Military Review

"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. British "Rivengi"

79
We begin our comparison with the description of the British battleships of the type "Rivend", which are often also called the type "Royal Sauverin", or simply the type "R". All five battleships of this type were built according to the 1913 program of the year: the first was laid by the “Rivend” 22 of October 1913, the last - the Royal Oak and Royal Soverin, mounted on the stocks on the same day, 15 of January 1914.


Of course, at the stage of determining the performance characteristics of the Rivenji looked like a step backwards in comparison with the magnificent Queen Elizabeth, built according to the program of the previous year. The main differences from the "Queen" were to be:

1. Slower speed: instead of 25 knots. total 21,5 (and then 21) nodes.

2. Return to a mixed power plant — instead of purely oil-fired boilers, units should be installed on the Rivengi that can operate on both oil and coal.

3. And finally, the cost - the UK wanted a few cheaper battleships than the high-speed Queen Elizabeth.

True, about the last point there are a lot of discrepancies. So, A.A. Mikhailov, in his monograph “Royal Soverin type ships of the line”, indicates that in the case of the Rivends, the British wanted to stay within 2 million 150 thousand f.st., while the cost of Queen Elizabeth was from 2 million 408 thousand f.st. to 3 million 14 thousand f.st. All anything, but then AA Mikhailov indicates the cost of "Rivendjee" from 2 406 500 f.st. (lead ship) to 3 295 800 f.st. (built later than all "Remillis") O. Parks, in his famous multi-volume work devoted to the battleships of England, indicates the cost of battleships of the type "Queen Elizabeth" at the level of 1 960 thousand f. Art., but the price of "Rivengi" does not say anything.

The author of this article could not find out the exact reason for this discrepancy. Of course, it can be assumed that the whole thing is about inflation: World War I hit hard enough on almost all the currencies of the world, and the British pound sterling was no exception. “Queen Elizabeth” type battleships were already under construction during the war years, and perhaps the price is from 2,4 to more than 3 million f.st. represent the actual costs of their construction, and the 1 980 th. - the value given to the pre-war rate of the pound sterling. But in this case, the Admiralty could not evaluate the "Rivenji" in 2 150 thousand f.st. even before the war — how did they know then about the beginning of the war and the inflation that arose in connection with it? On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that the cost of the ships indicated by O. Parks does not include any nuances of their configuration either - what kind of equipment is this, in 50% of the cost of the ship itself?

In any case, we can speak about one thing with certainty - the Rivendis should have been cheaper than their predecessors.

Artillery


381 mm royal cannon


The main caliber was repeated on the Queen Elizabeth type battleships — four two-gun turrets of 381-mm Mk I guns. Recall that these artillery systems had a barrel length in 42 caliber and sent projectiles with an initial speed of 871 m / s. The maximum elevation angle also corresponded to the Queen Elizabeth settings - 752 degrees, which ensured the maximum range of 20 cables. The placement of the towers also fully corresponded to that adopted on the battleships of the previous series - they were located linearly and sublimely, two in the extremities, with the artillery grounds of each pair of towers located under the towers and between them. Ammunition was 121 shots on the gun.

Mine caliber was introduced 14 152-mm guns MK-XII, which is less on the 2 guns than the "Queen Elizabeth." Initially, the "Rivendzhi" supposed to put the same 16 guns, of which a dozen were located in the dungeon, and four guns were to stand openly on the upper deck, protected only by shields. Subsequently, it was decided to abandon the aft pair of “open” cannons, and the bow ones located in the area of ​​the chimney were placed in a superstructure, defended by a “polukademeat” - but this happened after the ships entered service during one of their upgrades.


The battleship "Royal Soverin". The photo clearly shows the 152-mm gun behind the shield.


In general, despite the reduction in the number of weapons of mine caliber and a decrease in their protection (only 12 cannons were in the casemates), the Rivendzha MSS should be considered the best in comparison with all previous British battleships. The fact is that, taking into account the high filling of the casemates on battleships like the Iron Duke, the British shifted the casemate to the stern. As a result, although the RNVJ's 152-mm artillery was located at about the same height as the rest of the British battleships, it was still overwhelmingly less. Ammunition repeated the "Queen Elizabeth" - 130 shots at the gun, plus 100 lighting shells on the ship.

In addition to the above, at the time of entry into service, the Rivenji had two 76,2-mm anti-aircraft guns and four three-pound salute guns, as well as five Maxim machine guns. Not without cost, of course, without mine weapons - it was represented by four submarine 533-mm torpedo tubes with 5 ammunition torpedoes on the unit.

Reservation

The scheme of armor protection of battleships of the “Rivend” type in many respects repeated that used on the “Queen Elizabeth”, but still had significant differences from it.



The basis of the vertical defense was 330 mm of armor belt, stretching from the middle of the barbet of the 1-th tower to the middle of the barbet of 4-th. On Queen Elizabeth, the height of the armor plates was 4,4 m, but the 330 mm section only lasted for 2,28 m. Above it on 1,21 m, the armor plate had only 152 mm thickness, and below (0,914 m) it was 203 mm. But on the "Rivendzhe" height of armor plates was less on 52 - only 3,88 m, but then they were 330 mm thick along the whole height. Without a doubt, such protection was significantly superior to the one that the queen-type Elizabeth type battleships had.

From 330 mm, armored belt into the bow and stern continued with 152 mm plates of the same thickness, which, closer to the extremities, decreased to 102 mm. The 102 belt in the nose should be booked with a thickness of one inch (25,4 mm), although it is possible that this was not armor, but just a covering of increased thickness, the feed remained unprotected. At the same time, 102 mm sections were closed by traverses of the same thickness, only in the stern it was located perpendicular to the axis of the ship, and in the bow - at an angle of about 45 degrees. to her. This, of course, was not the only traversing - in places where 152 mm and 102 mm of armor were closed, 38 mm of armor reassembly were located in the bow and stern, and the edges of 330 mm of armor plates and the front walls of barbets of 1 and 4 of the main caliber 152 mm traverse beams were connected at an angle to the longitudinal plane of the ship. That is, in order to get into the supply pipe of the bow or stern turret, the enemy shell first had to pierce 152 mm onboard armor and then 152 mm traverse, located at a large angle to the projectile flight path.

We described the main armored belt of the ship - above it was the second, upper armor belt, which had a thickness of 152 mm. It was shorter than the 330 mm section of the main armor belt: starting from the same location as the 330 mm armor plate in the nose, that is, around the middle of the barbet of the nasal (1) tower, it lasted only until the middle of the barbat of the 3 tower, leaving the fourth completely unprotected. At the same time, from the edges of the upper, 152 mm of armor belt, there were also “slanting” traverses covering the barbety of 1 and 3 to her towers.

And, finally, a casemate was located above the upper armor belt, which was even shorter than the upper armor belt. Its thickness at the side was 152 mm, while from the stern it was locked with 102 mm by means of a beam that runs perpendicular to the axis of the ship in the aft fighting cabin, and in the nose of the 152 mm armor plate of the casemate, again at an angle to the ship’s diametral plane, connected to 2- oh tower, adjacent to it at about the middle of its length. The casemate itself was divided along the axis of the ship 51 mm by armored partitioning, and the tools in it were divided by the armored 38 mm, which did not reach the center of the hull, however.

“Rivendzhi” also had anti-torpedo bulkheads that went along the sides along the 152-330 mm sections of the main armor belt, that is, from the nasal beam of the 38 mm to the aft one of the same thickness. The height of the anti-torpedo bulkhead ran from the bottom of the ship to the middle deck, that is, even slightly above the waterline. Where this bulkhead was located behind the 152-330 mm armor belt, its thickness was 25,4 mm, below - 38 mm. In addition, the vertical armor had chimneys - mm 25 from the main armored deck and to the roof of the casemates, above, to the base of the chimney - 38 mm.

As for the horizontal protection of battleships of the “Rivend” type, the ships of this type had 5 decks: the forecastle deck, upper, main, middle and lower, and they all had some kind of reservation on this or that section, so it’s all to be described not so easy. The location of the decks is indicated on the above ship's armor protection scheme, and we will describe its horizontal protection, moving from top to bottom.

According to some data, the forecastle deck was not booked anywhere, except for the section on which it was also the roof of the casemate of 152-mm guns, and there it consisted of 25,4 mm of armored plates. It turns out that the specified protection "Rivengi" received for the duration of the 2-th tower of the main caliber and to the aft log house. However, according to other sources, the forecastle deck had protection outside the dungeon - in the bow, up to the 1 tower of the main caliber 19 mm, aft, to the barbet of the third tower, 25 mm (this is shown in the diagram from O. Parks book)

Below was the upper deck - it was the "floor" of the casemate and lay above the upper 152 mm belt, continuing, of course, and further, to the bow and stern of the ship. But it was armored only on the area limited by the 152 mm belt and traverses, that is, from the 1-th to the 4-th tower of the main caliber inclusive. Its thickness was variable, ranging from 25,4 to 31,7- 38 mm, unfortunately, it was not possible to figure out exactly where the booking differentiated.

