Military Review

"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. Who is better? Introduction

56
As it is known, the construction of the battleship Dreadnought in Great Britain was the beginning of the massive construction of ships of this class, known as Dreadnought Fever, which continued from 1906 to the beginning of the First World War. The reasons for it, in general, are clear - the emergence of a new class of ships, much more powerful and high-speed than the battleships that had recently ruled the seas, largely nullified the existing tables of ranks of navies. In other words, for some states, the urgent construction of dreadnoughts presented an opportunity to strengthen and get ahead of their rivals, moving to a new level of the naval hierarchy. For other countries, the creation of these ships, on the contrary, was the only means to maintain the current status quo.


In this competition, a huge role was played not only by the quantity, but also by the quality of the newest battleships, and, I must say, they evolved at an awesome pace. The same Queen Elizabeth, founded only 7 years after the founder of this class of ships, surpassed the latter as much as the Dreadnought itself did not surpass the previous battleships, and in fact it was considered a revolution in naval affairs.

In those years, the search for the concept of the linear ship of the future took place, and scientific and technical progress hurried so quickly that admirals and engineers had to think over new concepts before the opportunity arose to test the existing ones in practice. Therefore, in different countries (and sometimes in one), projects of battleships that were quite different from each other were created. However, shortly before the First World War, England, Germany and the United States came to very similar views on the place and role of the battleship in battle. What led to the fact that in these countries in 1913-1914. very similar (of course, adjusted to the national shipbuilding schools) ships were laid: the latter are often called “standard” battleships.


American "standard" battleship "Pennsylvania"


Why did this happen, and why did other countries that participated in the dreadnought race (France, Japan, Italy, Russia, etc.) not build “standard” battleships? It is easy to answer if you recall the main global trends in the development of ships of this class. The fact is that the development of battleships of all countries was influenced by two fundamental factors:

1. The explosive growth of naval artillery power. At the moment of dreadnought's birth, it was believed that 280-305-mm guns would provide them with sufficient fire power. However, after some 5 years, the world saw the power of the super-dreadnoughts armed with 343-mm cannons. But then, after only a few years, even 343-356-mm artillery ceased to organize admirals, and much more powerful 381-406-mm guns began to come into service ... In general, the desire to put as heavy weapons as possible on the battleships was available to the country) became the most important leitmotif of the creation of battleships.

2. Economic constraints. Even the wallets of the leading economies of the world were not dimensionless, so the dimensions of the battleships being built as standard were sought to fit into more or less budget-friendly dimensions. For the period immediately preceding the First World War, this restriction was the normal displacement in 30 000 T - the ships incorporated in 1913-1914 had either approaching it or slightly larger than it.

In other words, perhaps we can say that firepower and cost were of key importance, but the speed and protection of battleships shipbuilders in different countries of the world balanced on the basis of the above postulates and the concept of application fleet. But the fact is that for England, the USA and Germany, there was another limiting factor that did not bother other countries too much.

Recall that the English "Dreadnought", in addition to the unequivocal superiority in artillery armament over any battleship of the world, surpassed the latter in speed - it was the 21 node, against the classic battleships 18-19. So, if the power of the Dreadnought's artillery and armor were very quickly surpassed, then its speed for a long time became the standard and was recognized as quite sufficient for the battleships - the bulk of the maritime powers created dreadnoughts with a maximum speed of 20-21 knot. But, unlike other members of the “dreadnought fever,” only three powers: Great Britain, Germany, and the United States built for the 1913-1914 years. truly numerous linear fleets consisting of “21-node” battleships. All three of these countries were preparing to "argue" for the role of the strongest sea power in the world, and this "dispute" could be resolved, according to the operational views of those years, only in a general naval battle. Naturally, for “Armageddon” it was necessary to collect all the cash battleships into a fist and fight them in a single battle formation.


British "R" type battleships


But in this case there was no point in increasing the speed of promising battleships over the 21 node - this would not give the new ships any tactical advantages, since they still had to act in conjunction with the relatively low-speed dreadnoughts of the old structure. Therefore, the refusal to increase the speed, in favor of the growth of firepower and the protection of the battleships, seemed to be a perfectly sound decision.

