of both the first Russian dreadnoughts and the first German battlecruisers with the very poor quality of the English armor-piercing shells, whose fuse is almost had a slowdown. Why is it different for Izmailov?

The answer is very simple - it all comes down to the construction time. Both Sevastopol and Empress Maria entered service at the start of World War I, in the 1914-1915 years. And if it had suddenly turned out that we would have fought in this war not against Germany, but against England, then our battleships would be confronted with super-dreadnoughts of the British armed with old 343-mm projectiles. The British received full-fledged 343-mm armor-piercing ammunition only at the end of the war.

But the fact is that the "Ishmaels", even by the most optimistic estimates and assumptions, could not have been put into operation before the end of 1916 - the beginning of 1917 and reached combat readiness for the fall of 1917, that is, just under the British " Grinboi. And for them, Izmailov’s protection was not a problem in any place - at the main distance in 70-75 cabling, they would easily have made a hole in 237,5 mm armor and would be torn off if they hit 75 mm bevel - 3-inch armor couldn’t transfer such “abuse” in principle, it was able to keep fragments of shells of such a caliber only if they exploded 1-1,5 m from it. And the explosion of the projectile on the armor led to a breach, and the space reserved would be affected not only by the fragments of the projectile, but also by the fragments of the armor shattered into smithereens.

In other words, despite the fact that the English 13,5-inch gun was inferior in its capabilities to the Russian 356-mm / 52 gun, even with the initial velocity of the projectile reduced to 731,5 m / s, it, being equipped with a high-quality armor-piercing projectile, is quite capable It was to overcome the armor protection "Izmail" even on the most "strong" of its sites. Alas, even a very good horizontal booking of the Russian ship did not guarantee absolute protection from the shells hit the deck.

The fact is that, as we wrote earlier, the scheme originally adopted for “Izmailov”, in which the upper armored deck was the thickest, was erroneous - shooting tests showed that 305-mm projectiles were broken when they hit the upper 37,5 mm , and the lower decks made their way both with the fragments of the shell itself, and with the armor of the broken deck. Accordingly, "Ishmael" received increased body armor - the top remained as it is, 37,5 mm, but the average was strengthened to 60 mm.

But what is interesting is that after the shelling of “Chesma”, one more tests were carried out, and they looked like that. A log house was made, on top of which 37,5 mm armor was laid, at the bottom - 50,8 mm. When hit with 470,9 kg of a high-explosive projectile, the upper armor plate was expectedly broken through, but its fragments of 50,8 mm could not penetrate the lower armor. However, even the two-inch armor could not hold the fragments of the projectile itself, they pierced 50,8 mm in four places. Accordingly, it can be assumed that 60 mm protection of the middle deck of the "Izmailov", if it could repel such a blow, then only at the limit of the possible. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the horizontal protection of the “Izmailov” was quite capable of withstanding the attacks of the German 305-mm armor-piercing and high-explosive shells, because the latter had a low explosive content: 26,4 kg for high-explosive, that is, the Russian bomb was the same caliber (61,5 kg). Probably, the decks of “Izmail” would also have kept the impact of the semi-subversive English 343-mm projectile (53,3 kg BB), although there are already questions. The British used a more powerful liddite as explosives, however, possessing greater explosiveness, apparently crushed the shell of the projectile into smaller fragments than trinitrotoluene, therefore, it is likely that the impact of the English debris and Russian high-explosive shells can be evaluated (by eye!) As approximately equal. But the blow of a high-explosive 343-mm projectile, "Ishmael", most likely would not have survived, because it had an 80,1 kg of explosives.

As for the hypothetical battle with “Lyuttsovy”, everything seems to be quite good for the Russian ship here - I must say that in terms of confronting 305-mm shells, Izmail’s defense was good enough. Recall that in a real battle, in Jutland, German shells of this caliber 229 mm English cruisers armor punched through the third time - from 9 recorded hits armor punched 4 projectile, while one of them (hitting the "Tiger" tower) completely destroyed moment of armor, did not explode and did not cause any damage. Analyzing the capabilities of the English 343-mm “greenboy”, we came to the conclusion that on the 70-75 cable “Luttsova” booking he was able to penetrate, albeit with difficulty (at angles of contact with the armor plate close to normal, that is, 90 hail) . The Russian 356-mm / 52 gun was more powerful, even with a reduced initial velocity of the projectile, and this seemed to indicate that it would have been even easier for the domestic fourteen-inch “suitcase” to overcome the German defense. All this suggests that in the 70-75 cable course, from the point of view of armor penetration, both the Russian and the German ships would be about equal conditions - their defense would be punched through by the enemy’s projectiles, albeit with difficulty. But taking into account the fact that Izmail had one and a half times more guns, and the armor ’action of the projectile was much higher (due to the greater mass of the projectile and higher content of explosives), the Russian battlecruiser in such a duel should have had an advantage.

But we must not forget that if the domestic 305-mm / 52 obuhovka got into service with the present weapon "Doomsday" - a magnificent 470,9 kg armor-piercing projectile, a real masterpiece of artillery, the first domestic 356-mm projectiles, alas, were far from the desired level. In terms of their armor-piercing qualities, they even lost to the 305-mm "brethren". Yes, of course, later these shortcomings would be corrected, but ... when? It is possible, of course, that the shortcomings of the experimental batch of shells were immediately corrected, and the ships would initially receive a full-fledged ammunition for armament, but we cannot know for certain. And if “Ishmael” would have to fight with “non-conforming” shells, then his superiority over “Luttsov” has sharply decreased, and not the fact that it would have survived at all.

What happened if “Ishmael” was opposed not by “Lutz”, but by “Mackensen”? Alas, nothing good for the Russian ship. The newest German 350-mm cannon, oddly enough, had a choke energy of 0,4% (exactly four percentage points) lower than the 356-mm / 52 gun - the reason is that the German projectile was too lightweight (600 kg, initial speed - 815 m / s), and this meant that at a distance of 70-75 kbt armor penetration of the Russian and German artillery systems would be quite comparable, perhaps slightly lower than the German. However, the protection of the "Izmailov" is obviously weaker - being more or less sufficient from 305-mm shells, it was quite easily penetrated by 343-350 mm ammunition. Thus, "Ishmael" for "Mackensen" was a "glass cannon" - despite the one-and-a-half superiority in the number of barrels, most likely, in a duel with the brainchild of the "gloomy German genius", he would have received decisive damage faster than he could inflict .

In general, it can be stated that in the class of battle cruisers "Izmail" got an obvious advantage only over the "Luttsov", and even then - subject to the availability of high-quality armor-piercing shells on the Russian ship. A duel with "Congo", "Tiger" or "Ripalsom" would be a lottery, because if their defense was permeable to the guns of the domestic battlecruiser, then "Izmail" was quite vulnerable to their projectiles. However, Izmail had a few more chances to win in this lottery, due to the superiority in the number of trunks of the main caliber, as well as due to a good horizontal booking, which, apparently, could protect 343-mm projectile-proof shells from ( 356-mm shells "Congo" - it is doubtful, from the 381-mm guns "Ripalsa" could not defend absolutely for sure).


The battle cruiser Navarin (in the background is the Borodino hull)


It seems to be not so bad - but we must not forget that the tactical purpose of Izmail was not to fight the enemy’s battlecruisers, but the role of the “fast wing” as part of the linear fleet. And here the 380-381-mm artillery of the English and German dreadnought did not at all leave the Ishmael a single chance.

Did our ancestors understand this? Apparently - yes, but the awareness of a completely inadequate protection came to them after the tests of "Chesma" in 1913, when the construction of the battle cruisers was already going on. Nevertheless, it was then that calculations were made, according to which it turned out that “Izmail” was an almost perfect combination of “sword and shield”, and almost any foreign battleship could successfully strike. Here is how LA describes the results of these calculations. Kuznetsov, in his own, will not be afraid of this word, the exemplary monograph "Ishmael" -line cruisers:

"... m MGSH even considered the hypothetical fights of the armored cruiser" Izmail "(with 241,3 mm side belt on course corners 30-90 hail) with a number of foreign battleships: the French Normandy, the German Kaiser and König, and the English Iron Duke. As a result of the calculations made by the staff of the headquarters, the following became clear: during the fight with the first (12 * 343-mm guns, 317,5 mm belt, 21,5 knots speed) the Russian cruiser had considerable freedom to maneuver and, possessing a large stroke, pierced his armor at all meeting angles, and distance advantage could exceed 20 kb; in the collision with the second (10 * 305-mm guns, 317,5 mm armor, speed 21 knots) advantages in freedom of maneuvering, armor penetration at different angles and tactical speed also remained with "Izmail", with a fight with the third (8 * 380-mm guns , 317,5 mm belt, 25 knots) freedom of maneuvering, though insignificant, (5-8 hail) remained behind the German ship, but Russian took priority in tactical speed and number of guns; Similarly, with the British battleship (10 * 343-mm guns, 343 mm belt, speed 21 knots), taking into account the advantages of the armored cruiser in the course and angles of attack (tactical speed), the superiority of his opponent could be less than the above 5 -8 hail.