Well, then we turn to the base of the horizontal armor protection "Rivenja" - the main armored deck. Its horizontal part was held at the level of the upper deck (at the level of the upper edge of the 152-330 mm armor belt) throughout its length, and had a thickness of 50,8 mm above the ammunition cellars and machine rooms, but the boiler rooms, apparently, were only protected 25,4 mm armor. The horizontal section of the armor deck was connected to the lower edge of the main armor belt by bevels that had a thickness of 50,8 mm throughout the citadel. Thus, the ship was booked throughout the 152-330 mm armored belt, from the bow 38 mm traverse to the stern. But behind them in the stern and bow to the 102 mm, the main deck did not have traverses and was reserved from side to side of the 25,4 mm. Further from the 102 mm, the traverse to the stem and the sterner the upper deck of the Rivendzha was not booked.

The middle deck was booked in the stern, above the cellars of the 4 tower and stern torpedo tubes (25,4 mm), between 38 mm and 102 mm traverse - 50,8 mm, for 102 mm traverse to the stern stem (above the steering) 76-XNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxx The bottom one - on the contrary, only in the nose, from the barbet of the 102 tower and almost to the stem - 1 mm.

In general, the following was obtained. Above the boiler compartments, the total horizontal protection reached 82,5 mm (25,4 mm deck forecastle, upper deck 32 mm and main 25,4 mm). The strongest horizontal protection was above the cellars - basically the same 82,5 mm (31,7 mm upper deck and 50,8 mm main), but in the stern tower 107,9 mm (also 25,4 mm middle deck), and the same protection had engine rooms for about half of its length, only there, instead of the middle deck, additional protection was created by the “roof” of the casemate - 25,4 mm deck of the forecastle. Above the steering devices, the protection was 76-102 mm.

I must say that such protection had, on the one hand, a lot in common with the previous British "capital" ships, but on the other - it was very different from them. The common point was the “patchwork” pattern, when seemingly acceptable thicknesses were spread over several decks. The difference was in the unusually high position of the main armored deck - if earlier its horizontal part barely towered above the waterline, then in battleships of the Rivend type it ran at the level of the main deck, that is, at the level of the upper edge of the main armor belt, 2,44 m above the level of the constructive waterline.

Such an innovation can hardly be called a great success of British designers, and the thing was this. We have already discussed the vulnerable place of Queen Elizabeth type battleships, which was a consequence of the differentiated thickness of its main armor belt: the problem was that the enemy shell, breaking through the armor plate where its thickness was 152 mm, “flew” into the armor deck of some 25,4 mm thick.

"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. British "Rivengi"

Critical hit trajectory for Queen Elizabeth


Such protection could not repel any fragments of a large-caliber projectile, nor, all the more, the projectile itself - but the latter had good chances to break through the 152 mm belt and 25,4 mm deck and enter the engine or boiler room as a whole - or explode during the breach of the armor deck.

So, on the "Rivendzha" designers have the opportunity to largely get rid of this shortcoming, due to the fact that its main armor has 330 mm across the entire height of the armored plate. If the armored deck were kept at a height like that of Queen Elizabeth, in order to get to the 25,4-50,8 mm of the deck, the projectile needed to overcome 330 mm of armor, not 152 mm. Of course, the projectile could get into the upper armor belt, which had only 152 mm, but the fact is that in the case described by us it would be positioned high enough above the main armored deck, and the projectile would directly hit it. Of course, the projectile, breaking through the upper armor belt, could simply explode inside the ship, and in this case, the 25,4-50,8 mm horizontal armor plates did not have many chances to reflect its fragments, but even in this case only fragments would pass into the protected premises - significantly lost their kinetic energy. So the scale of the damage inflicted by them would still be incomparable with the situation when a heavy projectile exploded directly on the deck, or even passed it in general.

However, the designers of "Rivendzha" did not leave the armored deck at a height typical of the "Queen Elizabeth" - they raised it above the waterline to the level of the upper deck. The result was the following: at the level of the main armor belt, the protection of the Rivenja, which included 330 mm of armor and 50,8 mm of the armored deck, significantly exceeded that of the Queen Elizabeth, which had an 203-330-152 of variable thickness armor (bottom-up) and 25,4 mm bevel and deck behind the slab. However, above the 330 mm belts, battleships of the Rivend type received the same “window” in the defense that their predecessors had - the enemy shell, breaking the 152 mm upper armor belt, could easily cater to the horizontal part of the armor deck 25,4-50,8 mm thick.


Critical hit trajectory for battleship "Rivend"


In other words, instead of destroying the vulnerability of “Queen Elizabeth” type battleships, the designers of the Rivengers simply put it one floor (one deck) higher. As for the protection of other important elements of the structure, their booking differed little from what battleships like the Queen Elizabeth had.

The 381 mm towers had a 330 mm forehead, the side plates 280 mm and a roof 114 mm. (The Queen Elizabeth towers may have only had 229 mm side armored plates and most certainly a roof 108 mm thick). The barbets of the towers were an extremely difficult articulated structure that had protection from 102 to 254 mm. For example, the barbet 4, the stern tower above the upper deck, and in the gap between the upper and main deck, where the armor was completely absent, had 254 mm armor on the sides, 229 mm in the stern direction and 178 mm on the back side, facing the 3 tower. Below, between the main and middle decks, where there was a 152 mm armor belt, the barbet thickness was 152 mm from the sides and aft, but 102 mm in the part facing the 3 tower. In general, it can be stated both the desire of the British in every possible way to reduce the mass of barbets, and the fact that they have gone too far on this path - even 254 mm barbet looks like a frankly weak defense.

The conning tower had a 280 mm wall and an 152 mm shaft, going down to the central post. The aft conning tower (torpedo shooting control post) had, respectively, 152 and 102 mm.

Power plant and PTZ


Beautiful photo of the battleship "Remillis"


Strictly speaking, before proceeding to the description of machines and boilers of battleships of the “Rivend” type, we should talk about their anti-torpedo protection, but if we do this, some of the PTZ nuances will not be clear, so we will tell about it in this section .

History Rivenjay’s power plant is akin to a good detective. Initially, the British wanted to get a ship capable of achieving 21,5-knot speed on the afterburner - calculations showed that in a normal displacement of 25 tons (this is how the future battleship was seen by the British) a power plant with a capacity of 500 hp would be enough for this. At the same time, it was decided to abandon purely oil heating using boilers capable of working both on oil and on coal. This decision, on the one hand, looks like a shaped retrograde, but on the other, it had very good reasons. Firstly, it seemed that such boilers were cheaper, secondly, coal pits were then considered an important element of the ship’s protection, thirdly, the Rivenjams still had to operate in line with the coal coal battleships of the previous series, where the advantage was clear -oil ships could not be realized. There was also an important “fourth”: there was no oil in England itself, so any interruptions in its supplies would have most negatively affected the combat readiness fleet - to make it completely dependent on imports seemed rash. Oddly enough, this was a very significant consideration - despite the fact that during the First World War the Hochzeflotte was unable to challenge the Royal Navy's dominance, in 1917 there was a lack of oil in the metropolis.

Thus, it was decided to install boilers for mixed heating, and as far as power machines, it remained unchanged, even when the displacement of the future Rivendz “crawled” up during the design — the admirals preferred to reduce the maximum speed by half a node, there is up to 21 ties, leaving the power plant in its original form.

However, then John Fisher returned to the Admiralty, and all the above plans flew to Tartar. In January, 1915, Mr. D. Fisher, insisted on purely oil heating boilers, as it turned out, small changes were enough to increase the capacity of the power plant to 40 000 HP. At the same time, the speed of the future Rivendzhy was supposed to increase to 23 nodes. That is how they were built in the end.

However, the "23-node" battleships "Rivengi" never became. Their displacement rapidly grew - starting from 25 500 t, it very quickly turned into 25 800 t, and then imperceptibly turned into 27 970 - 28 000 t. However, taking into account the increase in machine power, this was not critical, because speed in 21, the node to which the admirals agreed, remained perfectly attainable. But there was another problem.

The fact is that, as we have said, coal pits, in addition to fuel storage, were also part of the constructive protection of the ship, which it has now lost. According to the project, the Rivendjee width was smaller than that of the Queen Elizabeth battleships, while the British believed that the coal holes allowed to reduce the thickness of the anti-torpedo bulkhead — it was only 25,4-38 mm against 50,8 mm by Queen Elizabeth and it was obvious that in terms of anti-torpedo protection "Rivendi" will be inferior to their predecessors. This, of course, was deemed unacceptable.

Of course, one could simply increase the thickness of the anti-torpedo bulkhead, but the British went the other way. They had been experimenting for some time with the “Chatam raft”, which was a compartment of a warship in mid-section, intended for field tests of the impact of underwater explosions on the hull. These experiments convinced them of the usefulness of the boules.

I must say that from the entire series of battleships of the type “R”, only one Remillis received boules during the construction process - the remaining four ships were decided to equip them with 1917 in October, after they were commissioned. Unfortunately, we have to admit that there is very little information on bulls, and the information that exists is very contradictory.