Not that naval theorists did not understand the importance of speed in battle of linear forces, but in England and Germany the battle cruisers and (in England) high-speed battleships such as Queen Elizabeth should perform the role of the “high-speed wing”. But in America it was considered more important to increase the number of dreadnoughts, postponing the construction of the forces that ensure their action for later.


The battleship "Pennsylvania" on maneuvers


Thus, England, the United States and Germany, although following their own, national views on the development of the navy, still came to very similar conditions: to design and build battleships within (or slightly above) 30 000 t of normal displacement, armed most heavy guns from the available, with a speed not exceeding the 21 node. And, of course, the maximum security that was only possible if the above requirements were met.

Strictly speaking, only American battleships, which were built starting from the Oklahoma-Nevada pair, are usually referred to as “standard”: their displacement from series to series increased slightly (although this is probably true only from Pennsylvania), the speed was kept at level 21 bonds, as well as apply a single principle of armor protection. But, by virtue of the reasons stated above, the last prewar battleships of England and Germany are also sometimes called “standard”, although, perhaps, this is not entirely correct. However, in the future we will call them "standard" as well.

In the cycle of articles brought to your attention, we will consider and compare battleships of three types between them: British ships of the type “R” (“Rivendzh”), German type “Bayern” and American type “Pennsylvania”. Why these ships? All of them were designed at about the same time - the head battleships of these types were laid in 1913. All of them were completed and became part of the fleet (although the Germans - very briefly, but this is certainly not the fault of the ships themselves).

"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. Who is better? Introduction

Bayern flooding in Scapa Flow


Battleships of these types took part in the hostilities. And, of course, all of them were created within the framework of the concept of a “standard” battleship to oppose their own kind, which is why their comparison seems perfectly correct.

The fact is that despite the common prerequisites of creation, all these battleships were influenced by the national characteristics and concepts of the linear fleet, and despite many similarities, there were also significant differences. So, for example, despite the almost equal caliber of the guns of the German and British battleships, the first were created according to the concept of “light projectile - high initial speed”, and the second - on the contrary. Shipbuilders from all three countries tried to provide maximum protection for their “offspring”, but the American battleships got the famous “all or nothing” scheme, but the British and German battleships were booked much more traditionally. We will try to identify these differences and suggest what effect they would have on the results of the hypothetical opposition of these battleships. After examining the ships of the types "Bayern", "Rivendzh" and "Pennsylvania", we will identify among them a leader and an outsider, as well as the "middle ground" between them.


Battleship "Baden"


Why other countries did not support the three leading naval powers in the construction of "standard" battleships? The reasons were all his own. For example, France simply “did not grow up” to a standard battleship - its docks could not serve warships with a normal displacement above 25 000, and within these limits one could count on the super-center spread — an analogue of the British “Iron Duke” or the German Koenig. In addition, the French did not have a weapon larger than 340-mm, which, to ensure sufficient fire power, required to place at least 12. And this was a rather “heavy” solution - eight larger caliber guns would have been lighter, and left more displacement for armor and constructive protection of the ship.

Japan, in essence, sought to build not battleships, but something intermediate between the dreadnought and the battle cruiser. Bearing in mind the gigantic advantage that high squadron speed gave them in the battles of the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese wanted to continue to have linear forces that were faster than those that their rivals would have. Thus, for many years in the development of the battleships of the country of the Rising Sun, firepower and speed became a priority, but the defense was on the sidelines. And their “Fuso” type battleships, incorporated in 1912, fully expressed this concept - being well armed (12 * 356-mm guns) and very fast (23 knots), they nevertheless had a rather weak defense (Formally, the thickness of the same armor belt reached 305 mm, but if you look at what he defended ...).


