"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. German "Bayern" (h. 2)

45
The design description of the Bayern type battleships will begin, of course, with its large cannons.

Artillery




"Bayern" in the completion. View of the stern towers


As we have said, the main caliber of Bayer-type battleships was introduced with eight 380-mm / 45 C / 13 guns (i.e., sample 1913 g). These guns continued the traditional line of development of German naval artillery and, it must be said, were completely different from their British counterparts - literally in all respects.

The Germans have long abandoned the outdated, wire construction of guns, which the British continued to use. The British 381-mm / 42 gun was a liner, which was wound many kilometers of hot rectangular wire - and then the resulting structure was placed in the pipe - the outer casing of the gun. The German 380-mm / 45 gun was created using a much more advanced technology, in which the wire was replaced with three rows of cylinders - as a result, with the same strength, the walls of the German gun were much thinner than the English one. This most positively affected the mass of the German artillery system, which weighed along with the bolt of the entire 76,2 t., While the English 15-inch - 101,6 t. And this despite the fact that the English gun was shorter - the full length of its barrel was 43,36 caliber, while German has 45 calibers. The closures also differed - the British gun had a piston-type bolt, the German gun had a wedge one.


This photo of "Bayern" clearly shows the thickness of the barrels of German 380-mm / 45 guns.


Of course, the concepts also differed - as we know, the German fleet professed the principle “light projectile - high initial speed”, while the British - “heavy projectile - low initial speed”. At the same time, it is not that for Britain this was a conscious choice, the wire construction used there simply made the procedure for increasing the length of the barrel extremely difficult, which is highly desirable for increasing the initial velocity of the projectile. Thus, the concept of "heavy projectile - low initial speed" was for many British forced, which, however, does not mean that this principle is something bad.

Nevertheless, we will postpone a detailed comparison of the British and German implements — together with the American, of course, until the time when, having completed the description of the dreadnoughts of these three countries, we proceed to their comparison, but for now this is still far away. Now back to the German artillery system.

The newest 380-mm / 45 gun fired 750 kg with a projectile with an initial speed of 800 m / s. Ammunition for one gun was 90 shells, including 60 armor-piercing and 30 high-explosive. Trinitrotoluene was used as an explosive, while its content in the armor-piercing projectile was 23,5 (according to other data - 25 kg), in a high-explosive - 67,1 kg. The charge consisted of two parts unequal in mass: most of it fit into the usual double silk cap with a total weight of 192 kg, the smaller - into a brass sleeve weighing 54 kg. Apparently, these figures are obtained by rounding up, since the total charge mass is indicated on 246 kg., But only 245, of which the actual powder was 183 kg., Packaging - 63 kg. I must say that the use of the liner, taking into account the use of a wedge gate, provided an excellent obturation, but it had its price - the total weight of the liners on one battleship reached 43 t.

As for the artillery installation, it was a development of the German gun 305-mm / 50 - not a copy, because a number of improvements were introduced into it, but also not a fundamentally new design. Charging was carried out at a constant angle of elevation 2,5 deg., Thanks to which it was possible to achieve a sufficiently high recharge rate, the full cycle of which took 26 seconds, however, it is unclear whether the lowering procedures and returning it to the shooting position were taken into account at this time. Most likely it does not, since the rate of fire of 380-mm / 45 guns is indicated at the level of 1,5-2 shots / mn, that is, 30-40 seconds per shot.


German 305-mm / 50 and 380-mm / 45 guns


As for the firing range, there is some hitch. The fact is that initially “Bayern” and “Baden” received towers with a maximum angle of elevation of 16 guns degrees, at which, apparently, the firing range was 20 250 - 20 400 m, that is, 109-110 cable. But in the work of respected S. Vinogradov, dedicated to the battleships of this type, it is stated that the guns fired at 20 250 m at an angle of elevation 13 hail, which, I must say, is very doubtful, and, perhaps, is a typo. On the other hand, it is reliably known that after the Germans in 1917 increased the maximum angle of elevation to 20 degrees, the firing range was 23 200 m or slightly more than 125 cables. It can be stated that the 125 cables in those years were, perhaps, the limit of effective firing, which the fire control devices of those times could still provide.