The first thing I would like to note is the erroneous data on the performance characteristics of foreign battleships, but this is quite explicable: in 1913, the exact data on these ships in MGS might not have been known. The second is much more important - it is obvious that these calculations were made taking into account the nameplate initial speed of domestic 356-mm shells (823 / sec), and not actually achieved (731,5 m / s), that is, the real armor penetration of the guns would be much lower than that that it is accepted in calculations, and this alone should nullify their value for our analysis. But the fact is that even ignoring the overpriced armor penetration, we are forced to state that MGS calculations are erroneous, and, apparently, are intended to mislead those who will get acquainted with their results.

The fact is that according to the test results of Chesma, the artillery department of the Main Command and Control Department (apparently, at that time it was headed by EA Berkalov) the calculations were carried out, the essence of which was to determine the armor penetration rate of 305, 356 and 406 mm shells in the distance in 70 cabel, depending on the course angle of the ship. In fact, there are some questions to the accuracy of these calculations (to which, perhaps, there are quite adequate answers, but, unfortunately, they are not cited in sources known to the author), but now it’s not important - no matter how the calculations were accurate, they were accepted by MGSH in 1913 g as a tool for determining the required level of booking future battleships as early as October 1913. Considering that the debate about booking "Izmailov" continued until November, the calculations by EA Berkalov at the time of the decision were known and already used MGSH.

The essence of these calculations was reduced to the following diagram.



The vertical axis represents the thickness of the pierced armor in the calibers of the projectile, and oblique lines represent the deviation from the normal. That is, when the deviation is equal to 0, the projectile enters the armored plate at an angle of 90 degrees, corrected by the angle of incidence of the projectile (which was 9-10 hail). In other words, with a deflection equal to 0, the projectile hit the slab at an angle of 90 in the horizontal plane and 80-81 in the vertical plane. When deviation in 20 hail, the angle of the projectile in the horizontal plane will be no longer 90, but 70 hail, etc.

We are interested in the graph under the number 2 (it denotes the possibility of armor-piercing shells, when the projectile overcomes the armor as a whole and explodes behind it). So, we see that the projectile, which got into the armor with zero deviation from the normal, is able to penetrate the armor with thickness 1,2 of its own caliber, for 305-mm it is 366 mm, for 356-mm - 427 mm, etc. But when deviating from the normal to 25 hail (the angle between the surface of the plate and the trajectory of the 65 hail), only in its own caliber, i.e. in 305 mm, 356 mm, etc.

So, for example, 241,3 mm armor belt, which was adopted for "Izmail" (why not honest 237,5 mm ?!), is roughly 0,79 caliber twelve-inch projectile. And the 317,5 mm armor belt adopted for the Kaiser is approximately 0,89 caliber for the 356-mm projectile. One glance at the presented diagram suggests that the German battleship is able to hit "Izmail" with a deviation from the normal 33 of a degree or less (that is, with course angle 57 degrees and more), while "Izmail" is able to perforate the enemy armor only when deviating from normals are 29 degrees and less (that is, on the course angle 61 hail or more). In other words, from the standpoint of armor penetration on various course corners, a battleship with 305-mm guns and 317,5 mm armor has at least a slight (approximately 4 degrees) advantage over a linear cruiser with 356-mm guns and 241,3 mm armor. However, the MGSH calculations claim that the advantage for “Izmail”! German 380-mm guns generally leave Ishmael deeply behind - they pierce 241,3 mm armor with a deviation from the normal of approximately 50 hail (that is, the 40 hail and more heading angle), the difference with Ishil 21-5 hail indicated in the calculations!

In general, the MGSH calculation regarding the “Izmaili” could be true only if it was considered that the German cannons are much ... no, not even that: MUCH weaker than the domestic artillery systems of the same caliber in terms of armor penetration. But why would MGSH think so?

But this is not all. Making calculations on 241,3 mm armor at fairly sharp course angles (30 hail), MGS specialists somehow “missed” the fact that such battles for Izmailov were extremely dangerous due to the extreme weakness of the reservation of the traverses. What is for enemy 100 mm heavy armor shells covering the space between the forecastle deck and the upper deck? And how would you evaluate the armor resistance of the space between the upper and middle decks, which "defended" as much as two partitions with a thickness of 25 mm each separated by 8,4 m?

As long as “Ishmael” was holding the enemy off-beam (that is, under the 90 degree angle) and close to this, such “beam” did not create critical vulnerability, especially since in order to get to the beam, you would have to penetrate 100 mm armor board But as soon as the ship turned its nose towards the enemy, the real gates to the depth of the battle cruiser were opened to the latter. For example, there was such a “wonderful” trajectory in which the projectile that hit the forecastle on the deck pierced it in the unarmored part, then 25 mm vertical hole “traverses” and directly beat the nose tower in 147,5 mm. The only consolation was that the deck steel here was thickened to 36 mm, but ... still it was not armor, but ordinary shipbuilding steel.



So, we conclude that the MGS specialists were rare profane and in vain ate their own bread? This is doubtful, and, according to the author of this article, the most likely version of conscious disinformation. What for?

The fact is that at the end of 1913 g it was obvious that the war was already on the threshold and could flare up at any moment. But the Baltic Fleet was completely unprepared for it - to create a full-fledged and efficient squadron, it was considered necessary to have two brigades on the 4 battleship and one brigade of battle cruisers, while in fact the fleet was soon to receive the 4 Sevastopol and that's it. That is, the battlecruisers were needed like air, and any measures that would increase the time period for the construction of the “Izmailov” were to become for MGSH as a sharp knife in the heart.

At the same time, the Marine Ministry was offered projects for the radical restructuring of these ships (for example, the project of MV Bubnov), which had three global shortcomings. The first of these was that the defense of "Izmail" was turned into a "trishkin caftan" - some parts of the ship were booked, but others were critically weakened, which, of course, was unacceptable. The second problem was even more acute - such modifications required a lot of time for implementation.

Well, for example, the project of Vice-Admiral M.V. Bubnova assumed equipping cruisers with armor belts in 305 mm. This, of course, looked great - if you just forget that the maximum thickness of armor plates of the right size, which could be produced by plants of the Russian Empire, was only 273 mm. That is, it was necessary either to modernize production, or to switch to smaller slabs, which also created a number of technical problems that could not be solved in a single step. Or his proposal to increase the thickness of the armor of the towers to 406 mm is a good thing, only three-gun turrets would have to be redesigned, because the additional armor is the weight of the rotating part of the tower, which was not planned and under which the capacities of the corresponding tower-rotating mechanisms were not calculated.

And finally, the third problem was that the reinforcement of the reservation was achieved at the cost of speed, so that "Ishmael" essentially turned from a battle cruiser to a dreadnought, which the admirals did not want at all. They were well aware that high speed would give the Ishmaels the opportunity to act even in conditions of superiority of the enemy fleet, because if necessary, the battlecruisers would be able to "retreat to previously prepared positions."

In general, MGSH obviously preferred to have 4 powerful and high-speed, though not very well-protected battlecruisers in the fleet in the impending war, than the 4 improved (but still not perfect) ship after it. From the perspective of today, it was quite correct. Nevertheless, the basis of the German Hochseeflotte was battleships and battlecruisers with 280-305-mm artillery, and against such guns, Izmailov armor was relatively well protected.

Nevertheless, such projects required notifying the tsar-father, who the fleet loved, but did not understand him very well and could well be tempted by the formal improvement of the performance characteristics. Accordingly, the hypothesis of the author of this article is that the comparison of "Ishmael" with the battleships of France, Germany and England was made in order to convince everyone that in their present form the ships are quite combat-ready and formidable for any opponent - although in fact, of course, there was nothing like that.

In fact, the "Ishmaels" were a type of heavily armed high-speed ship, whose booking was well protected from projectiles up to 305-mm inclusive. Nevertheless, for any ship with guns from 343-mm and above, “Izmail” was a completely “accessible” target, and no tricks with course angles could solve anything here. As a matter of fact, if someone took these course angles seriously, then one would have expected a mandatory reinforcement of the traverses that would have to be “shown” to the enemy at such angles, but this was not done.

Due to a design error, the real 356-mm / 52 TTX guns turned out to be much lower than expected, and therefore Izmail actually had no advantage over any battleship equipped with 10-mm guns, and only ships with 12-mm guns and above significantly exceeded it. Fewer barrels here were fully offset by increased armor penetration and the shells power. But at the same time, "Izmail" in booking was inferior to almost all dreadnoughts with guns of caliber 356-mm and above. Yes, he surpassed most of them in speed, but in this case it gave only one advantage - to escape from the battlefield in time.

We have to admit that “Ishmael”, in case of its construction, would categorically lose any 356-mm dreadnought in some free-maneuver zones, and even succumbed to some “305-mm” battleships (Koenig and Kaiser). This does not mean that he could not fight the latter, moreover, most likely, in a duel with the same Koenig, Izmail would have been successful due to superiority in artillery, but the battle with the same Iron Duke was for “ Ishmael is deadly, and the Queen Elizabeth or Bayern would just tear the Russian battlecruiser into pieces.