The location of the boules is clearly visible in the diagram below, but it should be noted that the Royal Oak is depicted on it as of 1937.



A.A. Mikhailov writes that the boules added 2,13 m to the width of the battleship, but it is not clear from the context, both or each: but apparently, it is still the width of one boule. Also, the respected author reports that the mass of the bulls was 2 500 tons, but this is extremely doubtful, because he himself claims in applications that the normal displacement of the Royal Sovereign left 27 970 tons after commissioning, and after installing the bulls - 29 560 T. For “Rivendzha” 28 000 and 29 560 T are indicated, respectively, that is, the weight of the bulls on these ships was no more than 1 590 T. True, for the “Remillis” the normal displacement is indicated by a much larger 30 300 T. a lot of 2 300 tons or a little more. We can only assume that the design of the boules that were installed on the "Remillis" and the other ships of the series, differed. Although another option is possible - in order to ensure the ship’s unsinkability, the British completed the boules with steel pipes with sealed ends, it was assumed that this would reduce the shrapnel damage and give the ship additional buoyancy. The mass of these pipes on one battleship was 773 t. If we assume that the rest of the ships of the series received boules without these pipes (which were an extremely dubious innovation), then reducing the mass of the bulls to 1 590 t looks logical, but this is nothing more than a hunch. But in general, it should be recognized that the installation of the bulls on the Rivendzhi provided them with the best protection against underwater explosions among all the British battleships.

But back to the power plant. As we said earlier, the transition to oil heating, coupled with some improvements in turbines, led to a sharp increase in power plant capacity. Unfortunately, to say exactly how this increase affected the speed of the ships, there is no possibility. The problem is that all the battleships of the Rivend type were incorporated into the Royal Navy during the war years, and their sea trials were carried out according to an abbreviated program, and not in the same way as was customary before the war.

In fact, we have only data about the tests of the battleships “Rivend” and “Ramilles”, and the first one at the time of their conduct did not have bulls. However, both battleships on tests had not normal, but full, or close to this displacement, and showed:
"Rivendzh" (without boule) - reached the speed of 21,9 knots. at the power of 42 650 hp, the displacement at the same time was 30 750 t.
Remillis (with bullets) - 21,5 knots. with power 42 383 hp and a displacement of 33 000 t.

Calculation by the formula, using the admiralty coefficient, suggests that these ships in their normal displacement could count on 22,4 and 21,9 knots. accordingly, the installation of the bulls “ate” no more than half a node, and this is very similar to the truth. But in any case, even without taking into account the bulls, and despite the fact that all of the battleships of the Rivend type, the power of the power plant on tests exceeded the planned 40 000 hp, they did not reach the planned 23 nodes.

And, again, it should be understood that all of the above speeds are achieved when forcing turbines. Without it, the speed of the Rivenger was, apparently, on the 1-1,5 node less than the maximum. It is not quite clear where O.Parks took the data that in normal displacement and without forcing mechanisms of this type of battleships developed no more than 19,7-20,4 knots, but these figures are certainly similar to the truth. And it is clear that after several years of operation, they have decreased.

Therefore, we can say that the decision of D.Fisher to transfer “Rivengi” to oil heating, and increase the power from 31 000 to 40 000 hp it was fully justified - one could say it saved the battleships of this type. With the old power plant, the British could no longer increase the displacement of the ship from the originally planned, so that the battleships turned out to be much less perfect than in reality, and the speed would still be at the level of the minimum acceptable values. Installing the same bulls would most likely be unacceptable.

The fuel supply of battleships of the type “Rivend” was 3 400 tons of oil and 160 tons of coal, the course of the course, unfortunately, is unknown.


Who said that the battleship does not pump? Royal Oak in stormy weather


In general, the following can be said about battleships of the type “Rivendj”. In fact, even before the creation of the 15-inch (381-mm) guns, the British began to build high-speed battleships carrying such guns - at that time they were the most powerful artillery systems in the world. In the future, the British headed for the creation of a fleet of "15-inch" battleships, which is very well seen by their pre-war programs. Thus, under the 1912 program, 5 ships of the Queen Elizabeth type were laid - their construction marked a change in the views of the British, who did not consider that the British battlecruisers could successfully fulfill the role of the “high-speed wing” in a linear battle. Now the Admiralty believed that this role would be able to fulfill "25-nodal" battleships, whose speed, although not in line with the battle cruiser, but far exceeds the standard "21-nodal" ships of the line. However, this did not mean that the British were going to abandon the “21-nodal” battleships, and according to the 1913 r program, the five “21-nodal” dreadnoughts of the Rivend type got onto the stocks.

The program of the next year, 1914, envisaged the creation of another battleship of the Queen Elizabeth type and three types of the Rivend type, and after its completion the Royal Navy would have 8 “standard” and 6 high-speed battleships armed with 15-inch guns, and it is possible that the construction of "15-inch" battleships, even if on the adjusted projects, would continue in the 1915 year. However, the First World War intervened in the construction programs of the fleet, and the new construction of the battleships was suspended and resumed in the post-war years - of course, on completely different projects.

We will not give now a detailed analysis of the project of battleships of the “Rivend” type, we only note that it was originally created as a “budget” battleship, from which one can hardly expect much - and yet these ships claimed to be one of the strongest battleships of the world. The main trump card of the Rivendjee was 381-mm heavy-duty guns at that time, which were supposed to give them an advantage over foreign peers of the same class. When designing ships of the Rivend type, the British made great efforts to strengthen their defense in relation to the ships of previous projects. Nevertheless, the result of their efforts can hardly be called ideal, since along with successful solutions, such as the boules, the British made a number of miscalculations in the Rivenja reservation scheme. As a result, at the time of their creation, the battleships of the “Rivend” type became the most heavily protected British battleships, but, without any doubt, by changing the booking scheme, more could be achieved.

To be continued ...

PS The fate of the ships is unusually bizarre: the Royal Soverin battleship, one of the R-series ships, served for almost five years under the Soviet flag, thus becoming the strongest battleship of the Russian Empire and USSR.

Author:
Articles from this series:
"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. Who is better? Introduction
79 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. Conductor
    Conductor 12 December 2018 05: 45
    +1
    Why all the same, underwater torpedo tubes, the REV showed that the torpedo attack of the battleships is not viable, Yes, even armored or armored cruisers. Inertia of thinking? Or in the hope that at the theater of the North Sea, with its fogs, shallow water, it is possible to apply for finishing? Royal Sovereign, with all due respect to Andrei, could not be considered the most powerful battleship of the Russian Empire, since he was not part of its fleet. Thank you for the article.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2018 07: 21
      +3
      Quote: Conductor
      with all due respect to Andrei, he cannot be considered the most powerful battleship of the Russian Empire, since he was not part of its fleet

      It meant here - our country, and we had a linear fleet under the empire and the USSR
      1. Conductor
        Conductor 12 December 2018 07: 48
        0
        I will not argue, it was so.
      2. ser56
        ser56 12 December 2018 13: 02
        -2
        It is extremely difficult to consider Sevastopol in 2MV full-fledged LC! On the Baltic Fleet, these are floating batteries in fact and on the technical specifications, and on the Black Sea Fleet the Paris Commune was only against Yavuz ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2018 19: 26
          +9
          Quote: ser56
          it is extremely difficult to consider Sevastopols in 2MV full-fledged LC!

          If without prejudice, then the only Axis ships that could even be in the Baltic and at the same time were stronger than Marat and Oktyabrina are Bismarck and Tirpitz. But everything else, including Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, to meet with them was very dangerous for health
          1. ser56
            ser56 13 December 2018 11: 00
            0
            Sh and G Sevastopol simply never catch up bully , so the choice of battle for them ... as well as the possession of thicker armor and radar ... anti-aircraft weapons simply do not make sense to compare - the campaign of Sevastopol without air cover is not real ... request
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              13 December 2018 13: 30
              +4
              Quote: ser56
              Sh and G Sevastopol simply never catch up

              Do they need it? Generally speaking, the fleet, if it had not been locked in Finnish, had to solve problems, including interrupting German communications in the Baltic. Well, that would be performed under the guise of Sevastopol, and the ShiG can be draped even on Yucatan :))))
              Quote: ser56
              so the choice of battle for them ...

              Well, they’ve chosen, it’s good :))))
              Quote: ser56
              anti-aircraft weapons simply do not make sense to compare - the campaign of Sevastopol without air cover is not real ...

              Remind me how much time it took for German aviation to nibble Marat, who was almost stubborn on the spot? :)))) And at sea everything is much more complicated :))) And I will tell you a secret - when our ships were used correctly for some time, they are quite successfully opposed German aviation
              1. ser56
                ser56 13 December 2018 15: 27
                0
                1) Sevastopol would go to sea and stay there - either sunk things, or in land mines ... repeat
                2) Do they need Yucatan? South America is historically a bad place for German raiders ... bully
                3) I remind you that Marat was in the main base of the Baltic Fleet, which was covered by a stationary military unit ... Oktyabrina was saved by granite blocks ...
                4) do not enlighten - where are our large ships competently used in the Second World War? How high-speed transports to the Black Sea Fleet or BF? Or like cannabis along the shore? More or less reasonable in the Federation Council, and only until the acquisition of LC bully
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  13 December 2018 15: 37
                  +4
                  Quote: ser56
                  Sevastopol would go to sea and stay there - either sunk things, or in mines ...