All of the above characterizes the German tower installations of 380-mm / 45 guns in the best possible way, but they were not free from shortcomings. Some of them were a continuation of their own merits: for example, in the control of the tower, both electricity and hydraulics were used, and devices that "converted" electric energy into hydrodynamic force were located inside the barbet, that is, the substandard compartments its outside the towers. This solution provided better security for all of these mechanisms, but, unfortunately, they were very noisy, which made it difficult for the commanders serving the towers.

Another drawback was much more significant - in the design of the towers there were no overload compartments for the supply of ammunition. As is known, the very first battles of heavy ships demonstrated the vulnerability of their artillery cellars - the defeat of the towers was often accompanied by fires that threatened the ships with doom. In order to avoid this, first by the Germans, and later by the British, a fairly simple system was adopted, which can be described briefly as “one closed door” - that is, in the reloading compartment connecting the artillery grab and the flow tube (barbet) of the tower, always closed armored door. When the charges were transferred from the artillery grab to the reloading compartment, the “armor” was closed into the tower, and when it was necessary to transfer the charges to the supply tube, respectively, the door leading to the artillery grab. Thus, if the tower was pierced and a fire broke out inside it, the fire could not pass into the cellars.

But in the towers of the Bayern type battleships there was no transshipment compartment, and there was only one armored door separated from the supply tube from the supply pipe - the loading door casement doors, if the tower was hit when they were open, the fire was quite capable of reaching cellars.

The mine caliber was represented by sixteen 150-mm (to be absolutely accurate - 149,1 mm) C / 06 guns. It was a very successful gun, fully responding to the tasks of protecting the ship from the attacks of the destroyers. Her projectile weighing 45,3 kg had an initial speed of 835 m / s., While at the maximum elevation angle of 19 degrees, the range of such a projectile was 14 945 m., That is, almost 81 cables. Ammunition left 160 armor-piercing and high-explosive shells on the gun. The loading was a separate liner, while the weight of the loaded cartridge was 22,5 kg, including - 13,7 kg powder and 8,8 kg - the sleeve itself. The rate of fire is usually indicated by 7-8 shots / min., In fact, it most likely did not differ from that of similar 6-inch guns of other fleets.

Nevertheless, it appears that the mine action artillery "Baerna" and "Baden" had a very serious disadvantage, namely, the relatively low content of explosive in the projectiles. In fact, this question is unclear, because a significant number of sources bypass this question with silence, but, according to available data, the content of explosives in the armor-piercing projectile did not exceed 0,99 kg. As for the high-explosive, it is completely unclear, but given the fact that by the Second World War, new shells for this gun had 3,9-4,09 kg of explosives, it is extremely doubtful that there would be more during the First World War.

Nevertheless, S. Vinogradov in the monograph "Superdreadnoughts of the Second Reich" Bayern "and" Baden "" indicates for 150 3,0-3,9 kg armor-piercing X-mm shells, but this is extremely doubtful. In the end, the British semi-armor 152-mm projectiles had 3,4 kg BB, and high-explosive shells had 6 kg. In view of the above, it is most likely that the content of explosives in the German armor-piercing shell was 0,99 kg, and in the high-explosive shell it was within 3,5-3,9 kg, which is much lower than similar indicators of the British gun.

Why is that? Apparently, the thing is this: as we know, the Germans did not adhere to the concept of “only big guns” when building their dreadnoughts. That is, they, of course, installed a large number of 280-mm first, and then 305-mm guns, but at the same time did not intend to give up the average 150-mm caliber. On the German ships, he was just the middle; 88-mm guns served as anti-mine guns, which, of course, did not exclude the possibility of firing 150-mm guns at attacking destroyers.

And within the framework of the medium-caliber concept, the Germans could feel the need for their “six-inch” shells to pierce through some kind of armor. It is known that reducing the content of explosives makes it possible to make the shell of the projectile more durable, providing it with better armor penetration, and, apparently, this is exactly what happened with the German 150-mm guns. Their armor-piercing projectile was full-fledged armor-piercing, and the high-explosive in its capabilities was probably close to the English semi-armored projectile. In other words, it seems that in Germany they preferred to increase the armor penetration of 150-mm guns to the detriment of the impact on the unarmored target, and, of course, this was not the best solution in terms of protecting the ship from destroyers.