If by some miracle, a brigade of Izmail-class battlecruisers was at our disposal at the beginning of World War I, then these would be extremely useful and timely ships capable of providing many active operations. Possessing superiority in speed, very powerful weapons for 1914-1915 and acceptable against 280-305-mm German guns booking, they could completely dominate the Baltic Sea, and in order to counteract this, the Germans would need much more numerous forces. In this case, the "Ishmaels" could escape from the enemy dreadnoughts, if there were more of those, and the battlecruisers who could catch up with them, in a battle with the four "Ishmaels", did not shine at all.

However, under no circumstances did the “Ishmaels” succeed by the beginning of the First World War, they should have been put into operation later, in the era of super-dreadnoughts armed with 356-406-mm artillery, which the Russian battlecruisers could not resist successfully . And this, unfortunately, does not allow us to consider battle cruisers of the “Izmail” type as a great success of Russian naval thought.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Ishmael battlecruisers
Line cruisers such as "Ishmael." H.2
Line cruisers such as "Ishmael." H. 3
80 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. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 3 October 2018 08: 48
    +7
    +++++! Very interesting, thanks.
    This, of course, looked excellent - if only we forgot that the maximum thickness of the armor plates of the right size that the factories of the Russian Empire could produce was only 273 mm.

    Hmm, for some reason I think that 273 mm plates would be quite kosher yes
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 October 2018 19: 26
      +4
      Greetings, dear Ivan!
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Xnumx mm slabs would be quite kosher

      Surely better than it was :))))
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 4 October 2018 08: 53
        0
        Greetings, dear Ivan!

        Mutually. Long time we did not communicate.
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 3 October 2018 09: 24
    +3
    Article plus! hi
    Well, purely hypothetically, in the future, if the Ishmaels were commissioned, through deep modernization it would be possible to raise the characteristics of the ships to more or less acceptable values. It was possible, by bringing the characteristics of the 356-mm gun to the required condition, even to abandon one turret (even 9 -356 mm was quite acceptable for the fight against European counterparts), but radically strengthen the horizontal booking, add bullets, strengthen the PTZ, bring the speed to 30- 32 knots This, of course, is alternative ... smileWell, the "Ishmaels" were quite nothing so-so ships at the time of laying. Like any of their foreign counterparts yes
    1. NF68
      NF68 3 October 2018 15: 35
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Article plus! hi
      Well, purely hypothetically, in the future, if the Ishmaels were commissioned, through deep modernization it would be possible to raise the characteristics of the ships to more or less acceptable values. It was possible, by bringing the characteristics of the 356-mm gun to the required condition, even to abandon one turret (even 9 -356 mm was quite acceptable for the fight against European counterparts), but radically strengthen the horizontal booking, add bullets, strengthen the PTZ, bring the speed to 30- 32 knots This, of course, is alternative ... smileWell, the "Ishmaels" were quite nothing so-so ships at the time of laying. Like any of their foreign counterparts yes


      In this case, the amount of work will be such that it would not be easier to develop a new project in general, taking into account the existing experience?
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 3 October 2018 17: 53
        0
        This is exactly what the Yapis had to do with their Kongs, etc.: because of the notorious Washington agreements, it only remained to upgrade old ships, even if it turned out to be more expensive than building new ones
        1. NF68
          NF68 3 October 2018 20: 41
          +1
          Quote: DimanC
          This is exactly what the Yapis had to do with their Kongs, etc.: because of the notorious Washington agreements, it only remained to upgrade old ships, even if it turned out to be more expensive than building new ones


          During the years of WWII there were no such restrictions when building new ships. They primarily took into account the capabilities of their own industry and the timing of development.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 October 2018 19: 55
      +7
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Well, purely hypothetically, in the future, if the Ishmaels were put into operation, through deep modernization

      And here we just look at the end :))))
    3. goose
      goose 18 December 2018 10: 55
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      It was possible, by adjusting the characteristics of the 356 mm gun to the required condition, even to abandon one turret (even 9 -356 mm was quite acceptable for fighting with European counterparts), but radically strengthen horizontal armoring, add boules, increase PTZ, and increase speed to 30- 32 knot

      In the case of the battleship, you would be right, but for a battlecruiser, perhaps not. Recall why there are exactly 4 towers: to accelerate the shooting of two groups of guns. Quickly closer, quickly covered, quickly hit - such a scheme. If there are 3 towers, this BBB scheme does not work.
  3. looker-on
    looker-on 3 October 2018 10: 45
    +3
    Andrey, thank you very much. You have an incredibly bright mind. You are an analyst and your love of the fleet simply delights me from year to year. You would be in charge of the fleet. Thanks for the incredible articles! I save in pdf and read many times on business trips
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 October 2018 17: 33
      +2
      And thank you very much, Ilya, for your kind words! drinks
  4. ser56
    ser56 3 October 2018 12: 04
    +1
    Thank you for continuing the topic. I can note that your analysis of ismail is biased enough ...
    1) To compare the project to 1MB with after the Jutland shells is excessive ... alas, our engineers did not have a time machine and they proceeded from the well-known bully I note that the English engineers did not know this either, and therefore created their greenboys later, however, our engineers could not have improved their shells in advance according to the test results, and having experience in creating good 12dm shells - why 2 standards? repeat
    2) Already drew your attention that there were tests of 14dm guns in 1917 (in Shirokorad). Maybe it was all right? And the trials of the 30s are a consequence of the problems of Soviet gunners, and not guns? So before the discovery of data from these tests, everything is doubtful ... request
    3) When comparing the action of 343 mm shells, you did not specify the effect of Russian 14dm shells on 9dm armor of the belt and Queen Mary barbets, and also did not compare the mass of the airborne volley ... If it's not a secret, do the Russians a priori miss? bully Even the KD5 LC had a narrow 12 dm belt, and above 9 dm ... and 10 trunks ...
    4) With whom it is really possible to compare Ishmaels, except Mackensen, these are LCs like Queen Elizabeth and Baer, ​​and at the time of construction ... Yes, they may be inferior in armor, but due to the presence of opponents narrow thick belts there is a chance, especially with given the one and a half times more number of trunks and speed, except for the first ... bully
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 October 2018 12: 39
      +2
      Greetings! hi
      Quote: ser56
      1) To compare the project to 1MB with after the Jutland shells is excessive ... alas, our engineers did not have a time machine and they proceeded from the well-known

      So the problem is that even if the planned construction dates (and the Empire as a whole) were maintained, the Ishmaels were commissioned already in the post-Utland period. And the post-Jutland shells would become for them a reality given in sensations. In such a situation, to finish building the ship according to the original project is akin to finishing the Andreichs after the appearance of the Dreadnought.
      Someone, the pomnitsa, began, after Jutland, hastily redoing his battleship under construction.
      By the way, in the very first issue of "Gangut" there was an article on theoretical reasoning options for completing the Izmailov. Pomnitz, the most promising were the options with a belt of 300 mm.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 October 2018 17: 14
      +3
      Quote: ser56
      To compare the project before 1MB with after the Jutland shells is excessive ... alas, our engineers did not have a time machine and they proceeded from the well-known

      Sergei, I don’t want to make jokes, but what you said ... So :)))) Russian engineers did not really know anything about the shells the British had, and should have assumed that British battleships and LKR were equipped with adequate armor-piercing shells. The fact that the armor-piercing shells of the British would turn out to be inadequate, at that time, no one could know (the British themselves did not know this). And based on what was known, it was necessary to diagnose the extreme weakness of the Izmailov defense.
      Quote: ser56
      however, at the same time, our engineers could not have improved their shells in advance according to the test results, and having experience in creating good 12dm shells - why are 2 standards?

      Honestly, I still did not understand what kind of double standards we were talking about. The fact is that as of 1917, we didn’t have a high-quality 356-mm projectile, although the 305-mm tests actually took place in 1913. And I never said that the Russians would not be able to create such a projectile, question was only when that would happen.
      Quote: ser56
      Already drew your attention that there were tests of 14dm guns in 1917g (in Shirokorada)

      Well, there was a lot of things around Shirokorad (a man of rare unreliability), but it is not known how the gun was tested and whether the firing was a full combat charge. The only phrase Shirokorada
      Field tests of 356 / 52-mm guns were started in 1917 at a special Durlyacher training ground

      does not inspire the slightest optimism
      Quote: ser56
      When comparing the action of 343 mm shells, you did not indicate the effect of Russian 14dm shells on the 9dm armor of the belt and the Queen Mary Barbets

      Why, excuse me? I seem to have clearly said that the Ismailov cannons, even with a reduced projectile velocity, were superior in power to the British ones. Moreover, I recalled that the areas of the main battery towers (except for the third one) at Tiger were generally protected by 127 mm armor. What else do you need?
      Of course, the armor of the British LCR did not constitute protection against adequate 356-mm shells. I write adequate, because 229 mm Tiger did not protect so badly against 305 mm and Goncharov DIRECTLY says that the 356 mm shells of the experimental batch showed LESS armor penetration than the 305 mm and all this was in previous articles.
      Quote: ser56
      and also did not compare the mass of the side salvo ...