One type "Fuso" battleship "Yamashiro" in Yokosuka


In Russia, similar trends prevailed as in Japan: when designing battleships of the Sevastopol type and battle cruisers of the Izmail type, our ancestors also paid maximum attention to the firepower and speed of ships, in terms of their protection limited to the principle of reasonable sufficiency. Alas, major miscalculations in terms of predicting the growth of the power of ship guns have led to the fact that reasonable sufficiency has become the most complete inadequacy (although, strictly speaking, to the battleships of the “Sevastopol” type this applies to a lesser extent than to the “Izmaili”). As for the Black Sea battleships, история their creation is very specific and worthy of a separate material (which, perhaps, the author will be engaged at the end of this cycle). You can, of course, remember that the fourth Black Sea battleship “Emperor Nicholas I”, which, by the way, could well become “Equal to the Apostles Prince Vladimir” (submitted for approval by the Sovereign Father and this option of naming the new ship), was laid in 1914 g ., that is, even later than the head "Bayern", "Rivengi" and "Pennsylvania." But in no way should it be considered the Russian equivalent of the “standard” battleship. When designing the Emperor Nicholas I, the emphasis was shifted to getting a warship as quickly as possible, capable of complementing the three Empress laid out in 1911 g to the full brigade, that is, to four battleships. And for the newest Russian battleship, various options were considered, including the 12 with the newest 356-mm / 52 guns, similar to those that they were going to use on the Izmail cruisers, but in the end the cheapest and fastest were selected version with 305-mm artillery. Well, the subsequent projects of Russian battleships, firstly, were created much later than Rivendzha, Bayern and Pennsylvania, and secondly, alas, they were never embodied in metal.

As for the Italian battleships, the following happened to them - despite the fact that Italy seriously "invested" in the update of its line fleet, in the period from 1909 to 1912. inclusive, having laid six dreadnought battleships, already in the next, 1913, the Italian fleet’s lag behind its two main Mediterranean rivals, France and Austria-Hungary, became quite obvious. While the Italians, having neither a new project nor a new gun, were forced to plant two “Andrea Doria” type ships with 1912 * 13-mm artillery of the main caliber in 305, in France in the same year three sverhredredrednouta were laid Type "Brittany" with ten 340-mm guns. As for Austria-Hungary, after the laying out of the very successful "305-mm" dreadnoughts like "Viribus Unitis", they were going to start creating new battleships armed with 350-mm guns.

Thus, the Italians were obviously lagging behind, and besides, they were faced with long construction times - for their industry, which was far from the most powerful in Europe, the creation of dreadnoughts became an extremely difficult task. The first Italian battleships with 305-mm guns at the time of the laying had quite adequate performance characteristics, if compared with the dreadnoughts of the leading powers under construction. But at the time of the sea’s commissioning, the super-dreadnoughts with the 343-356-mm artillery had already fired, which the Italian ships with their 305-mm artillery no longer looked equal (although, strictly speaking, they were not inferior as much as it was considered).

And based on the foregoing, in the project of the battleships Francesco Caracolo, the Italian shipbuilders tried to create such a ship that would definitely surpass the existing French and Austro-Hungarian competitors, but at the same time, would not yield to their peers built by the great maritime powers. In other words, the Italians tried to predict the development of a battleship for many years to come and to embody these guesses in metal: accordingly, their ships of the type “Francesco Caracciolo” can be considered as forerunners of the concept of a high-speed battleship in Italian design. But here the “standard” battleships in the understanding we described, they, of course, were not.



As for the rest of the countries, they either did not even manage to start the construction of the super-dreadnoughts, settling on “305-mm battleships” (like Spain and Austria-Hungary), or ordered dreadnoughts abroad — but within the framework of our theme all this is not is of no interest. Accordingly, we end our brief excursion into the history of battling in the prewar years and proceed to the description of the design ... let's begin, perhaps, with the English battleships of the type "Rivend"



Продолжение следует ...
Author:
56 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. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 7 December 2018 05: 47
    +3
    I just thought that something had not happened for a long time on the cruisers and destroyers of the WWII period, but bang. Thanks to the author and give a tip on the next topic, a comparison of aircraft carriers and submarines, destroyers and weapons and equipment (radar, GAS). Thank you.
  2. Conductor
    Conductor 7 December 2018 06: 27
    +5
    LTD !!! A delicious topic !!!
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 7 December 2018 06: 59
    +8
    good
    Well, at least the author prudently decided to limit the scope of articles on battleships, because if comparisons of battle cruisers of about two dozen lasted months, then the analysis of flights among dreadnoughts and battleships starting with the "Dreadnought" and ending with "Vanguard" in the amount of approximately (too lazy to count accurately) more than a hundred (around 120, plus or minus a dozen) would have lasted for years smile repeat
    Article plus - it is always interesting to hear an adequate personal opinion of a good author drinks
    We look forward to continuing yes hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2018 08: 16
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Well, even though the author prudently decided to limit the scope of articles on battleships