All 16 150-mm guns were placed in separate casemates, the height of their shafts above sea level was 5,5 m.

Bayern battleships became the first Kaiser dreadnought fleeton which the "intermediate" 150 mm caliber has finally become a mine mine. The fact is that the 88-mm guns, previously oriented to this function, already received a different purpose in the project - they were anti-aircraft.

The 88-mm / 45 gun itself was quite “in trend” with the guns of similar purpose at that time - they fired 10 kg with projectiles with an initial speed of 890 m / s. at a distance of up to 11 800 m (almost 64 cable), and its maximum angle of elevation was 70%, which made it possible to shoot at planes. The loading was unitary, the total mass of the cartridge was 15,6 kg. The rate of fire reached 10 shots / min.

According to the project, eight such guns were supposed to be on the Bayern type battleships, but, oddly enough, Bayern itself did not have them at all when they were handed over to the fleet, and Baden received only two such guns. Subsequently, both on that and on the other, their number was reduced to four.

Measurement of the distance to the enemy was carried out through four rangefinders with a base of 8 meters, and five - with a base of three meters. Other fire control devices were traditional for the German fleet. We will dwell on this topic in more detail when comparing “Rivendjee”, “Bayern” and “Pennsylvania”, for the time being we note that they, although they were more primitive than English, nevertheless provided very good indicators of shooting accuracy.

Torpedoes

In addition to the ultimatum and powerful artillery weapons, Bayer-type battleships received equally serious torpedo weapon. And if the 380-mm / 45 guns "Bayern" still had its counterpart in England, the 600-mm torpedoes H-8 sample 1912, indisputably occupy the top line of the rating of "self-propelled mines" since World War. The total curb weight of the torpedo was 2 160 kg, while the warhead contained a charge of TNT (according to other sources, hexanite) 250 kg. As for the range and speed, there are conflicting data - according to one source, a torpedo could pass 6 km on 36 nodes or 14 km on 30 nodes, according to others - 13 kilometers, moving 28 on a nodal course.

Bayern-type battleships had five submersible torpedo tubes, one nose and two onboard, the latter were deployed in the nose on 20 degrees. from traverse. The ammunition for one vehicle was 4 torpedoes, respectively, the entire Bayern carried 20 torpedoes.

Without a doubt, we will be absolutely right in asserting that, having placed such powerful torpedo armament on battleships, the Germans absolutely for nothing “threw” many tens of tons of payload and cubic meters of internal space. But we speak from the height of after-knowledge, and in those years, naval specialists considered it completely different. Recall that at about the same years, in England, someone’s timid voice, speaking in favor of removing torpedoes from battleships, was immediately muffled by the categorical statement: “The fate of the Empire depends on the torpedo weapons of battleships!” And no one dared to challenge it .

Reservation


"Bayern" before the start of the test 1916 g


The length of the citadel of the Bayern type battleships was 58% of the total ship length. It was based on the main armor belt, which went almost from the beginning of the barbet of the 1 tower and almost to the end of the barbat of the 4 tower, closing in with casemates perpendicular to the axis of the ship, while the barbet of the above towers were a little behind them, which can be seen very well on one of the the schemes below. The main armor belt consisted of plates with a height of 3 720 mm. Its upper edge was at the level of the middle deck of the ship, and the lower one went down to the 1 700 mm below the waterline. Thus, with a normal displacement of the battleship, its main armored belt protected the board up to 2 020 mm above sea level. The thickness of the armor plates on the whole of its “surface” section and another 350 mm “under water” (that is, for 2 370 mm from the top edge) was 350 mm, then its thickness for the remaining 1 350 mm was gradually thinned to 170 mm on the bottom edge.