      The most useless indicator. You need to compare the number of barrels and the properties of the projectile, and all this was given in this and previous articles
      Quote: ser56
      Yes, they may be inferior to them in armor, but due to the presence of narrow thick belts by opponents, there is a chance

      Which one? :))) I assure you, to pierce the 152-mm upper belt of the same "Queen" and 152 mm barbet behind it for a 356-mm projectile is "a little more difficult" than a 381-mm projectile with a 100 mm belt and 122,5 mm barbet for "Ishmael"
  5. ser56
    ser56 3 October 2018 12: 10
    0
    as for criticism of the constructive ...
    1) "It goes without saying that the domestic 747,8 kg" - do you believe that the mass spread of the shells was within 0,1 kg? bully
    2) "343mm shells" "English 13,5" cannon can use one approach? and better in dm? since the translation leads to a rather dubious figure with tenths ... bully Also in armor ... repeat
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 October 2018 12: 45
      +5
      Quote: ser56
      1) "It goes without saying that the domestic 747,8 kg" - do you believe that the mass spread of the shells was within 0,1 kg?

      Hihix ... I remembered an old joke: If you ask a turner to turn a part with a diameter of exactly 9,525 mm, then you will most likely learn a lot about yourself. But if you ask him to turn a part with a diameter of 3/8 inch - then, most likely, there will not be any special problems.
      1. ser56
        ser56 3 October 2018 12: 48
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        3 / 8 in.

        not bad... bully and there are tolerances and landings ... repeat
      2. also clean
        also clean 3 October 2018 22: 24
        0
        I will say more. When he was working at the RSRZ MMF, he repeatedly participated in screwing M16 bolts into 5/8 dm threads
        1. Scaffold
          Scaffold 5 October 2018 10: 10
          0
          "And the tram is going to start up!" © wink
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 October 2018 17: 28
      0
      Quote: ser56
      Do you believe that the dispersion of the mass of shells was within 0,1 kg?

      Yes, it is quite. The production of shells was considered VERY high-tech, tolerances there were minimal.
      Quote: ser56
      Can "343mm shells" "British 13,5" cannon use one approach? and better in dm?

      No not better
  6. ser56
    ser56 3 October 2018 12: 54
    +2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    In such a situation, to finish building the ship according to the original project is akin to finishing the Andreichs after the appearance of the Dreadnought.

    but the logic is the same - even an average ship in the service is better than a super good, but not built ...
    "Pomnitsa, variants with a belt of 300 mm were recognized as the most promising." it was the British who could afford it, not us ... changing the project is a disease of both the RIF and the Russian Navy repeat
    as for Ishmael, the best project for upgrading armor is airborne boules with 2dm of armor (it turns out that spaced armor is 2 - 9,5 - 2 dm - will it take a greenboy?) and additional loading by increasing the thickness of the main armor deck to 5-6dm. And of course, normal traverses.
  7. anzar
    anzar 3 October 2018 13: 07
    +3
    +++ Very interesting, thanks for the analysis. Design errors did everything then, and the limited budget did not allow to eliminate even those that were known. It would be better to save 3 towers, and not cut armor, but the artillery forehead ...
    Minor deficiencies:
    .. originally adopted for “Izmailov"The scheme in which the thickest armored deck was the upper one was erroneous - shooting tests showed ..

    Probably we are talking about Sevastopol.
    But the strike of a high-explosive 343 mm projectile, Ishmael, most likely could not stand it, because it had 80,1 kg of explosives.

    This is illogical, for a semi-armor-piercing with a smaller amount of explosives and thicker walls, write that liddit "crushed the shell of the shell into smaller fragments"which are more difficult to penetrate the armor. This is even more true in the case of a thin-walled land mine.
    And if Ishmael had to fight with "substandard" shells, then its superiority over Luttsov sharply decreased ...

    And if the crew is untrained ... winked Dear Andrey, shells are of course very important, but here in stats- hypothetical comparison of ships with their design parameters (i.e. what the designers thought and why so), and not an analysis of the state of the fleets))
    It seems to be not so bad - but do not forget that tactical appointment Ishmael was not a battle with enemy battlecruisers, but the role of a high-speed wing in the linear fleet

    This is a pure theory. To which linear fleet would he be wing? If to Sevastopol, so he surpasses them in booking)) and there are no others. Therefore, you write later that their destiny is independent actions.
    Thanks again for the good stats.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 October 2018 14: 20
      +1
      Quote: anzar
      Probably we are talking about Sevastopol.

      No, we are talking about the original project of Ishmael, described in Part 3:
      .. according to the initial design, the thickest armor - 36 mm - was supposed to get the upper deck, while the protection was designed as solid, that is, no unprotected places were supposed (except, of course, chimneys and other necessary openings). But the middle deck was supposed to have only 20 mm, and only outside the casemates. As for the lower deck, its horizontal part was not supposed to be booked at all - it should have been a regular deck 12 mm thick (slightly larger than usual) and only its slopes should have 75 mm. In addition, the aft platform was supposed to have 49 mm of armor, the bow - 20 mm.
      However, during the shelling of "Chesma" it turned out that domestic views on horizontal booking were completely erroneous.
      (...)
      As a result, in the final project of Izmail, horizontal protection was significantly improved.
      The upper deck was made 37,5 mm, which was to guarantee the detonation of the projectile (at least 305-mm), but the middle deck was reinforced from 20 to 60 mm - the deck had such thickness to vertical 25 mm that were combined along the sides , back walls of casemates. There, the thickness of the middle deck was reduced to 12 mm, increasing to 25 mm only near the board (apparently, reinforcements under the 130-mm gun).
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 October 2018 19: 24
      +2
      Quote: anzar
      Probably we are talking about Sevastopol.

      No, about the first version of Ismail :)))
      Quote: anzar
      This is illogical, for a semi-armor-piercing one with a smaller amount of explosives and thicker walls, you write that the liddit "crushed the shell of the projectile into smaller fragments" which are more difficult to penetrate the armor

      not quite so, I wrote that this may have balanced the penetrative qualities of the fragments of the Russian high-explosive 305-mm and the British 343-mm shell. And with a lot of explosives ... it's hard to say. Maybe you are right, in general, I have set out the reasons that should be taken into account, but of course, we can not agree with the conclusions.
      Quote: anzar
      And if the crew is untrained ...

      And this has nothing to do with the design of the ship :))) We are comparing the design
      Quote: anzar
      but here, in statics, a hypothetical comparison of ships with their design parameters (i.e. what the designers thought and why so), and not an analysis of the state of the fleets))

      Yes, but for the British, we usually take not design, but the most real parameters - so we have to simulate the same for Izmail
      Quote: anzar
      This is a pure theory. To which linear fleet would he be a wing? If to Sevastopol, so he surpasses them in booking))

      Well, then why? :))) Acting together didn’t stop them.
      1. anzar
        anzar 3 October 2018 21: 32
        +1
        Well, then why? :))) Acting together didn’t stop them.

        How did it not "interfere"? After all, below you write:
        And here the 380-381-mm artillery of the English and German dreadnoughts did not at all leave the Ishmael a single chance.

        If the Ishmael (fast "wing") has no chance, what will the "main forces" have? That is, as he said, there is no one to be a "wing", this is a theory, moreover, an imitative one. It is unlikely that RI would have had time to build 8 corresponding dreadnoughts, and while they were building, they would be outdated)) It was necessary to "stretch legs on clothes" and build several universal units - high-speed battleships bully
        But UTB is not in general a stat, you write yourself below:
        They well understood that high speed would give Ishmael the opportunity to act even in the conditions of superiority of the enemy fleet, because if necessary, battlecruisers will be able to "retreat to pre-prepared positions."

        And this is absolutely true. From this it was necessary to dance, and not dream of "high-speed wings" to MAPs)))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          4 October 2018 07: 14
          +1
          Quote: anzar
          How did it not "interfere"?

          Yes, it didn’t stop :)))) It didn’t stop the British from putting the dreadnoughts of the first episodes in line, if there are Quins in the high-speed wing
          Quote: anzar
          If the Ishmael (fast "wing") has no chance, what will the "main forces" have? T.

          In the presence of Buyers - no, but their presence is not determined. And with other types of LC Sevastopol, in principle, could fight.
          They went to sea, Ishmaels in intelligence, support light forces, Sevastopol behind them. They found the enemy - if there are Buyers, the Sevastopol has more than enough time to retreat, there are no Buyers, you can intervene and try to give them a bit of teeth. What is bad?
          1. anzar
            anzar 4 October 2018 10: 52
            0
            What is bad?

            Nothing. We remember your beautiful "Verb over the Baltic"
  8. ser56
    ser56 3 October 2018 13: 47
    0
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Strengthen PTZ, bring speed to 30-32 knots

    what for? take the KD5 LC in front of 2MV - Izmail’s speed was enough ... But PTZ and horizontal booking - I agree ... first of all, due to the boules and the KMU’s relief when switching the TZ .... to push 4 turbines from 7bis really ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 October 2018 15: 28
      +1
      Quote: ser56
      what for? take the KD5 LC before 2MV - the speed of Ishmael was quite enough ...