                  As I said, I do not discuss religious issues, believe what you want. Want to KNOW how things were - study the bombing of Marat and Oktyabrina, and their consequences. Yes, at least only Marat :))) How many time bombed, from which airfields, what bombs ... And extrapolate it to a ship at sea.
                  Quote: ser56
                  I remind you that Marat was in the main base of the Baltic Fleet, which was covered by a stationary military unit ...

                  I do not need to remind anything, you will study the issue to begin with. From what date did Marat's attacks begin, where was he at that time, etc.
                  Quote: ser56
                  Do not enlighten - where are our large ships competently used in the Second World War?

                  The funny thing is that even the small ones, at the level of destroyer leaders, dealt with the counteraction of aviation, see, for example, the evacuation of Odessa or the supplies of Sevastopol - there the cruisers took part there.
                  1. ser56
                    ser56 13 December 2018 17: 04
                    -2
                    1) When there are no arguments, it is usually advised either to study something, that the process is continuous hi
                    2) I repeat, Marat was in the main base, under the cover of FOR, did not help, however, like Minsk, etc.
                    3) I well remember the fate of the Independent and other EMs that the Germans drowned near Odessa ... like the state of Tashkent after breaking out of Sevastopol, and this at 44uz and not bad for the USSR Navy FOR ...
                    You can recall the raid of the leader of Kharkov with a couple of EM ... and their fate ... hi Continue as "The funniest thing is that the small ones, at the level of destroyer leaders, also coped with the opposition of aviation." bully
                    As for the Black Sea Fleet cruisers, one can recall how Molotov lost his stern or how Chervona Ukraine died ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      13 December 2018 18: 37
                      +4
                      Quote: ser56
                      When there are no arguments, they usually advise either to study something

                      Alas, for people who are unable to test themselves, even when they are directly told about the presence of an error in reasoning, I really have no arguments.
                      Quote: ser56
                      I repeat, Marat stood in the main base, under the cover of ZA,

                      Since September 9, Marat was not "in the main base" but in the Sea Canal of Leningrad, from where he fired at the enemy, firing at ground forces, and only on September 18 he left for Kronstadt. By this time, he had already repeatedly undergone not only air, but also field artillery shelling.
                      Quote: ser56
                      You can recall the raid of the leader of Kharkov with a couple of EM ... and their fate ...

                      Can. And you can recall the operations of the fleet when the ships were used competently, which I told you about, and even indicated cases of such use. But, as I have already said, arguments do not apply to people like you - you simply ignore them.
                      1. ser56
                        ser56 14 December 2018 10: 54
                        -5
                        1) General words a sign of lack of arguments bully I note - I am specific ...
                        2) I remind you that Marat was sunk on September 23 in Kronstadt ... I recommend reading about the 2 air defense corps - 600 guns 76/85 in 41g ... hi Your verbal bows about moving Marat are nothing more than demagogy ... bully
                        3) I am again waiting for your list of competent use of ships in the Second World War ... in response, while I hear mantras about my inadequacy ... bully I note that my examples of the death of Soviet ships from the actions of the Luftwaffe are concrete and refute your thesis ... bully
                        4) I don’t need to sew my problems - this is a classic of psychology ... love
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        14 December 2018 12: 27
                        +6
                        Quote: ser56
                        I don’t need to sew my problems

                        Again. You were told
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Since September 9, Marat was not "in the main base" but in the Sea Canal of Leningrad, from where he fired at the enemy, firing at ground forces, and only on September 18 he left for Kronstadt. By this time, he had already repeatedly undergone not only air, but also field artillery shelling.

                        That is, Marat fought OUTSIDE the base of the fleet of 9 days, being influenced, including by enemy aircraft. Then, being damaged, he went to Kronstadt, where he was sunk. What do you answer me?
                        Quote: ser56
                        I remind you that Marat was sunk on 23 September in Kronstadt ...

                        What does this have to do with what I wrote? None. Have you somehow refuted my argument? No. You simply chose not to notice what I am writing to you. What I said above
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But, as I have already said, arguments do not apply to people like you - you simply ignore them.

                        Let us continue after you can clearly answer why Marat fought OUTSIDE the base under the influence of enemy aircraft for 9 days and did not die, and how this fits into your concept of "a battleship is doomed when going to sea - it will be drowned by German aircraft."
                        Well, since my heart smells, once again you will miss your words by your ears - goodbye forever laughing
                      3. ser56
                        ser56 14 December 2018 12: 41
                        -6
                        "Once again. You were told" hmm ... remove the crown - there is no reason for it ... bully
                        "Why Marat fought OUTSIDE the base under the influence of enemy aircraft for 9 days and did not die, and how does this fit into your concept" the battleship is doomed when it goes out to sea - it will be drowned by German aviation. "
                        corny - you just do not read my theses or are not able to understand them - all of Leningrad was covered by a serious air defense - the 2 corps, which entered as a barrel artillery (600 barrels of the middle ZA and near 100 MZA). so fighters bully In the open sea, this umbrella would not have been ... and the air defense of the LC was frankly weak, primarily against dive-bombers, therefore, they sunk in the main base ...
                        "Well, since, my heart feels, you will once again turn a deaf ear to your words - goodbye forever" you have no arguments - there is a mixture of complexes: fanaberia and inferiority bully
                        And from direct questions, you are shedding corny into demagogy ... In what operations did you correctly use ships in the Second World War? hi
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        14 December 2018 17: 46
                        +4
                        Quote: ser56
                        corny - you just do not read my theses or are not able to understand them - all of Leningrad was covered by a serious air defense - the 2 corps, which entered as a barrel artillery (600 barrels of the middle ZA and near 100 MZA). so fighters

                        Clear. That is, you don’t even know what the Sea Canal is and where it is located. Google banned you, and you naturally can’t understand that Marat was inside it outside the cover zone of both the Leningrad and Kronstadt air defense. And as for fighters - it’s certainly great, being exposed to raids by enemy dive-bombers, to know that somewhere there are our fighters :)))) And, by the way, why? The answer is simple - the approaches from the sea by the airspace monitoring stations were not controlled, however, I strongly doubt that you know what the airspace monitoring station is.
                        Especially impressive is the passage about
                        Quote: ser56
                        600 trunks of average FOR and about 100 MZA

                        Well done, we counted the trunks. But the territory that these trunks defended was weak? :))) Well, I’ll remind you that Leningrad alone at that time is about 1200 square kilometers, if not more. And what are these 600 trunks?
                        What is the effectiveness of air defense of Leningrad? The very first massive raid on 8 of September, which involved as many as 23 German bombers, led to 178 local fires, and one global fire, which resulted in the burning of the famous Badayevsky warehouses, and on them - 3 thousand tons of flour, 2,5 thousand tons of sugar. The responsible comrades were so scared that they were embarrassed to report this to Stalin.
                        Quote: ser56
                        And from direct questions you shed trivially into demagoguery ...

                        I understand that, taking into account your absolute ignorance of the issue that you undertake to discuss, it looks like this for you. Alas, here only the study of the materiel will help you, but for now you are not even able to realize what they are telling you.
                        Quote: ser56
                        What operations correctly used ships in the Second World War?

                        Fir-trees, well, you should be able to read something? Okay, once again - the evacuation of troops from Odessa and a series of operations to supply Sevastopol.
                      5. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 20 January 2019 07: 00
                        0
                        Well, so 9? That way you can count from June 22. The first raid on September 16 and in repair.
              2. ecolog
                ecolog 28 January 2019 00: 48
                0
                "Repulse" and "Prince of Wales" were on the high seas and it did not help them. Another thing is that they were sunk by torpedoes, and 250 and 500 kg bombs for such large and well-armored ships are rather weak.
                The Germans, apparently, could not use torpedo bombers, so they were picking with bombs, the power of which was not enough. And as soon as 1000kg of bomb drove up, the issue, unfortunately, was resolved quite quickly ..
                1. yehat
                  yehat April 4 2019 16: 29
                  0
                  moreover, the issue was not even decided by a direct hit.
              3. yehat
                yehat April 4 2019 16: 28
                0
                but here I do not quite agree
                it seems to me that Marat was not alone in the parking lot, and the pilots attacked him all the same.
                I’ll give an example in the same way that ours didn’t particularly successfully attack Finnish and German ships from the air, mainly due to not worked out tactics
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 12 December 2018 07: 09
    +9
    In principle, the speed of the "R" -class battleships was quite consistent with the standard bar at the start of WWI. ALL battleships had a lower bar of 21 knots, and some were content with 20 knots, although there were those who ran above the "standard" - 22-23 knots. But the essence is the same - 21,5 knots. the speed of the Rivendjays was enough for the backbone of the fleet. Here you should rather consider "queens" as a deviation from the standard. Although very pleasant. But even these "excellent battleships" paled with their post-modernization 22-24 nodes in comparison with the capital battleships of WWII. So the Rivenji met PMV standards. But the same "queens" were already considered obsolete by WWII in terms of speed.
    Protection what ...
    Alas, the quality of protection of standard "R" battleships did not have to be tested in practice, although the Royal Oak lies at the bottom of Scapa Flow with three holes from U-47 torpedoes. Although the representative of the "excellent" "Barham" lies at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea with the same three torpedo holes
    Morality. The standard battleship meets the standard requirements and it is impossible to demand from it impossible.
    Article plus yes good hi
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 12 December 2018 07: 49
      +1
      With Barham, it seems like it’s not clear whether all the torpedoes hit.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 12 December 2018 20: 49
        +4
        Quote: Conductor
        With Barham, it seems like it’s not clear whether all the torpedoes hit.