      The author is not that decided :))))) There was just a conversation about the reservation systems of the last dreadnought, for a long time, I promised to compare ... well, within the framework of this cycle I fulfill the promise :)))))
      Quote: Rurikovich
      then the analysis of flights among dreadnoughts and battleships, starting with the "Dreadnought" and ending with the "Vanguard" in the amount of about (too lazy to count for sure) more than a hundred (around 120 pieces, plus or minus a dozen) would have lasted for years

      If all over the world - then yes :))))
      1. volodimer
        volodimer 7 December 2018 10: 13
        +2
        Andera, welcome! Well, how so! I just tuned in to the REV, and then a new topic laughing
        And how does one manage to grasp the immense?
        Thank you, as always interesting, and with anticipated pleasure I look forward to continuing.
      2. SASHA OLD
        SASHA OLD 7 December 2018 14: 37
        +5
        Andrey from Chelyabinsk, thank you very much, your articles are always interesting to read!
  4. Conductor
    Conductor 7 December 2018 07: 10
    +2
    Who and for what Merkavu zinnuset that !!!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2018 08: 15
      +2
      I don’t know :)))) I can assume that for
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      For a long time it was not for the cruisers and destroyers of the WWII period, but here bam

      Standard LCs have nothing to do with them.
      1. Conductor
        Conductor 7 December 2018 11: 27
        +3
        No, I understand that there are anti-Semites, Russophobes, Negrophiles. pink, blue, Sumerians, but what would a phobia be like in ship classes, this is beyond my understanding stop
  5. kvs207
    kvs207 7 December 2018 08: 05
    +7
    Quote: Rurikovich
    comparisons of battlecruisers of about two dozen lasted months

    Are you in a hurry somewhere? laughing
    I really like German battleships from the First World War, so the article is certainly a plus, and the author - respect.
    1. volodimer
      volodimer 7 December 2018 10: 19
      +1
      Yes, of course, there is no rush, there is impatience smile and the desire for everything immediately and more fellow
      It’s interesting laughing And you have to wait like another series of "Game of Thrones"
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 8 December 2018 09: 20
        0
        Quote: volodimer
        And you have to wait like another series of "Game of Thrones"

        ABOUT ! fellow Accurate comparison yes good
  6. Conductor
    Conductor 7 December 2018 09: 14
    +2
    Andrew, and when the concept of Dreadnought evolved into the concept of a battleship, not a joke, just your opinion is interesting.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2018 13: 06
      +3
      Quote: Conductor
      Andrew, and when the concept of Dreadnought evolved into the concept of battleship

      Ufff .... Good question :)))))
      There have never been any official dreadnoughts in Russia. In the sailing era, there were battleships, then battleships appeared (all sorts of armored batteries, monitors, etc.), then - squadron battleships, and in 1907 all of them were again called battleships. That is, Potemkin is a battleship, and Empress Maria is also a battleship. And the dreadnought is the unofficial name of battleships built in accordance with the ideas of the British Dreadnought.
      The Germans had Panzerschiffe and Linienschiffe, and if my sclerosis didn’t lie to me, they called part of the battleships Linienschiffe — that is, battleship, but the dreadnoughts were Großlinienschiffe — that is, a large ship of the line :)))
      With the British - I don’t remember the Huchub :))))
      And today it’s generally accepted to call dreadnoughts all battleships starting from the Dreadnought and built before the end of the First World War, although this is taste
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 7 December 2018 13: 39
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        With the British - I don’t remember the Huchub :))))

        Battleship, always battleship. If it's official. And unofficially, as they called the EBRs ironclad, so the dreadnoughts were actually called dreadnought, but from the beginning of the EMNIP in the 1910s, this word gradually began to fall out of use, as superdreadnoughts were built - they are already battle ships both literally and figuratively, and " the dreadnought "stuck to 305-mm ships, and only partially to heavier ones. But here I can be very wrong.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          9 December 2018 16: 45
          0
          Quote: arturpraetor
          Battleship, always battleship. This is if officially.

          Nuuu, did they call sailing battleship-in-line (or something like that)? hi
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor 9 December 2018 16: 55
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Nuuu, did they call sailing battleship-in-line (or something like that)?