      Aha-aha ... they had enough speed, how come. smile The same “Charles” in the last battle practically left the “Duke”, and if not for the “golden shell”, he would have gone completely.
  9. NF68
    NF68 3 October 2018 15: 31
    +2
    As always an interesting article. Regarding the Civil Code:

    The second is much more important - it is obvious that these calculations were made taking into account the passport initial speed of domestic 356-mm shells (823 / s), and not actually achieved (731,5 m / s), that is, the real armor penetration of the guns would be much lower than that what is accepted in the calculations, and this alone should nullify their value for our analysis. But the fact is that even ignoring the excessive armor penetration, we are forced to state that the MGS calculations are erroneous, and, apparently, are designed to mislead those who will get acquainted with their results.


    It can be assumed that the low real initial velocity of the shells in the case when the enemy ships were fired at long distances, for example, because of the line of their own minefields, heavy Russian 356 mm. were the shells a great danger to the horizontal armor of any battleship or battle cruiser built before or during WWI? Plus, the high speed of the Izmailov made it possible, at least in theory, to choose the optimal firing distance.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 October 2018 17: 25
      +1
      Quote: NF68
      It can be assumed that the low real initial velocity of the shells in the case when the fire on enemy ships was conducted at long distances, for example, from the line of their own minefields, heavy Russian 356 mm. did the shells constitute a great danger to the horizontal armor of any battleship or battle cruiser built before or during the WWII?

      The fact is that at long distances (100 kbt and higher) the accuracy of shooting drops sharply - PMA control systems were still not trained to work at such distances. And in any case, even if at some distance the deck became vulnerable to Russian shells, the entire ship remained vulnerable to enemy shells.
      1. alstr
        alstr 3 October 2018 21: 05
        +2
        However, it should be noted that it was at distances of more than 100 Cab that in reality the Russian battleships had to fight. Therefore, if we transfer the logic of aftertaste (as with shells), we get a pretty decent ratio.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          4 October 2018 07: 08
          +1
          Quote: alstr
          However, it should be noted that it was at distances greater than 100 Cab that in reality the Russian battleships had to fight

          Yes. And alas, with a near-zero result - which just indicates the prematureness of such distances
      2. NF68
        NF68 4 October 2018 15: 33
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: NF68
        It can be assumed that the low real initial velocity of the shells in the case when the fire on enemy ships was conducted at long distances, for example, from the line of their own minefields, heavy Russian 356 mm. did the shells constitute a great danger to the horizontal armor of any battleship or battle cruiser built before or during the WWII?

        The fact is that at long distances (100 kbt and higher) the accuracy of shooting drops sharply - PMA control systems were still not trained to work at such distances. And in any case, even if at some distance the deck became vulnerable to Russian shells, the entire ship remained vulnerable to enemy shells.


        However, initially, the maximum firing range of the main battery of Russian battleships with 12 "main guns and with light and later heavy armor-piercing shells was greater than that of most guns of battleships and battle cruisers of almost all countries that built such ships at that time. It can be assumed that the developers of Russian ships Initially, they expected to fire at enemy ships at long distances, especially when it comes to enemy ships that will be forced to follow their minesweepers through minefields where you cannot accelerate much and where it will be impossible to maneuver by increasing or decreasing the distance to Russian ships.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          6 October 2018 21: 36
          +1
          Quote: NF68
          It can be assumed that the developers of Russian ships initially hoped to fire at enemy ships and at great distances.

          To some extent, your reasoning is impeccable, especially if you recall the experiments at the World Cup, but "expected to lead" and "could lead" still different things.
    2. Oleg Fudin
      Oleg Fudin 3 October 2018 21: 17
      +1
      It would be if they hit a long distance.
      1. NF68
        NF68 4 October 2018 17: 16
        0
        Quote: Oleg Fudin
        It would be if they hit a long distance.


        There can be 4 and all 12 shells in a salvo. It is one thing to shoot at a fast-moving target and quite another at enemy ships following minesweepers through narrow passages in minefields at low speed. If during the development of this project special attention was paid to the detriment of reservation of high speed and powerful weapons, this means that there were some good reasons or assumptions about the use of these battlecruisers in the Baltic with its shallow depths where many mines can be installed. It’s hard to believe that the developers did not understand that the reservation of these ships is very weak, but nevertheless went for it.
        1. Oleg Fudin
          Oleg Fudin 13 October 2018 19: 23
          0
          Well, "Slava" and "Citizen" in Moonsund fired at the German battleships crawling behind the minesweepers. And how did you get it?
          1. NF68
            NF68 18 October 2018 15: 54
            0
            Quote: Oleg Fudin
            Well, "Slava" and "Citizen" in Moonsund fired at the German battleships crawling behind the minesweepers. And how did you get it?


            The Germans then hit. And quite successfully hit.
  10. DimanC
    DimanC 3 October 2018 17: 56
    +1
    With all the theoretical calculations of "hypothetical battles" one thing has not been taken into account - what kind of fire control system. Hence the probability of being the first to achieve a critical hit.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 October 2018 18: 31
      +4
      Quote: DimanC
      With all the theoretical calculations of "hypothetical battles" one thing has not been taken into account - what kind of fire control system.

      And how do you propose to take it into account? :))) Well, the English FCS was better than the German one, but the rangefinders (for battle cruisers) are better for the Queens FCS, the rangefinders are at the level of the German ones. But in Jutland, in terms of firing accuracy, the "Queens" were inferior to the British 3rd LKR squadron, Hipper's ships and their 343-mm dreadnoughts, which, as it were, were superior in the quality of rangefinders.
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 4 October 2018 05: 40
        0
        Just like the rest of the simulation - purely theoretically. The rest of the text, which tortured me for five whole minutes, was ruthlessly drenched in the poor Internet performance (somewhere it crashed). But it will not work again.
        What I agree with is that the practice was very different from theory, which was confirmed by Jutland.
  11. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 3 October 2018 19: 34
    +2
    Thank you Andrew for the analysis of Ishmael, I suspected something similar, therefore I was sympathetic to Mackensen. If we were building in the USA, we could make it to war if it was something bigger and faster than New York, but it is possible with American guns and 10 instead of 12. (maybe laying two of us there is two). Andrei, will you write about the battleship Kostenko, probably the most interesting project at the end of RI?
  12. Potter
    Potter 3 October 2018 20: 45
    +2
    Thanks for the article, I was late to read today.
    By the way the campaign in the Baltic Sea really went on, the most useful on the Baltic Fleet would be BRWOs of the Sweridge type .... with Ishmael cannons. And more Novikov ... But who at the time of designing and bookmarking could guess the course of history and war?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      4 October 2018 07: 07
      +4
      Quote: Potter
      By the way the campaign in the Baltic Sea really went on, the most useful on the Baltic Fleet would be BRWOs of the Sweridge type ....

      Why do you hate Russian sailors so much? :)))) hi
      1. Potter
        Potter 4 October 2018 19: 41
        0
        I adore and respect them.
        But the fact is the fact - Sevastopol defended in Helsingfors, fought Slava, Tsesarevich, cruiser, Noviki and Volunteers. Well, minzags with submarines.
        Not for nothing, one of the options for using Izmail artillery is a three-tower monitor of 13000-15000 tons. But this is preparation for the past war.
  13. Usher
    Usher 3 October 2018 22: 00
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    leadit

    Study. the battleships of the Black Sea Fleet, as I read, shot very well, the lessons of Tsushima paid off.
  14. ser56
    ser56 4 October 2018 11: 10
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The fact is that as of 1917 we did not have a high-quality 356-mm shell

    1) it did not make sense to rush to create based on the situation, and in war the resources are finite.
    2) designed Ishmaels much earlier, it did not make sense to change the design for 1917 either ..
    "To be honest, I didn't understand what kind of double standards we are talking about." in relation to the quality of Russian ships, you are absolutizing one factor ... otherwise easily corrected, but the British do not see.
    "On Shirokorad there was a lot (a man of rare unreliability)," even in artillery? repeat
    He talks about the test - were they in 1917? In my opinion there should have been - how to arm ships without testing guns? repeat I understand that it’s easier to blame a colleague than to find a document ... fellow
    "Of course, the armor of the British LCR did not provide protection against adequate 356mm shells."
    I recommend that you re-read your text - without this thesis one gets the impression of Ishmael’s inferiority against the British LCR ... request
    "The most useless indicator. It is necessary to compare the number of barrels and the properties of the projectile,"
    1) This is your opinion, no more. I note that it is contrary to practice ... The mass of an airborne salvo is a generalized and reasonable indicator of the strength of a ship.
    2) Ishmael’s trunks are 1,5 times more ... but you do not accent this figure when compared with Mackensen ... request
    3) The properties of shells to the ship are not directly related request You can always introduce a new shell in addition to existing ones for use against special targets ... bully
    Objectively, it is believed that for some reason you need to find critical flaws in Izmail ... request
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Which one? :)))

    I recall how Hood died ... with 12 guns, the first hit is more likely than with 8 ... request
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 October 2018 13: 53
      +2
      Quote: ser56
      it made no sense to rush to create on the basis of the situation, and in war the resources are finite.