        Read
        December 28, 1939 "Barham", in the first months of the war was involved in escorting convoys in the Indian and Atlantic oceans, was attacked by a German submarine U-30 north of the Hebrides. Theoretically, the mine protection was supposed to minimize the damage from hitting, but in practice, hitting a torpedo on the left side at the level of the bow cellar ammunition of the main caliber guns led to the formation of holes in the bullet 9,75 m long and 5,2 m wide, followed by flooding of artillery cellars and adjacent compartments. The ship's roll to the port side, which reached 7 °, was stopped and straightened only by pumping oil

        Repair took three months
        November 25, 1941 at 16 hours 25 minutes (in English sources the time is “4.25 pm”, which sometimes leads to misunderstandings) “Barham”, following Benghazi along with the same type of battleships “Queen Elizabeth” and “Valiant”, accompanied by eight destroyers , was attacked by a German submarine U-331 off the Libyan coast at the coordinates 32 degrees 34 minutes north latitude and 26 degrees 24 minutes east longitude. The Germans fired a salvo of four torpedoes, three of which hit the port side between the chimney and the Y tower. After hitting, the battleship quickly tipped and lay aboard, and at 16 hours 29 minutes an explosion thundered, literally destroying the ship.


        Such was the death of a battleship. The explosion killed the commander of the "Barham" captain first rank Cook and 861 people from the team. The cause of the explosion is considered to be the detonation of ammunition in the stern cellar of the main caliber guns. According to the commission investigating the circumstances of the death of Barham, detonation was caused by a fire in the ammunition cellars of 102-mm guns. According to Vice Admiral Pridham-Whippel, who survived the explosion, a torpedo hit the crash. And yet, the true root cause of the death of Barham, most likely, was the desire of the British Admiralty to save 150 pounds on the modernization of anti-torpedo protection of the ship.

        repeat hi
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 12 December 2018 21: 18
          +2
          Barham arrived in Liverpool on December 29 and were there for three months undergoing repairs. The survey showed that a hole 9,75 m long and 5,2 m wide had formed in the bule.The mine bulkhead was bent inward by 1,83 m.The elevator mechanisms were not damaged, but the bow towers still could not function due to flooding of the cellars ...

          The maximum depth of the underwater protection of the battleship was 3,66 m, at which depth a torpedo exploded. The nature of the damage showed that the explosive (safety) valves of the underwater protection system did not reduce the force of the explosion to the extent that experiments in peacetime demonstrated.

          This is in addition to hit in 1939
          1. ser56
            ser56 13 December 2018 11: 08
            0
            thank! curious! where are the firewood from?
          2. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 13 December 2018 12: 34
            0
            Quote: Rurikovich
            The maximum depth of the underwater protection of the battleship was 3,66 m, at which depth a torpedo exploded.


            It seems that the submariners, not hoping for a non-contact fuse (pi1) and a gyroscope (which controls the depth of the torpedo and, as you know, had extremely unreliable work at the beginning of the war), set the minimum depth of the torpedo.
            If the non-contact fuse worked correctly, setting a large depth of the torpedo, the explosion could occur below the PTZ and be more effective.
  3. Potter
    Potter 12 December 2018 07: 42
    +1
    Thank. I read the detective story with a change of outlook on the power plant of these battleships with pleasure. The revelation was that it did not change compared to high-speed battleships. Although, the number of boilers was smaller - 18 instead of 24. And it was almost impossible to increase the protection, although, using the example of the Black Sea battleships RIF - a decrease in speed by 3 knots from the Ganguts gave a significant improvement in the protection of the Empresses.
    The cruising range for the "R" was 4000 miles, for Bvrem - 7000 miles. Peter C. Smith in his book "The Sunset of the Lord of the Seas" indicates that there were restrictions in the use of "R" precisely because of the insufficient cruising range for the oceanic zone. I look forward to continuing.
  4. Jura 27
    Jura 27 12 December 2018 11: 45
    -1
    The author would have to deal with the number of decks (i.e., give a description in accordance with the scheme in the post).
    And at the same time with the weight of the boule.
  5. ser56
    ser56 12 December 2018 12: 58
    +2
    Author Respect for the stability of extradition to the mountain! bully Although I did not notice a special novelty of the material ... hi
    In my opinion, the construction of these ships was a mistake - the British missed the opportunity to create a fleet of high-speed battleships - 5 queens and 5 post. queens of type R request This is not much more expensive (about 13%), but there would be a qualitative breakthrough ...
    As for the reservation, it is clearly seen that it is no better than our Izmailov bully
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 12 December 2018 20: 54
      +1
      Quote: ser56
      Although I did not notice a special novelty of the material ... hi

      The author does not set itself the creation of novelty in the description of the ship (this to alternatives)
      The author aims to compare the quality of protection of capital ships, which entered service at the end of the WWII, in order to draw conclusions on the basis of the quality of the minds of designers, the state of the technological structure, etc.
      And since compared samples did not meet themselves and did not bullet shells, then the whole comparison will be hypothetical. But still interesting wink hi
      1. ser56
        ser56 13 December 2018 11: 04
        0
        1) thanks for retelling the beginning of the first article of the cycle bully
        2) Your opinion that only alternative engineers have new data on the design of ships is extremely interesting ... bully
  6. prodi
    prodi 12 December 2018 15: 41
    0
    boules - a strange decision, i.e. the idea is understandable, but if they are not discharged, then if damaged, positive buoyancy goes into negative. In addition, they increase the midsection and decrease the speed.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 12 December 2018 16: 09
      0
      Do you even know what boules are?
      1. prodi
        prodi 12 December 2018 17: 38
        0
        can you add something interesting?
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 12 December 2018 19: 18
          0
          Discard boules after one break? Or when there is no more living space? Or, after one penetration, remove the protection from the entire side? Why dump them? And how to implement it? Describe if not difficult.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2018 19: 33
      +5
      Quote: prodi
      but if they are not discharged, then if damaged, positive buoyancy goes into negative.

      Excuse me, who told you this? :))) Have you seen the length of the boules? In the event of a torpedo hit, a part of the boule that receives damage is flooded, but, of course, not all of it. So with reasonable damage, boules retain positive buoyancy. And this is not to mention that the PTZ with boules, even taking water into their compartments, saves the space protected behind them, which is much larger than the damaged compartments of the PTZ. That is, as a result, the volume of flooding is minimized
      1. prodi
        prodi 12 December 2018 19: 57
        0
        I don’t have any thoughts on improving bullets; I don’t like them at all. In addition, if one has been torn apart, is it necessary to sink the opposite?
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 12 December 2018 20: 07
          +1
          Argument. Strong I would say an argument. Only good from them more than harm. And survivability when submitting a torpedo increases many times. And it is proven by decades of operation
          1. prodi
            prodi 12 December 2018 20: 15
            -1
            Well, why not use screens? It will be approximately the same in terms of material consumption, there will be no additional buoyancy, but there should also not be a large ballast when hit
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 12 December 2018 20: 22
              +2
              Behind the screen will be incompressible water. With an explosion of 500 kg 2 or 3 meters from the hull, the damage will still be huge. And boules are emptiness which transfers a blast wave badly. Plus, inside the mass of partitions that reduce it even more. The screens would have to be diverted from the case at a great distance and there would be even more harm from them.
              1. prodi
                prodi 12 December 2018 20: 57
                -1
                Quote: garri-lin
                With an explosion of 500 kg 2 or 3 meters from the hull, the damage will still be huge.

                the explosion will be not just 2 meters from the side, but on the screen, and will "spread" mainly over it
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 12 December 2018 21: 14
                  0
                  For the explosion to spread out, the screen must be very durable. And that means thick and heavy.
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 12 December 2018 21: 32
                    0
                    Well, in general, yes, armored steel. You can still hope, with reasonable angles of the lower cross-beams of the screens, for lift at full speed in calm water
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 13 December 2018 01: 17
                      0
                      Why produce entities. The whole world used boules. Just learn how they evolved and changed. The usual reasonable compromise.
                      1. prodi
                        prodi 13 December 2018 06: 16
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Why produce entities. The whole world used boules.