            Nope. Just Ship of the line, and in colloquial - manowar (from man of war),. The term battleship appeared already in the 1880's.
      2. Rakovor
        Rakovor 7 December 2018 14: 02
        0
        And wasn’t they called at the official level the battle cruisers of the type "Izmail" - cruiser-dreadnought? It seems there is somewhere a photo of the mortgage board, where it is called that.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          7 December 2018 14: 40
          +2
          Quote: Rakovor
          And wasn’t they called at the official level the battlecruisers of the type "Izmail" - cruiser-dreadnought?

          At the official level ... You see, there is an established, official classification of ships. According to which at one time "Peresvets" were nothing more than squadron battleships. But in the official documents of that time they were sometimes called both "armored cruisers" and "battleships-cruisers". This is still, let's say, a semi-official level.
          1. Rakovor
            Rakovor 7 December 2018 15: 04
            +1
            Well, yes, this is most likely the case. And I made a mistake with the mortgage board, it says "armored cruiser" in general.))) And this was in '12, when such a class did not seem to exist in the RIF.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 December 2018 18: 50
              0
              Quote: Rakovor
              And this is in the 12 year, when such a class in the RIF did not seem to exist.

              Honestly, I don’t remember offhand, but the EMNIP battlecruisers officially appeared during the WWI. But here you need to check :)))
            2. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 7 December 2018 21: 23
              +2
              Indeed, it is written so.

              But why didn’t it exist?
              In the Ship list of the Russian Imperial Fleet of the 1914 of the year, on the 4 page, Russian in white says: - armored cruisers
              http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/14149-rossiyskiy-imperatorskiy-flot-1914-g-spb-1914#mode/inspect/page/19/zoom/6
            3. anzar
              anzar 8 December 2018 17: 59
              +1
              ... "armored cruiser" is written.))) And this in '12, when such a class in the RIF seemed to no longer exist.

              Was, it did not exist before)) - there were 1st class cruisers; 2nd class ... But before the "armored frigate" (Monomakh) - yes wink
      3. Comrade
        Comrade 8 December 2018 05: 18
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The Germans had Panzerschiffe and Linienschiffe, and if my sclerosis didn’t lie to me, they called part of the battleships Linienschiffe - that is, battleship, but the dreadnoughts were Großlinienschiffe - that is, a large ship of the line

        The French in the described period also did not bother.
        Dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts they classified as "Battleships of the 1st rank", battleships - "Battleships of the 2nd rank".
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          9 December 2018 16: 43
          +1
          Quote: Comrade
          Dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts they classified as "Battleships of the 1st rank", battleships - "Battleships of the 2nd rank".

          Which, generally speaking, is quite logical. The Germans have about the same logic - that an armored ship, but in old age is not suitable for a line - an armored ship. More modern battleships that can be put in line (they dragged to Jutland) are a battleship. Well, the dreadnought is a large ship of the line :))))
          Z.Y. I wonder how the Germans would call Yamato in those years? :))))))
  7. Nehist
    Nehist 7 December 2018 09: 28
    +2
    We look forward to continuing. The topic is interesting, especially for each ship that will be covered by Dear Andrei, there are extensive monographs by different authors, where, with approximately the same evaluation of projects, they evaluate combat effectiveness differently hi
  8. Potter
    Potter 7 December 2018 10: 21
    +2
    Thank. Somewhat unexpected transition to standard battleships. An interesting topic. It is possible that without the prehistory of the pre-dreadnought and first-dreadnought periods, it will be somewhat divorced from the roots, but colleagues are right - the story of all the dreadnought will be excessively long and prolonged. Introduction carried away, we look forward to continuing!
  9. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 7 December 2018 11: 19
    +1
    The topic is very extensive, will there be at least 10 parts?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2018 13: 08
      +2
      I don’t know how it will go :))) In general, I initially thought it was more modest - according to the article on the design of the ship, then a comparison. And how it goes ... According to Varyag, I also expected a lot of things laughing
  10. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 7 December 2018 11: 19
    0
    It looks like a trailer for an exciting movie ...
  11. Miner
    Miner 7 December 2018 11: 28
    +1
    reasonable sufficiency has turned into utter failure
    (although, strictly speaking, this applies to the battleships of the "Sevastopol" class to a lesser extent than to the "Izmail").