      How will this help Ishmael in battle?
      Quote: ser56
      in relation to the quality of Russian ships, you absolutize one factor ... it is easily correctable, but you don’t see the British.

      That is, I "don't see" the fact that the British had useless armor-piercing before the greenboys, but I "absolute" the fact that the first Russian 356-mm shells were far from ice? wassat
      Sorry, but your logic has completely gone beyond my understanding.
      There is a fact - by the end of the war, the British had full-fledged armor-piercing shells. There is a second fact - even if the Ishmaels entered service at the end of the war, the quality of the shells that they would have received for service is unknown, despite the fact that the first batch failed. What is there to "absolute" or "underestimate"?
      Quote: ser56
      He talks about the test - were they at 1917?

      So read Shirokorada, he has everything written, isn't it? :)))
      Quote: ser56
      In my opinion there should have been - how to arm ships without testing guns? feel I understand that it’s easier to blame a colleague than to find a document ...

      You know, there is such a rule. Made a statement - prove it. Shirokorad wrote "began to test", and now I have to run in circles, look for documents ... For what? You are referring to Shirokorad - to use it, imagine the data that in 1917 the gun was tested with a full charge. You do not do this, and you still have enough ... eghkm ... shall we say, a sense of humor, blame me for not doing this for you?
      Quote: ser56
      I recommend that you re-read your text - without this thesis one gets the impression of Ishmael’s inferiority against the British LCR ...

      I don’t know who it can develop after all that I wrote about the LtKR LCR. Maybe a biased person?
      Quote: ser56
      1) This is your opinion, no more. I note that it is contrary to practice ...

      Your application is absolutely contrary to practice. Volley weight was never a significant indicator, except in the days of the sailing fleet. Queen Mary outstripped Derflinger in more than 1,5 times, for example. Navarin excelled Mikasu in the salvo. So what?
      Quote: ser56
      The properties of shells to the ship are not directly related

      They don’t have, so I usually indicate the result for good shells, and for those that were actually
      Quote: ser56
      Objectively, it is believed that for some reason you need to find critical flaws in Izmail ...

      But what, do you need to look for them? :))) Have you tried to look at the reservation? :)))) Objectively, it seems that you are accustomed to consider Ishmaels first-class LKR and successful ships, and are not ready to put up with a different point of view
  15. ser56
    ser56 4 October 2018 11: 15
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yes, it is quite. The production of shells was considered VERY high-tech, tolerances there were minimal.

    Well, the lack of technical education is funny ...
    just ask how they were weighed with an error of 0,1 / 748 0,0133% bully on what scales ... crying
    By the way, it’s not difficult to calculate this spread across the body, taking reasonable machining tolerances ... repeat
  16. ser56
    ser56 4 October 2018 11: 16
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    No not better

    you are the author, but to give for guns and shells of the same caliber the dimensions in dm and mm is somewhat strange .... hi
  17. ser56
    ser56 4 October 2018 11: 17
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And alas, with a near-zero result - which just indicates the prematureness of such distances

    Glory was damaged and destroyed ... bully
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 October 2018 13: 26
      +1
      Quote: ser56
      Glory was damaged and destroyed ..

      Sergey, you write a lot, I do not have time to answer :))) But it is difficult not to answer. Glory was NOT destroyed by the Kaiser battleships. It was destroyed by its own team, too lazy to tear up watertight bulkheads, which is why the ship took over 1100 tons of water where it was supposed to take tons 300
  18. yehat
    yehat 5 October 2018 11: 36
    +1
    Under no circumstances did the Ishmaels succeed in launching the First World War, they should have come into operation later, in the era of superdreadnoughts, armed with 356-406-mm artillery, which the Russian battlecruisers, due to the weakness of their defense, could not resist. And this, unfortunately, does not allow us to consider the battle cruisers of the Izmail type a great success


    the author for some reason fragments very narrowly addressed issues.

    The main problem of the Ismailovs was that they could not do their RIs themselves - there was a strong lack of industrial capacities (although the financing of the project was almost exemplary, which cannot but be amazing). Therefore, in the end, not a single Ishmael came into operation. It is also worth mentioning that the Ishmaels should have acted in a rather close Baltic for them, which raises questions about the adequacy of strategic planning. For comparison, even the heavy cruiser Kirov for the Baltic during ww2 was redundant, he did not use his capabilities there by more than 60%.

    Therefore, it is important that the very fact of designing and creating the Izmail wing is already inadequate.
    I’m not talking about how much this affected the decrease in combat effectiveness of the army.
    Although purely from an engineering point of view, the project is quite worthy.

    Personally, I believe that with the money spent on Ismail, it was necessary to finish the light cruiser programs and build factories for the army — the production of engines, rifles, machine guns, shells, increasing the scale of laying railways, etc. In general, to spend not on dreams, but on what is needed here and now. For example, to repay French loans, which dragged the Republic of Ingushetia into the war and the occupation of extremely beneficial neutrality to Germany.
    1. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 9 October 2018 13: 12
      0
      On the accounts of the military department lay unspent money as much as the entire "small shipbuilding program", according to which the "Gangut" was built, was worth. 150 lam in gold! The fact that the landowners did not catch mice has nothing to do with the construction of battleships.
  19. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 5 October 2018 16: 57
    +1
    The biggest problem for Izmail is the defense against torpedoes and mines. A very narrow building and there is no large reserve for the development of the PTZ. At the beginning of the 20s, it was already clear. Therefore, they did not save it and did not finish building when they could already find the money.
    1. yehat
      yehat 9 October 2018 13: 17
      0
      Ishmael was too vulnerable - both from the small forces of the fleet and from aviation and from coastal artillery
      for example, from the hits of the cannons of a simple Finnish monitor Väinemäinen, the board of Ishmael would get breaks and sagging due to unsuccessful armor fastenings. I'm not talking about the big mine threat. apparently, therefore they didn’t really want to finish building them - actively such ships in the Baltic could not operate.
  20. ser56
    ser56 5 October 2018 17: 43
    +1
    Quote: Kostadinov
    Very narrow body and there is no large reserve for the development of PTZ

    and hang boules, as they did for the Paris Commune?
    1. Kostadinov
      Kostadinov 8 October 2018 11: 18
      0
      Of course you can do it. The entire upgrade as a PC, or maybe a bit better, can be done: bully, thicken the armored deck, strengthen the air defense, a new boiler-turbine group. But in the end, the completion and then the big modernization will cost more than the new cruiser of the Kronschatd type and the modernization Izmail will have much worse PTZ and air defense.
      1. yehat
        yehat 15 October 2018 12: 50
        0
        Incidentally, it would be very interesting to compare the combat value of Kronstadt and Kirov vs Ishmael.
        from here we can deduce whether it was worth building Ishmael.
  21. ser56
    ser56 6 October 2018 15: 16
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Glory was NOT destroyed by the Kaiser battleships

    Quote: ser56
    Glory was damaged and destroyed ..

    if not a secret - what do you deny to me? bully And you blame me for verbosity ... repeat
  22. ser56
    ser56 6 October 2018 16: 09
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    How will this help Ishmael in battle?

    trite - the battle was not seen in the foreseeable future, but as a trump card in the peace negotiations - they were quite suitable ... our allies in the Entente were still those pranks ... request
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    but your logic has completely gone beyond my comprehension.

    I sympathize ... it's hard to keep up with my level ... request I’ll explain it more simply - you analyze the ship based on the conditions of 1917, accepting an ally (England) as an enemy, and on the basis of these postulates you subvert the LCR laid down 5 years earlier ... You can develop your thought further - all the dreadnought of the British are outdated with the appearance of superdreadnoughts ... bully
    See above - based on the realities of 1MB Izmail, there were political ships for peace talks, no more ...
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    that unknown projectile qualityin which they would get into service, despite the fact that the first batch failed. What is there to "absolute" or "underestimate"?

    1) If I selected ... bully
    2) Absolutize the "technical backwardness" of RI bully
    3) Underestimate the Russian engineering school ...
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    So read Shirokorada, he has everything written, isn't it? :)))

    when I need your advice, I will ask him ... bully
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    You know, there is such a rule. Made a statement - prove it. Shirokorad wrote "began to test", and now I have to run in circles, look for documents ... For what? You are referring to Shirokorad - to use it, imagine the data that in 1917 the gun was tested with a full charge. You do not do this, and you still have enough ... eghkm ... shall we say, a sense of humor, blame me for not doing this for you?

    1) You are bored - you simply are not able to understand the arguments of others ....
    2) That you declare in your opus low quality 14dm guns, but at the same time I must prove that you are wrong ... bully
    3) I refer to a well-known source in which this problem is mentioned in passing. My question is reasonable - until the results of these tests are published or the proof that they were not there is all speculation, no more .. if it suits you to be in the IF category - your right hi
    4) and finally - I do not write on military-historical topics and your philippics are not appropriate ... hi
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    what I wrote about the Bhrtan LKR. Maybe a biased person?

    you do not have a monograph on all LCR, but a specific article in the genre of which there are limitations, so your transition to personalities does not reflect a desire to take arguments ... In general, the level of analysis in the technical history of Russia is amusing ... bully
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Volley weight has never been a significant indicator,

    however, it is constantly applied - make a request "weight of an onboard salvo", you will learn a lot ... bully
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    eg. Navarin excelled Mikasu in the salvo. So what?