                        I think a compromise might be more interesting:
                        firstly, screens better perform anti-torpedo protection than boules and the bottom, because between them and the underwater part of the ship is incompressible water, and not an air bag
                        secondly, in spite of the greater weight, there is a chance with the same machines and fuel reserves to get a greater maximum speed and range
                        and thirdly, if boules were used to increase stability, then screens would also do well.
                        Structurally, the product, of course, is cyclopic, however, like buli, and the entire battleship. And you need to slightly change the shape of the underwater part
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      13 December 2018 13: 41
                      +3
                      Quote: prodi
                      Well, in general, yes, armored steel.

                      Yeah. We take at least 100 mm, we protect not the whole ship, but let's say 150 m of length and 8 m of draft. Total weight ONLY the screens themselves - 1920 t, and you still need reinforcements for them and the holders themselves. Moreover, unlike boules with a buoyancy margin, the screen is a dead load, for the installation of which it is necessary to remove other loads from the ship
                      Quote: prodi
                      You can still hope, with reasonable angles of the lower cross-beams of the screens, for lift at full speed in calm water

                      You can’t hope for it, because no rational angle will give such a thing. But what you can count on firmly - for an almost complete loss of controllability of the ship with the screens, while the resistance when trying to turn will be such that the ship will literally stop.
                      Do you understand why the sides of the ship are not squeezed? There is a power set, all sorts of frames, stringers :))))) Boules are part of the body, all deformations are perceived with the transfer to it. And you offer a remote screen. Do you understand that it will burst in the first wave in half? :)))))) Or do you need to do the same power set for each screen :))))) So safely calculate the calculated 1920 t by 2. Or on 3, because ... well, it turns the ship to the left. Can you imagine the windage of the right screen? :))))) Water pressure on it during a turn? And what kind of mount can hold it? :)))
                      1. prodi
                        prodi 13 December 2018 21: 52
                        0
                        100mm - busting, I would think about 30-50, about a wider surface part and a narrower underwater (for more spacing of the screens and the underwater side), about the variable reservation of the underwater part and its shape for better dispersion of the hydraulic shock that broke through the hole in the screen.
                        You can count on the hydrofoil effect
                        The understeer will deteriorate, but at low speed it is possible to fight it, but at large it is very cool and they do not turn. In addition, screens for compression and separation work together through the lower cross members and the longitudinal beam of the keel, and some bypass holes are possible (where the screens overlap each other)
                        I wrote about dead weight, but this is a pre-calculated weight, not variable, when at first everything was good and in excess, and then suddenly it becomes bad and lack
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 12 December 2018 20: 57
            0
            Quote: garri-lin
            And survivability when submitting a torpedo increases many times.

            Well this statement is very controversial what
            Above in my post is a description of the torpedo hitting Barham. And the hits, which led to death, turned out almost in the middle, where the thickness of the boules is maximum. So what? Ship at the bottom request
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 13 December 2018 01: 30
              0
              Well, this is a special case. There are many such "golden" torpedoes of mines and shells in history. In general, the boules were quite effective. They also extinguished the energy of the explosion and fragments. Damage to the main body was less and easier to repair.
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 12 December 2018 21: 24
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In the event of a torpedo hit, a part of the boule that receives damage is flooded, but, of course, not all of it. So with reasonable damage, boules retain positive buoyancy. And this is not to mention that the PTZ with boules, even taking water into their compartments, saves the space protected behind them, which is much larger than the damaged compartments of the PTZ. That is, as a result, the volume of flooding is minimized

        smile
        Side boules were divided into upper and lower chambers, and the lower one was once again divided in the longitudinal direction. The inner chambers of the lower parts were filled with steel, closed at the ends, pipes with a diameter of 228,6 mm. When destroyed, they should absorb part of the energy of the explosion upon destruction, thereby reducing its effect on the set design. Intermediate air chambers 1,21 m wide were arranged between the outer skin and the cavity filled with pipes. The boules extended along the length of the ship from the front of the bow torpedo tubes to the premises of the aft vehicle and stood 2,13 m behind the line, increasing the width of the ship to 31,26 m. However, the draft due to their use decreased by 0,305 m, although the boules themselves increased the ship's displacement by 2500 ts, including 773 ts of pipes and 194 ts of wood here.

        In October 1917, it was decided to equip the remaining four ships of this type with the same boules. However, the main purpose of these alterations was to increase stability; strengthening underwater protection was only of secondary importance.

        This boules "Ramillis"
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 12 December 2018 21: 30
          +1
          Moving the armored deck one level up increased the volume of the buoyancy margin of the protected space to such an extent that the stability of even a badly damaged ship remained much larger than on previous projects. Since ships of the previous types experienced great difficulties due to gusty rolling, it was decided on new ships that provided a sufficiently large buoyancy margin to reduce the initial metacentric height by reducing the width of the ship. This would cause smooth and continuous fluctuations, which would facilitate the artillery of the ship, creating a relatively stable gun platform. However, in fact, this change did not produce the expected results. Moreover, it turned out to be undesirable, since now the ships received a significant roll when turning. Meanwhile, the experience of military operations showed that former ships, like gun platforms, were not as bad as they attributed to them. And the results of their gunfire most often depended not on pitching, but on completely different reasons.

          A way out of this situation was given by the onboard boules, which the "Ramillies" were equipped with even before they entered service. They caused an increase in the width of the ship and increased the metacentric height, and based on this, the stability requirements for ships of this type were changed. It was decided to equip the other four ships with similar boules to improve the initial transverse and longitudinal stability. The first for such alterations was "Revenge", work on which lasted from October 1917 to May 1918. The side trims on it were somewhat different in design from those on the "Ramillies". The lower part of the boule consisted of waterproof chambers, but without filling them with pipes. The top was filled with a mixture of cement and sawdust. This design increased the ship's displacement by 1526 ts., Of which 640 ts. Cement and 186 ts. Wood. However, the draft of the ship decreased by 0,406 m. The final width of the Revenge was now 30,93 m. After similar work on the Resolution, its width was almost the same - 30,90 m.

          Work on the installation of boules on the Royal Sovereign began only in December 1920. By this time it was decided to further increase the initial stability by increasing the area of ​​the waterline. This was achieved by raising the point of contact of the upper edge of the boules with the body. In this case, the widest part of the boules seemed to be pulled up to the water level. At the same time, we returned to filling the lower section of the boules with pipes, excluding wood and partly cement from the structure. Work on this ship was completed only in October 1924. The ship's displacement was increased by 1474-ts boules, of which 763 ts were pipes and cement.

          Even before the completion of work on the Royal Sovereign, during the operation of ships of this type, it became clear that battleships with boules were experiencing excessive side rolling. It was decided to conduct a series of experiments at Haslar to find out the best configuration of the onboard attachments for the battleship Royal Oak, which it was decided to postpone until final results were obtained. The experiments were carried out taking into account the proposed installation on the battleship of the zygomatic keels of a new design and were completed by 1922. After that the "Royal Oak" was docked and in 1924 work on the installation of boules and bilge keels was completed on it. Around the same time, similar zygomatic keels were mounted on other battleships of this type.

          As you can see, the boules were intended for completely different functions than the PTZ. It (PTZ) was of an auxiliary character only, and as we see from the results of torpedo hits, it was not always a panacea for these weapons hi
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 13 December 2018 01: 39
            0
            Too much effort went into dividing the boules into separate sealed compartments. This also applies to pipes. Plus, they tried to make the boules crumpled, like the bodies of modern cars, to damp the shock wave. Is it too much effort for a "non-main" function?
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 13 December 2018 06: 41
              0
              Quote: garri-lin
              They also tried to make buli crumpled, like the bodies of modern cars, to absorb the shock wave.

              Filling wood and cement for this space? wink lol
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 13 December 2018 13: 52
                0
                Wood and cement were usually laid in the upper part. The lower one, where the torpedo usually fell, was empty.
          2. Oleg Kolsky 051
            Oleg Kolsky 051 13 December 2018 02: 17
            0
            Yes, the boules weighed quite a bit, but wouldn’t it be better to spend this weight on strengthening the reservation of the lower belt? After all, this is an approximate weight of 200 mm of armor 4 m high. between the end towers. And at what depth did the torpedo board usually hit 3,5-4 m from the waterline?
            And it seems to me that it’s stupidly laid inside the boulder compartments that it is impossible to ensure complete tightness between the pipes and the bulkheads of the compartments and the water, between the body of the pipe and the bulkhead, filled even undamaged compartments along the tube, increasing the weight of the received water and increasing the overturning moment. What do you think dear Rurikovich?
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 13 December 2018 06: 56
              0
              Quote: Oleg Kolsky 051
              along the tube it filled even undamaged compartments, increasing the weight of the received water and increasing the overturning moment.