    That is, the "utter inadequacy" of weapons relates more to the Ishmaels than to the Sevastopol?

    Really 356 mm. more insufficient than 305 mm.?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2018 12: 46
      +1
      Quote: Miner
      That is, the "utter inadequacy" of weapons

      It was actually written
      in terms of their protection, limited to the principle of reasonable sufficiency. Alas, major miscalculations in terms of predicting the growth of power of naval guns led to the fact that reasonable sufficiency turned into a complete failure

      That is, it seems to be obvious that we are talking about protection, and not about weapons :)))
    2. kvs207
      kvs207 7 December 2018 12: 46
      0
      The author meant that the Ishmaels were insufficiently protected and armed ships. He has a series of articles on these cruisers.
      1. rayruav
        rayruav 7 December 2018 19: 13
        0
        Ishmaels not sufficiently armed? you're not right
  12. Decimam
    Decimam 7 December 2018 16: 26
    +2
    "But, due to the above reasons, the last pre-war battleships of England and Germany are sometimes referred to as "standard".
    Who and where calls the English and German pre-war battleships standard?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2018 17: 32
      0
      Quote: Decimam
      Who and where calls the English and German pre-war battleships standard?

      Online discussions, of course.
      1. Decimam
        Decimam 7 December 2018 18: 44
        +1
        I see, thanks.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          7 December 2018 19: 17
          +2
          It’s just that I’m not writing a scientific monograph, and since many readers of my articles are regulars of such discussions themselves, I take into account the views expressed in these very discussions. In the format of articles for an online publication, I think this is quite acceptable
          1. Decimam
            Decimam 7 December 2018 19: 48
            +2
            Perhaps this is so, but now many people, except the Internet, simply do not know other sources of information and take everything in a row for truth. Hence the huge amount of all nonsense in the network, replicated already as completely reliable information.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 8 December 2018 09: 28
              +2
              Quote: Decimam
              however, now many people, except the Internet, simply do not know other sources of information and take everything in a row for truth. Hence the huge amount of all nonsense in the network, replicated already as completely reliable information.

              I’ll say simpler - just people are lazy to think and seek the truth wink
  13. ioan-e
    ioan-e 7 December 2018 17: 46
    +1
    Article "fire", my compliments to the author! hi
  14. NF68
    NF68 7 December 2018 18: 08
    +2
    Interesting article.
  15. rayruav
    rayruav 7 December 2018 19: 09
    0
    please, comrade GURU, explain why the viribus unitis is worse than Sevastopol and in the cycle about ismal not a word about the seaworthiness of all Russian capital ships
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2018 19: 22
      +2
      Quote: rayruav
      please comrade GURU explain why viribus unitis worse than Sevastopol

      Sorry, but I don’t have to tell the way to earn a couple of million dollars at the same time? :)))) The answer to your question will be drawn to a good series of articles.
      Quote: rayruav
      and in the cycle about Izmail not a word about the seaworthiness of all Russian capital ships

      I talked about this a lot in the "Sevastopol" cycle - in short, the claims to their seaworthiness are largely far-fetched. Of course, seaworthiness was not good, but it was no worse than many other dreadnoughts. I even cited photographs of the Derflinger, in which the upper deck in the stern went under the water at full speed, that is, the waves walked along the barbets of the towers.
      Well, to talk about the seaworthiness of the Ishmaels is a thankless task. In theory, it should have been much better than that of Sevastopol, but who knows what would have happened in practice?
  16. Comrade
    Comrade 8 December 2018 04: 59
    +2
    Dear Andrew,
    traditionally, another interesting topic has been chosen by you for the next series of articles, thanks +!
    the French did not have guns larger than 340-mm

    It says that they have guns of the caliber 350 mm model 1912, alas, without any details whatsoever. Perhaps we are talking about prototypes.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 December 2018 16: 41
      0
      Greetings, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      It says that they have guns of the caliber 350 mm model 1912,

      Offhand, I can assume that this is a source error - the Franks never had an 350-mm, and the 340-mm gun, which they were planning to put on Normandy just 1912 of the year. Rifling (in the sense of the difference in methods of measuring caliber) ... can not give such an acceleration. But in general - very interesting, I will try to look for something about the French 350-mm. Thank! hi
      1. anzar
        anzar 9 December 2018 17: 43
        0
        Offhand I can assume that this is a source error - the francs never had a 350 mm ...