Bayern armored plate - cross section and layout of armor bolts


Directly above the main armor belt, along its entire length, and in height from the middle to the upper deck, was the second, 250 mm armor belt, the height of its armor plates was 2 150 mm. Thus, within the citadel, Bayer-type battleships had a fully armored board. However, the vertical protection of the citadel was not at all exhausted by the two belts indicated - the fact is that behind them, at some distance from the sides, from the upper to the lower deck, throughout the 250-350-mm armored belts, there was also a splinterproof 30 mm bulkhead. Looking ahead, we note that the horizontal part of the armored decks within the citadel was at the level of the lower deck, and from it went bevels to the lower edge of the 350-mm armor plates. Accordingly, the top of the 30 mm bulkhead was located at the level of the upper deck and the upper edge of the 250 mm armor belt, and the lower edge of this bulkhead was connected to the armored deck at the place where the bevel began. Taking into account the fact that the armor deck within the citadel had 30 mm thickness of the entire length, both on the bevel and on the horizontal part, some kind of Russian dreadnought scheme appeared - behind the main one and behind the upper armor belt there was a solid second protection circuit formed by 30 mm armored assembly and bevels.



True, in addition to the actual thickness of the armor, there was another difference in this design. As a rule, the bevels of the armored deck of the battleships were connected to the lower edge of the armor belt, in the place where the armor ended and began the usual steel skin. But the German designers considered that fixing the bevels, armor belts and skin in one knot weakened the structure as a whole, therefore on Bayern type battleships the bevels of the armored deck were connected to the main armor belt, not reaching its lower edge.

Moreover, the underwater part of the ship along the entire length of the citadel was protected by an armored anti-torpedo bulkhead with a thickness of 50-mm, extending from the very bottom to the junction of the bevels and the horizontal portion of the armor deck and even slightly higher. It was in the same plane with the 30 mm armored partition, and one would expect them to just seamlessly flow into one another, that is, a solid bulkhead would be produced from the bottom to the main deck, just in the hold to the armored deck it would have a thickness of 50 mm and over - 30 mm. But for some reason the Germans did not do this - both of these bulkheads were connected “overlap”, so that over the armored deck along the entire length of the citadel at height 0,8 m from the armored deck the armored partition had 80 mm (30 + 50).

From the bow and stern, the citadel along its entire height (from the upper deck to the lower edge of the boneplit of the main belt) was closed by traverses perpendicular to the axis of the ship, their thickness was 200 mm, except for the part that was located in the space between the middle and lower decks and 30 mm armored partitioning - there traverse thickness was 300 mm.

Let us now consider the “cover” covering the citadel from above: as we have already said, the armor belt and the armored partition reached the upper deck. She, within the citadel, had a booking thickness of 30 mm, but not solid. The fact is that a significant part of the upper deck was occupied by a casemate of 150-mm guns standing on it, and here, where the upper deck was also the floor of the casemate, it had no protection.



And the casemate stretched from the 1-th tower to the 3-s, while its walls were connected with the barbets of these towers. These walls themselves had a thickness of 170 mm, the roof of the casemates had a differentiated protection of 30-40 mm, with the 30 mm sections passing directly above the implements. Inside the casemate 20 mm was divided by steel partitions - it is not entirely clear whether it was armored or structural steel.

In general, the following was obtained - in order to hit the space protected by the citadel, the enemy projectile had to overcome:

1. Below the waterline is the 350 armor plate of mm thickness, or the section where it went down to 170 mm, 30 mm bevel and 50 mm PTZ armored partition, that is (hereinafter, without taking into account the slope of armor plates) 250-430 mm armor.

2. 0,8 m above the waterline - 350 mm armor belt, 80 mm vertical armor section (where 30 mm armored partition was “overlapped” with 50 mm bulkhead TZ) and 30 mm horizontal section of the armor deck, and 460 mm vertical and horizontal armor.

3. At the site at a height of 0,8-1,2 m from the waterline - 350 mm armor belt, 30 mm armored partition and 30 mm horizontal section of the armor deck, and total - 410 mm vertical and horizontal armor.

4. At the height of 2,2-4,15 m from the waterline - 250 mm upper belt, 30 mm armored partition and 30 mm armored deck, and the total 310 mm vertical and horizontal armor.

5. At the level of the upper deck - 30 mm horizontal armor of the upper deck and the same amount of armor, that is, in aggregate 60 mm.