              Pipes corresponded to the length of each compartment and were welded at the ends. It was assumed that in an explosion, the blast wave would be spent on crushing the pipes and, if the bulkheads of the compartment were not damaged, then flooding would not spread. But as a rule, the power of torpedoes grew and the boules did not provide serious resistance. The structural protection of the hull directly inside the ship with armored bulkheads and their reinforcements was much more significant. Those. resistance to explosion products was more effective than unreinforced boulevard compartments.
              After all, the same “Bismarck” with “Scharnhorst” received more torpedoes than “Barham” equipped with “Royal Oak” bullets. The underwater part is still damaged regardless of the presence of boules, but the boules served as an additional volume for water, which negatively affected unsinkability.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            13 December 2018 14: 45
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            As you can see, the boules were intended for completely different functions than the PTZ.

            And still not. Ramillis received the first boules, precisely because of insufficient PTZ, but stability was a bonus
            An anti-mine (anti-torpedo) bulkhead was built along the entire length of the artillery cellars, engine and torpedo compartments. Positioned in the same way as on the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, she had a much smaller thickness: only 3,8 cm (versus 5,08 cm), and in the double bottom space - 2,54 cm. The reason for this is that in the original the project of ships of the "Royal Sovereign" type provided for the creation of coal pits. After their dismantling, when switching to liquid fuel, the ship lost the additional protection they had hoped for.

            Of course, fuel tanks also provided some protection, so whether the underwater protection as a whole was weakened is a moot point. However, there is no doubt that due to the smaller width of the Royal Sovereign-class battleships, the underwater protection of these ships was weaker than that of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships.

            Therefore, already in March 1915, in the course of their construction, the Admiralty ordered to supply the Ramillis with onboard boules. Much of the reason for this decision was the numerous and thorough experiments conducted with the Chatham Raft in order to find the best methods of underwater protection against mines and torpedoes. "Chatham Raft" was a model of the central sections of a warship, which was built to test the effect of an underwater explosion on its hull and structures and then develop an optimal system of underwater protection. Tests were usually carried out on models of 1: 4, then 1: 2 and finally 1: 1, after which a conclusion was made.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 13 December 2018 17: 47
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And still not.


              Repeat
              In October 1917, it was decided to equip the remaining four ships of this type with the same boules. However, the main purpose of these alterations was to increase stability; reinforcing underwater protection was only of secondary importance

              “Ramillies” may have got their boules because of the dubious PTZ, but this concerns the rest to a lesser extent. By the way, if they were an effective means of torpedoes, they would not have disdained them during the construction of post-Utland ships.
              Andrei, I don’t see the point in arguing about what is primary and what is secondary. drinks hi
  7. NF68
    NF68 12 December 2018 17: 14
    +3
    As always an interesting article.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2018 19: 33
      +1
      Thank you, dear Nikolai!
  8. anzar
    anzar 12 December 2018 22: 06
    +1
    +++ dear Andrei, is set out excellently and informatively.
    ... thirdly, the Rivenjams still had to operate in a single system with the coal coal battleships of the previous series, where the advantage of pure-oil ships could not be realized.

    I didn’t understand that. What advantage can not be realized in the ranks with coal. battleships same speed? Bunkering time?))
    Also eats a lot of comments that mash. the setup was "the same" as on Queen Elizabeth. Of course, you do not have such a statement, because the power differs almost twice. How did your colleagues get lost? The fact that in both cases the boilers are purely oil?
    Yes, and the reservation is a little thicker (by weight), for which they spent the released weight of the CMU (VI is almost the same) - it is not very clear. Apparently at the PTZ, since the first VI was assumed at 26kT. Could you briefly indicate if you are comparing with your predecessor?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2018 15: 01
      0
      I will try to answer a little later, dear colleague!
  9. Comrade
    Comrade 13 December 2018 03: 25
    +4
    A.A. Mikhailov indicates the cost of "Rivenjay" from 2 406 500 f.st. (lead ship) to 3 295 800 f.st. (built later than all Ramillis)

    It seems that these numbers are rounded, there is such an option for the cost of battleships:
    Royal Sovereign - Portsmouth Dockyard - 2 570 504,00 £.
    Revenge - Vickers - 2 406 368,00 £.
    "Resolution" - Palmers - 2 449 680,00 £.
    Royal Oak - Devonport Dockyard - 2 468 269,00 £.
    “Ramillies” - Beardmore - 3 295 810,00 £.

    1) A.A. Mikhailov points out that ... the cost of Queen Elizabeth ranged from 2 mln. 408 thous. up to 3 million 14 thousand f.st.
    2) O. Parks, in his famous multivolume work devoted to the battleships of England, indicates the cost of battleships of the Queen Elizabeth type at the level of 1 960 thousand pounds. Art.

    Apparently, in the first case we are talking about the full cost, and in the second - without weapons and ammunition. The cost directly depended on the shipyard on which the ships were built, as the numbers on linear ships of the “R” type show - the scatter is serious.
    To the heap, the cost of the main caliber tower of these battleships.
    Tower without guns - 115 000,00 £, guns themselves - 32 000,00 £ per pair. Armor - 36 000,00 £, ship delivery and installation - 6 500 £.
    By the way, the final price of the towers was higher than the contract.

    The location of the boules is clearly visible in the diagram below, but it should be noted that the Royal Oak is depicted on it as of 1937.

    Here you can clearly see the boules on the Royal Sovereign, the illustration was taken from the manual for 1932
    1. ser56
      ser56 13 December 2018 11: 11
      +1
      Thanks for the drawing - very clear! love
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2018 14: 56
      +1
      Greetings, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      It looks like these numbers are rounded

      I am sure of this, thanks a lot for the exact data!
      Quote: Comrade
      Apparently, in the first case we are talking about the full cost, and in the second - without weapons and ammunition.

      Unfortunately no. O. Parks stipulates that, 1,96 million is precisely with weapons. That is, it is possible that he was mistaken, but ... maybe not, because after all, weapons and ammunition never made up a third of the cost of an English battleship. Of course, Parks may be wrong, but the essence of the error is probably in something else.
      Quote: Comrade
      Here you can clearly see the boules on the Royal Sovereign

      Great drawing, thanks! hi
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 14 December 2018 02: 25
        +1
        Hello, dear Andrey!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thank you very much for the exact data!

        Dear colleague, I came across these numbers on one site, and each of them had a question mark. From which we can conclude that he who posted them himself doubts, but for lack of writing paper, as they say, we write in plain language.
        I found on Amazon one highly specialized book, where, I hope, there are numbers of interest to us with an indication of the source, but I did not order it, I decided to wait. We have post offices on strike across the country, and people who have ordered something on the Internet abroad receive their money back with a letter that delivery is not possible due to the strike of the postal service providers.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        O. Parks stipulates that, 1,96 million - precisely with weapons.

        Based on the fact that the figures of Mikhailov and Parks real, how do you think, is it possible to assume that Mikhailov brought the value after modernization, and Parks - the original?

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Great drawing, thanks

        Glad I liked it :-)

        Yes, for many years I have kept a screenshot from one "murzilo" English site.

        The cost of battleships with 381 mm is impressive :-)
  10. Potter
    Potter 13 December 2018 10: 43
    +5
    As for the boules, I can not help but speak out. There are two purposes for boules:
    Pervove - additional displacement for the possibility of installing additional weapons, reservations and equipment. The mass of boules is 1800 tons, but they provide additional volume (displacement, buoyancy reserve) for the modernization of the ship.
    The second is additional anti-torpedo protection.
    Proposals for installing screens or additional armor instead of boules - so the authors forgot their Archimedes law. To deliver 1800 tons of armor, you need to add a buoyancy margin. Either to remove something from the ship - a couple of towers with ammunition, for example. Or put lighter cars.
  11. Comrade
    Comrade 14 December 2018 05: 00
    +1
    Dear Andrew,
    after the cost option for battleships like "Queen Elisabeth":
    Queen Elizabeth - Portsmouth dockyard - 3 014 103,00 £.
    Warspite - Devonport Dockyard - 2 524 148,00 £.
    Barham - John Brown - 2 470 113,00 £.
    “Valiant” - Fairfield - 2 537 037,00 £.
    "Malaya" - Portsmouth Dockyard - 2 945 709,00 £.

    It is interesting to compare the cost of building the lead battleships of two types, built at the same time at the same shipyard:
    Royal Sovereign - Portsmouth dockyard - 2 570 504,00 £.
    Revenge - Vickers - 2 406 368,00 £.
    "Resolution" - Palmers - 2 449 680,00 £.
    Royal Oak - Devonport Dockyard - 2 468 269,00 £.
    “Ramillies” - Beardmore - 3 295 810,00 £.

    And the cruiser "Repulse", the anti-torpedo bullets in the section are clearly visible.
  12. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 14 December 2018 15: 55
    +2
    1.
    Quote: Conductor
    cannot be considered the most powerful battleship of the Russian Empire, since it was not part of its fleet

    Here he also meant the USSR. With this "Arkhangelsk" was not received on lend-lease, but as a replacement for the USSR captured Italian battleship.
    2.
    Sevastopol would go to sea and stay there - either sunk things, or in mines ..