    1) you just think incorrectly - it is customary to count for a certain period of time, for example a minute ... bully
    2) Check your thesis (lower the mine caliber, give the bonus to Navarin :)):
    Navarin - 4 * 12dm * 35 + 4 * 6dm = 332 (455) * 4 * 0,4 + 41,5 * 1 = 697 (894) kg / min (Wiki data)
    Mikasa - 4 * 12dm + 6 * 6dm = 386 * 4 * 1,25 + 45,5 * 6 * 6 = 3568 kg / min EDB data (http://maxpark.com/community/14/content/769168)
    How do you have strange data? Do not find? hi

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Have you tried to watch a reservation? :)

    Why then - the box is accepted - a curious system .... not very stupid ... as it is customary for us to talk about everything or nothing, but they keep silent about our own ... repeat

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Objectively, it is believed that you are used to considering Ishmaels first-class LKR and successful ships, and are not ready to put up with a different point of view

    1) fi, it smells of plagiarism, is it really difficult to find your wording?
    2) No, I like Deflinger ... in my opinion, it is the best of the built LKR ... But the Ishmaels were potentially very good, in fact ours came up with a fast battleship for 2MV!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 October 2018 19: 43
      0
      Quote: ser56
      trite - the battle was not seen in the foreseeable future, but as a trump card in the peace negotiations - they were quite suitable ...

      We do not evaluate ships as a trump card of politics - here ships of similar displacement and years of construction are approximately equivalent, regardless of the performance characteristics
      Quote: ser56
      I’ll explain it more simply - you analyze the ship based on the conditions of 1917, accepting an ally (England) as an enemy, and on the basis of these postulates you subvert the LKR laid down on 5 years earlier ...

      Yes. Only now you have somehow "forgotten" that I consistently compared the Ishmaels, first with their peers in the year of laying, and then as of 1917. And did not think that Queen Elizabeth with their 381-mm guns were also laid down in 1912, Nevada - in 1912, and Bayerns - less than a year later :)))
      Therefore, I compare "Izmail" with their peers in 1917. Against this background, your
      Quote: ser56
      You can develop your thought further - all the dreadnought of the British are outdated with the advent of superdreadnoughts ...

      It looks very funny. Tell me, is the emoticon with black glasses the evidence of blindness that suddenly struck you?
      Quote: ser56
      1) If I highlighted ... bully
      2) You absolutize the "technical backwardness" of RI bully
      3) Underestimate the Russian engineering school ...

      Sorry, but this is already some kind of indistinct nonsense. I am writing about the fact that our 356-mm shells did not work, this is a historical FACT. Don't you like him? These are your problems, and there is no need to start crying about "the absolutization of the technical backwardness of RI" and the underestimation of the Russian engineering school ".
      Quote: ser56
      when I need your advice, I will ask him ...

      Then if you please do not try "And I heard it out of the way here, now prove that this is not true", but raise objections to the factual material "You are wrong, because in such and such a year there were tests at full capacity and the gun did not blow up, the document is and so and so ".
      Quote: ser56
      You are bored - you simply are not able to understand the arguments of others ....

      You have a very high opinion of your "argumentation".
      Quote: ser56
      That you declare in your opus low quality 14dm guns, but at the same time I have to prove that you are wrong ...

      Rave. I just PROVED this with reference to tests in the USSR, when 6 guns got bloated and the initial velocity of the projectile was reduced. What do you have to object to the merits of the issue? Nothing. You start babbling something about Shirokorad, who has one single phrase saying that the tests were started in 1917, and there is NOTHING about the results of these tests and NOTHING about what they consisted of.
      In other words, Shirokorad did not write ANYTHING, and I must look for you documents that will dispel your fantasies. Yeah, schazz.
      Quote: ser56
      I refer to a well-known source in which this problem is mentioned in passing. My question is reasonable - until the results of these tests are published or the evidence that they were not there is - all speculation

      The tests were in the USSR. Result - 6 guns inflated. Refute :)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        6 October 2018 19: 52
        0
        Quote: ser56
        and finally - I do not write on military-historical topics and your philippics are not appropriate.

        On the Internet, you, apparently, are also not located and do not communicate with me - what I am writing about is the basics of the ethics of network discussions.
        Quote: ser56
        so your transition to personality

        My?? laughing Nothing that you accused me of bias?
        Quote: ser56
        however constantly applied

        Which does not make him faithful.
        Quote: ser56
        growth you think incorrectly - it is customary to count for a certain period of time, for example a minute

        I can not stand snakes in the pan. No need to bustle - you said it was about the weight of a side salvo, and not about the weight of a side salvo per minute. However, the second indicator is even more absurd than the first and even less suitable for the analysis of ships.
        Quote: ser56
        Check your thesis

        Yes, blurt out one indicator, and check my answer in a completely different way - that’s all
        Quote: ser56
        Why then - the box is accepted - a curious system .... not very stupid ...

        And with such thicknesses of armor that it is completely useless against heavy shells ... And the box-shaped scheme, generally speaking, is not the Izmail innovation, it was still used in Sevastopol. It is interesting, by the way, that not a single WWII LC has reproduced such protection.
        Quote: ser56
        fi, it smells of plagiarism, is it really difficult to find your wording?

        You have extremely high self-conceit. Why should I look for something if my words describe the state of things very clearly?
        Quote: ser56
        But Ishmaels were potentially very good, in fact ours came up with a high-speed battleship for 2MV!

        It was invented by the British - Queen Elizabeth. And Ishmael remained LKR
    2. NF68
      NF68 10 October 2018 15: 51
      0
      Quote: ser56
      . But Ishmaels were potentially very good, in fact ours came up with a high-speed battleship for 2MV!


      Oh how. With an armor that is at best able to protect from 305 mm. armor-piercing shells, while before the WWII and during the WWII, the main battleships were built, which, in the most weakly armed version, were armed with 356 mm, then 380 mm. and 381 mm. from 406 mm. GK that could penetrate the armor of "Izmailov" at any, up to maximum distances? About 2 Japanese battleships with a main battery in the form of 9 457 mm. and not worth mentioning.
    3. yehat
      yehat 15 October 2018 12: 52
      0
      Underestimate the Russian engineering school ...

      Yes, what does the school have to do with it? the matter is in the state of the industry - stupidly there were not enough capacities and a stock of practical, ready-made reliable solutions that are being developed by the volume of work.
  23. Ekzutor
    Ekzutor 8 October 2018 10: 07
    0
    Promising car good
  24. ser56
    ser56 8 October 2018 11: 30
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    We do not evaluate ships as a trump card of politics - here ships similar displacement and years of construction are approximately equivalent, regardless of TTX

    1) your wording is funny ....
    2) the term free sea power was not coined by me ... remember where?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    On the Internet, you, apparently, are also not located and do not communicate with me - what I am writing about is the basics of the ethics of network discussions.

    smacks of tantrum ... bully Are you so annoyed by criticism of your opus? request
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Tell me, is the emoticon with black glasses the evidence of blindness that suddenly struck you?

    No, this is a test of your sense of humor and self-irony ... alas, you did not pass ... repeat
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And they didn’t think that Queen Elizabeth with their 381 mm guns was also laid in 1912, Nevada in 1912, and the Bayerne in less than a year :)))
    Therefore, I compare "Izmail" with their peers and in 1917

    one-sided comparing ... somehow the number of guns is 1,5 times more for you a trifle .... request
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I am writing that the 356-mm shells did not work for us, this is a historical FACT. Don't you like him? These are your problems, and there is no need to start crying about "the absolutization of the technical backwardness of the Republic of Ingushetia" and the underestimation of the Russian engineering school ".

    1) unfortunately, you do not have a technical education and, therefore, perceive some things incorrectly .... request In order not to be unfounded I will remind our discussion about the spread of masses of 14dm shells - so I figured out, for 12 qualities with this diameter, the spreading field is at least 2 kg ... nat that the accuracy of the mass is 0,1 kg is from the crafty request
    2) It was not shells that set, but their experimental batch - it happens ... it’s just a stage of work. Now, if it’s serial - then I would understand your evidence ...
    3) I am not crying, but I am stating your "servility" bully You casually mentioned the high quality of Russian 12dm BB shells against the background of bad English shells, but you staged a show "everything was lost" from experienced batch of 14dm shells bully
    4) In addition, you have reduced the description of a fundamentally new Russian reservation system ("box") to a description of the details, without mentioning it ... and this is a significant change in the reservation system at the "all or nothing" level ...
    So I made a motivated conclusion - and you are hysterical ... why - now is not the time of temporary detention facilities and freedom of speech ... especially against Russia crying
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Then please do not tryndet

    and this is after morale type
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    what I'm writing about is the basics of the ethics of online discussion.

    wassat
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I just proved it by reference to the tests in the USSR

    you have problems with terminology, proving with arguments - you brought a well-known fact. I pointed out the non-obviousness of this fact - they tested it after 20 years for other purposes ...
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And I heard it out of the way here, now prove that it's not true "

    this is your interpretation and not true ... laughing I referred to the data of the famous artillery historian about the fact of the tests and asked if you have additional information ... you have a hysteria ... hi come on Shirokorada and pour me ... request
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    No need to bustle - you said exactly about the weight of the airborne volley, and not about the weight of the airborne volley per minute. However, the second indicator is even more absurd than the first and even less suitable for the analysis of ships.