        Yes. At first I thought that we could talk (nominally) about some kind of trophy guns - Austro-Hungarian (Skoda) just model 12 years old. And the German (14 years old, used on land) were destroyed in 22g "under the terms of the Vers. Contract"
      2. frog
        frog 9 December 2018 18: 16
        0
        Postcards with at least 350 mm guns were ....
        http://www.filokartist.net/catalog/showitem.php?id=7421
  17. anzar
    anzar 8 December 2018 18: 13
    +1
    +++ dear Andrey, a great start!
    We look forward to comparing the reservation schemes (despite the fact that the maximum thickness is close) relative to the firepower of opponents (12 * 356 to 8 * 380) - as before for Izmail.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 December 2018 16: 35
      0
      Quote: anzar
      We are waiting for a comparison of reservation schemes

      But what about :))))) It will definitely be
  18. Oleg Kolsky 051
    Oleg Kolsky 051 8 December 2018 22: 43
    +1
    Good evening Andrei Nikolaevich! Since you have taken up this interesting topic, then immediately, please arrange analysis of EUs from different countries, because largely thanks to the weight and size gain, the Germans were able to more efficiently use the displacement of their battleships and battle cruisers.
    And since there was a conversation about your cycle on "Sevastopol", I read it again today, there is no mention, and why all the same for them they chose the "Englishman" power plant from Yarrow, and not the German, lighter and more compact power plant?
    It seems that the power plant of Sevastopol is 2783 tons, and the "Kaiser" is 1940 tons with comparable power?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 December 2018 16: 35
      +2
      Greetings, Oleg!
      Quote: Oleg Kolsky 051
      Since you have taken up this interesting topic, then immediately, please arrange analysis of EUs from different countries, because largely thanks to the win in the overall dimensions, the Germans were able to more efficiently use the displacement of their battleships and battle cruisers.

      That's right, though I can say a little here.
      Quote: Oleg Kolsky 051
      And since there was a conversation about your cycle on "Sevastopol", I read it again today, there is no mention, and why all the same for them they chose the "Englishman" power plant from Yarrow, and not the German, lighter and more compact power plant?

      Apparently, the answer is very simple - no one has offered us German EU.
      The fact is that the Germans, on the one hand, built ships for sale, but on the other hand, they protected their own achievements. As a result, if you order a ship to the Germans, you will receive exactly what you ask for, no less, but no more. And if the Germans actually know how to do better, they will not tell you this, they will leave it to themselves. And if you still remember the pressure. which we went through so as not to order a project from the Germans ...
      In general, we did not know about the bulk size advantage of German power plants, and it is not a fact, by the way, that the Germans themselves knew about it. They knew their data, but English was no longer a fact, the performance characteristics of competing ships were fairly general and often incorrect, so ...
      1. Oleg Kolsky 051
        Oleg Kolsky 051 9 December 2018 17: 06
        0
        Thank you for your reply.
        It is a pity you can not put 2 plus article.
  19. bone1
    bone1 9 December 2018 18: 50
    0
    Not "dreadnought fever" but "naval psychosis" - how small children looked at each other and sculpted, sculpted, well at least this "fever" did not last long, but it’s scary to imagine what displacement would have reached? -100000? or 1 million? what And the war began - they hid their "treasures" there was nowhere to go (no matter what happened) and they went out to sea on very big holidays (like the Germans, no further than 200 miles, why not 20?) laughing
  20. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 7 February 2019 20: 17
    0
    On the last photo, floodability is the unbearable fore end of the ship. There sea unrest is not even special. What will happen in the storm, when the excitement is big enough ?! The team will not be comfortable to work in such conditions. What do you think?
    This is me, in terms of discussing the existing design. hi
    1. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 7 February 2019 20: 51
      0
      Excuse me, please, for off-topic reasoning, but I couldn’t resist .. Modern ships have a bow-tip cutting wave and high bulwarks, they are designed for the maximum cut-off of the wave from the main deck. And the old dishes — they work to receive water on the deck and then dump it overboard through scuppers and other stuffed cabbage. .This entailed high costs for strengthening recruitment in the forepeak-ram bulkhead area and further on the superstructure.