    The "Parisian commune" sailed into the sea, fired at the coast and supplied Sevastopol for more than a year during the very period when German aviation dominated the air, but the pieces did not sink it. On mines, the battleship also did not blow up and did not hit torpedoed by German torpedo bombers and torpedo boats. During the summer, no other Soviet battleship was hit there. Of the four Soviet cruisers on the Black Sea, the Luftwaffe sank only one, also with complete air supremacy. German aviation coped with the destroyers much better, but they are non-armored ships and have a much smaller displacement. The "Arkhangelsk" itself was also fed by German submarines, both at sea and at the base, but failed. These are only facts.
    3. Still, it is not clear what additional horizontal booking did the Royal Sovereign receive at the beginning of the war? I cannot explain this in any way.
  13. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 14 December 2018 17: 33
    +1
    Quote: Kostadinov
    Of the fours, the Soviet cruisers in the Black Sea only one sank the Luftwaffe

    Sorry for the mistake. Of the heels of the cruisers, German aviation sank only one.
    1. ser56
      ser56 15 December 2018 14: 56
      0
      Another lost poop ...
  14. ser56
    ser56 15 December 2018 14: 50
    -1
    [quote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk] [quote = ser56] corny - you just don’t read my theses or aren’t able to understand them - the whole Leningrad was covered by serious air defense - the 2nd building, which included it as a barrel artillery (600 barrels of medium defensive armament and about 100 MLA ) and fighters [/ quote]
    "You don't even know what the Sea Canal is and where it is."
    from what? bully
    "While in it, Marat was outside the coverage zone of both the Leningrad and Kronstadt air defense, you, of course, cannot."
    Not at all - there was a single zone Leningrad air defense, there was no separate Kronstadt ... Air defense batteries on the southern shore of the bay also entered this zone, naturally, before its occupation by the Germans.
    "And about fighters - it's certainly great, being exposed to attacks by enemy dive bombers, to know that there are our fighters somewhere nearby :))))"
    In the 7th fighter air defense corps there were more than 300 fighters, which was part of the 2nd air defense corps ....
    So this is a serious force ...
    "The answer is simple - approaches from the sea by the VNOS posts were not controlled, however, I strongly doubt that you know what VNOS is."
    "By June 24, 1941, the corps had deployed the main post of VNOS, 16 company posts, 263 observation posts and 23 posts for the guidance of fighter aircraft, which were located at a distance of up to 140 kilometers from Leningrad."
    And it included 8 RUS-1 radars ... the information is easily accessible - do not show your mix of fanabery and amateurism ... hi

    "And what are these 600 barrels?" These are 100 SZA batteries - not a very small force ...
    "What is the effectiveness of the air defense of Leningrad?" high enough - 1500 aircraft were shot down during the war
    "as many as 23 German bombers led to"
    but the Germans knew how to fight! And ours covered the most important objects.
    "The responsible comrades were so scared that they were ashamed to report this to Stalin."
    and what does it have to do with it? bully so as to cool down demagoguery ... "However, in reality, burnt sugar supplies could meet the needs of the city's population for about one month: 2,5 million kilograms per 2,8 million people is about 900 grams per person, that is, six teaspoons tablespoons of sugar a day for a month. " this food would not be superfluous, but it's not worth a nightmare ...
    "I understand that taking into account your absolute ignorance of the question about which you are undertaking to discuss, it looks like this for you. Alas, here only the study of the materiel will help you, but for now you are not even able to realize what they are telling you."
    demagoguery and bragging again ...
    "Okay, once again - the evacuation of troops from Odessa and a number of operations to supply Sevastopol."
    1) As for the evacuation of Odessa, this is a really well-planned operation, however, it was not there against the Romanians and German aviation - it was occupied by another in early October ...
    2) The supply operations of Sevastopol were initially complicated by their minefields, the loss of ships on which is comparable to the losses from German aircraft ... However, in almost a year they didn’t bother to correct the mistake ... If it’s not a secret, what operations of supplying Sevastopol do you consider successful?
    It is strange that they did not say about the evacuation of Hanko ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 December 2018 17: 09
      +3
      You know, I didn’t want to answer (my supply of beads is not endless), but THIS .....
      Quote: ser56
      "By June 24, 1941, the corps had deployed the main post of VNOS, 16 company posts, 263 observation posts and 23 posts for the guidance of fighter aircraft, which were located at a distance of up to 140 kilometers from Leningrad."
      And it included 8 radar type RUS-1 ... the information is easily accessible - do not show your mix of fanabery and amateurism.

      Do you know what I like about you? You are not even able to read the source, which is taken to quote :))))
      Read the next paragraph. The next one is the one that follows the one you quoted. If it’s difficult to climb into a book, I can remind
      Unfortunately, large bodies of water directly adjacent to the city on the Neva (the Gulf of Finland [290] and Lake Ladoga) were not visible at all by the EEL posts.

      Here is such a cross between fanabery and amateurism :))))
      1. ser56
        ser56 17 December 2018 17: 19
        0
        "You are not even able to read the source that you undertake to quote :))))"
        I return your thesis to you ... "" I quote myself bully "And it included 8 radars of the RUS-1 type." ... so, for understanding - the range of its action is 150 km ...
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        VNOS posts were not visible at all.

        By the way, I hope you understand that the RUS-1 CIRCLE REVIEW? hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 December 2018 18: 04
          +1
          Quote: ser56
          I return your thesis to you ... "" I am citing myself bully "And it included 8 RUS-1 type radars." ... so, for understanding - the range of its action is 150 km

          laughing fool
          You are incorrigible. Read the next paragraph :)))))
          Unfortunately, large bodies of water directly adjacent to the city on the Neva (the Gulf of Finland [290] and Lake Ladoga) were not visible at all by the EEL posts. Partially correct this defect should have been radar installations. After adopting the RUS-1 "Rhubarb" into service and mastering their serial production, the installation of radio detection systems in the Transcaucasus and the Far East began, and eight sets were deployed along the Soviet-Finnish border parallel to the "warning strip" (southwest of Leningrad). However, on June 26, the installations had to be removed and moved deeper into the defense at the Pitkäranta-Kexholm-Vyborg line. With the 3 of July, the removal of VNOS posts on the Karelian Isthmus began, and a few days later - from the border of Gdov - Luga.

          And now we open the map and see where these radars all the same stood :)))))
          Quote: ser56
          By the way, I hope you understand that the RUS-1 CIRCLE REVIEW

          wassat What a delight :))))) Go here http://russianengineering.narod.ru/tank/russradar.htm#it2
          And here http://hist.rloc.ru/startup-radars/3_07.htm
          see how rhubarb works, read
          In October - December 1937, the Rhubarb system passed the first tests near Moscow. After some improvements and more detailed tests in the summer of 1938, it was decided to manufacture an experimental batch of Rhubarb stations, for which the radio factory in November 1938 received an appropriate order. The tactical and technical requirements of NIIIS provided a system for detecting aircraft in an airspace strip with a front width of 70 km at altitudes up to 12 000 m.

          All-around review .... oh I can not :)))))))
          By the way, there is a description of the success of RUS-1 in Leningrad
          However, under the conditions of air defense of Leningrad as a front-line city, the system could not inform the air support service of the enemy aircraft in advance.
  15. Scaffold
    Scaffold 15 December 2018 18: 11
    +1
    Andrei, you can well swipe at the fundamental work of booking ships. I speak without irony! I have been reading your articles for a long time, and I see that the topic of booking fascinates you especially and is always considered in great detail. smile
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 December 2018 17: 20
      0
      Thank you, Maxim! Swing at William, you see, our Shakespeare certainly can, but only who will publish it? Almost no one needs such literature now.
  16. ser56
    ser56 17 December 2018 18: 46
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    By the way, there is a description of the success of RUS-1 in Leningrad

    By the way - I involuntarily deceived you - RUS-1 were already in Transcaucasia at that time .. repeat
    Under Peter were more advanced - RUS-2.
    “In July 1941, there were 3 Redut stations operating near Leningrad, located in Toksovo, Agalatovo and near the city of Narva. In connection with the August German offensive against Leningrad, the station was transferred from near Narva to the area of ​​Luga Bay, and then to the village of Bolshaya Izhora on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, 10 km from Kronstadt. On September 21, one of the RUS-2 notified the air defense forces in advance of a massive German air raid on ships and objects in the Kronstadt naval base... As a result, the anti-aircraft gunners were able to prepare to repel it. In the winter of 1941/42, eight Redoubts were in defense of Leningrad. " bully
    "all-round view .... oh, I can't :)))))))" - aha, see above ... repeat
    "The operator's van with the receiving equipment on the GAZ-AAA during operation rotated synchronously with the rotation of the transmitter van on the ZIS-6."
  17. Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 6 January 2019 21: 33
    0
    Good evening! I don't understand, sir. If you use O. Parks (Chapter 103), then it is considered the most fatal option to hit the shell at the very bottom of the 152-mm upper belt opposite the main battery turret, then break through the 8-mm deck, then the bevel of the main armored deck and hello PB. In this case, Rivenge can hit even 28 cm / 40.
    This is again to the discussion that the most important thing is the conditions of vulnerability tongue
  18. Looking for
    Looking for 21 January 2019 12: 41
    0
    I’m not tired of sucking up materials. They have been known for many decades. Or do they pay money for plagiarism too?