    1) I didn’t bustle, but I thought that I was communicating with a person in a topic ... It didn’t occur to me that it was necessary to supplement the length of time when describing the performance characteristics in the era of rapid-fire guns ... crying Wrong.. bully
    2) Announce your list of indicators if the generally accepted ones are incorrect for you ...
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yes, blurt out one indicator, and check my answer in a completely different way - that’s all

    it’s just that you wrote incorrectly - the Navarin’s airborne salvo is significantly smaller than Mikasa ... Even in one salvo and with heavy shells, if we take into account 3D ... But ignoring the rate of fire of guns in this era is simply ridiculous when calculating .... love
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And with such thicknesses of armor that it is completely useless against heavy shells ... And the box-shaped scheme, generally speaking, is not the Izmail innovation, it was still used in Sevastopol. Interestingly, by the way, that not a single WWII LC has reproduced such protection.

    1) why - against 11-12dm German will work quite well
    2) see above - the box is a Russian contribution to the reservation system
    3) its essence - spaced armor - has become a commonplace .... I note, since you do not know that in 2MV Scharnhost had 40mm and Bismarck had a 30mm bulkhead, Venedo also had a pair of 36mm and another 25mm. (p. 243 Battleships of the Second World War. Fleet Striking Force, M. Yauza, 2006)
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    With these words, Shirokorad did not write ANYTHING, and I must look for documents that will dispel your fantasies. Yeah, schazz.

    these are not my desires / fantasies, but a matter of scientific honesty ... do not want, do not ...
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    the British invented it - Queen Elizabeth. And Ishmael remained LKR

    1) Quinn's speed is comparable to Sevastopol and does not give them a significant tactical advantage, which was noticed in the battles - they lagged behind LKR Beatty ...
    2) Ismail was just a high-speed battleship, and LKr it became for political reasons - it was well described by Academician Krylov - didn’t they read? Glitches he had with the reservation, but not so critical ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      8 October 2018 17: 58
      0
      Well, everything is clear to me with you. I think that for those who read our correspondence everything is clear too, so there’s no sense in spending your time on you anymore - my supplies of beads, alas, are endless
  25. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 8 October 2018 17: 32
    0
    Navarin - 4 * 12dm * 35 + 4 * 6dm = 332 (455) * 4 * 0,4 + 41,5 * 1 = 697 (894) kg / min (Wiki data)
    Mikasa - 4 * 12dm + 6 * 6dm = 386 * 4 * 1,25 + 45,5 * 6 * 6 = 3568 kg / min EDB data

    A very interesting comparison.
    1. At Navarin 12 dm guns give one vistrel in 2,5 minutes?
    2. All chetiri 6 dm Navarin guns give 1 vistrel per minute?
    1. ser56
      ser56 8 October 2018 18: 07
      0
      Yes, this is the rate of fire of Navarin’s guns, he has 4 * 6dm on board ... request
  26. ser56
    ser56 8 October 2018 18: 08
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Well, everything is clear to me with you. I think that for those who read our correspondence everything is clear too, so there’s no sense in spending your time on you anymore - my supplies of beads, alas, are endless

    1) happy for you - it is always nice when a person knows everything ... bully
    2) when there are no arguments, they switch to comparisons that are not relevant to the issues under consideration ... I will refrain, raised so ... repeat
  27. ser56
    ser56 12 October 2018 11: 14
    0
    Quote: NF68
    Oh how. With armor, which at best is able to protect against 305 mm. armor-piercing shells while before WWII and during WWII battleships of which were built.

    1) ship modernization is normal bully Install boules on Izmail with 2dm of armor, strengthen 2 armored decks and armor and anti-tank guns will become at 2MB level.
    2) Do Japanese LCs threaten us? our adversary Tirpitz - his results of the battle with the Hood / Prince are known, and Ishmael has 12 guns ...
    1. NF68
      NF68 14 October 2018 15: 47
      0
      Quote: ser56
      1) modernization of ships is normal. Install on Izmail boules with 2dm of armor, strengthen 2 armored deck and armor and TVET will become at 2МВ level.

      By installing boules, it will be possible first of all to improve the PTZ. To install additional reservation, it is necessary to thoroughly modify the entire structure of the ship. Otherwise, the case simply can not withstand the significantly increased weight of additional armor. This is especially true of the hull at the location of the front and rear towers of the Civil Code.

      2) Are Japanese LCs threatening us? our adversary Tirpitz - his results of the battle with the Hood / Prince are known, and Ishmael has 12 guns ..


      The "Tirpitz" GK is much more powerful than the "Izmail", even if the number of trunks is one and a half times less. The Tirpitz's armor was originally calculated based on the requirements to protect the ship against the heavier 406 mm. armor-piercing shells of the enemy main battery. A flatter flight path of the German 380 mm. shells also gives a certain advantage when firing. As for the results of the battle with the "Hood" and the launcher, the Germans were very lucky - there was also the weak booking of the "Hood" and the turret of the main group of launchers, which had many flaws, which the crew of the launcher and civilian specialists had to eliminate even during this battle. And the fact that the crew of "Hood" at the beginning of the battle made a mistake with the identification of targets and first opened fire on the first heavy cruiser "Prince Eugen".
  28. Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 12 October 2018 13: 48
    0
    The swelling of six barrels of 14 "guns when fired with a full charge could well have been the result of deliberate sabotage by the British. They did not need RI as a competitor.
  29. ser56
    ser56 15 October 2018 13: 23
    0
    Quote: NF68
    The Tirpitz's armor was originally calculated based on the requirements to protect the ship against the heavier 406 mm.

    however, the 14dm hit of PU shells was not in vain for him ... and the raid was forced to interrupt ... and if the PU shot all the barrels, then who knows the result - this is the question of the number of guns ... request
    1. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 15 October 2018 17: 42
      0
      Using a battleship as a raider is stupid. The damage from the sinking of transports with not very important cargoes (especially important escorts including battleships and aircraft carriers) is not comparable with the potential loss of a battleship. Any clash with an enemy battleship is fraught with a loss of speed, which means interception by large forces in the ocean.
      Battleship - the weapon of decisive battle. Bismarck is a strong battleship, but if on-board protection from 406 mm shells is sufficient, then the protection of the wheelhouse, towers and barbets is disgusting (it breaks through at a distance of a real battle with 356 mm shells). And the notorious autonomy is redundant for fighting in the North Sea.
    2. NF68
      NF68 16 October 2018 15: 42
      0
      Quote: ser56
      Quote: NF68
      The Tirpitz's armor was originally calculated based on the requirements to protect the ship against the heavier 406 mm.

      however, the 14dm hit of PU shells was not in vain for him ... and the raid was forced to interrupt ... and if the PU shot all the barrels, then who knows the result - this is the question of the number of guns ... request


      "Tirpitz" after hitting this 356 mm. the projectile reduced its speed by several knots and lost some of the fuel. Nevertheless, the "Tirpitz" went at a fairly high speed and the British ships could not catch up with it without the help of carrier-based aircraft. Yes, I did not say that the hit was 356 mm. the projectile will not cause any harm at all. But the danger posed by 15 "or 16" shells is much greater than that of 14 ". The British had 10 356 mm. Main guns and 8 381 mm. Guns and" Tirpitz "the British destroyed almost all of their heavy ships located on a vast territory from the north of Britain's metroplia and to Gibraltar. If it had not been for this successful torpedo hit for the British, which deprived the Tirpitz of the rudders, the Tirpitz could well have reached the French naval base.
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 17 October 2018 11: 26
        0
        As the LK "Bismarck" never fought against the USSR, so the LK "Tirpitz" never went out to the Atlantic and did not fight with British ships.
        1. NF68
          NF68 17 October 2018 15: 37
          0
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          As the LK "Bismarck" never fought against the USSR, so the LK "Tirpitz" never went out to the Atlantic and did not fight with British ships.


          I beg your pardon, in a hurry I confused. It should also be added that 356 mm. a shell with a launcher hit the Bismarck's hull under the lower edge of the belt and then exploded at 45 mm. longitudinal bulkhead PTZ - one of the German designers who developed battleships of this type turned out to be 200% right when he proposed to extend the belt down, but due to the fact that the standard displacement of these battleships already significantly exceeded the standard displacement, which was allowed by an international treaty from the idea of ​​extending the belt down I had to refuse, which turned out to be a very serious mistake.