6. The height of the casemate - it would seem, there is the same vulnerability as described by us earlier in the battleships of the “Rivend” type. And indeed - the projectile that pierced the 170 mm dungeon has no more armor above itself than the 30 mm lower deck with bevels. However, there is an important nuance. The British raised the horizontal part of their armored decks to the level of the main deck, and thus, the enemy shell, piercing the upper belt 152 mm (the lower edge of which was just at the level of the main deck), just hit it, and the impact or explosion on armor heavy shell 50 mm armor plate, of course, could not withstand. But with German battleships it turned out a little different. story - The fact is that in order to get to the 30 mm armor deck, the enemy projectile, breaking the 170 mm wall of the casemate, “go” more than two deck spaces down. Given the normalization of the projectile at the moment it hit the dungeon, when the angle of its fall would decrease, the chances that the projectile could reach the 30 mm armored deck were practically non-existent, so if the German armor deck could threaten something, then it was only fragments that exploded projectile. In addition, a small additional protection consisted of the upper and middle decks, which, although they had no armor, were made of 8 mm steel.

7. At the level of the casemate roof - 30-40 mm horizontal roof armor and 30 mm horizontal armor section, that is, in aggregate, 60-70 mm horizontal armor.

Outside the citadel, the corps of the German battleship also had the most thorough protection. From 350 mm of armor to the nose, first went 200 mm of armor plate, and then 150 mm, which were closed by 140 mm by traversing. The armor belt did not reach a bit (approximately - 14 m) to the stem, but here the side plating had a thickening to 30 mm. In the stern, not reaching several meters up to the stern-bow, there was a 200 mm belt, closed with 170 mm as a beam, positioned, like the others, perpendicular to the axis of the ship, but at the same time it was slightly inclined towards the bow.

Interestingly, the 150 and 200 mm armor plates did not match in size and location with the 350 mm main armor belt plates. As we have said, the main armor belt had a height of 3 720 mm, but outside the citadel armor plates had a height of 4 020 m, and their upper edge was located on 330 mm above the main armor belt, and the bottom was on the 1 670 mm below the waterline, that is, " did not reach the main armored belt on the 30 mm. Note also that to the bottom of the nasal 150-200 mm armor plates became thinner to 130 mm, but in the stern of the 200 mm plate - only to 150 mm.

Thus, in addition to the citadel formed by the 350-mm main armor belt and 200 mm, the traverses of the Bairen-type battleships received two more armor cases in the bow (150-200 mm board and 140 mm traise) and in the stern (200 mm board and 170 mm traverse). The bow “box” was completely open at the top, and only along the lower edge of the 200 mm, the armored deck to the very stem was an armored deck without bevels 60 mm thick. Everything was even better in the stern - here the citadel's armored decks seemed to continue (along with bevels), having first thickness 60 mm, then 100 mm and, finally, above the tiller compartment 120 mm, where the deck was slightly raised - however, to the upper edge 200 mm boneplit she, of course, never reached.

The form of the German towers was seriously different from the towers of the battleships of other powers, representing a very unusual polyhedron, which became the "calling card" of the Bayern battleships and the capital ships of the Third Reich. Accordingly, the vertical booking of the 380-mm / 45 turrets for the guns had: the forehead - 350 mm, the sides - 250 mm, the rear part - 290 mm. The horizontal part of the tower roof was 100 mm thick. As for the armor plates, at an angle connecting the vertical booking and the roof of the towers, this was the case here - the frontal armor plate had a slope of 30 hail. and thickness 200 mm, and the side plates were located at an angle 25 hail and had 120 mm thickness.

The barbets had almost the same complex construction as on battleships of the Rivend type, but it should be noted that on the German battleships it looks both more rational and more thorough. The barbety of the first three towers above the forecastle deck, and the barbet of the 4 tower above the upper deck were 350 mm thick, and the same thickness of the barbety 1 and 4 towers in the places where these barbetas stood outside the traverse of the citadel. The exception was the narrow sector in 44 degrees 2-oh and 3-her towers, located in the direction of 1-oh and 4-oh towers, respectively - there barbet defended in front (behind) the standing tower, and the enemy shell could get into it only at a large angle , so armor protection in the area was reduced from 350 to 250 mm. In the other parts, the barbet booking was also weakened, taking into account the side and / or deck armor, which gave them additional protection. So, the 1 th, 2 th and 3 th barbets of the towers between the forecastle deck and the upper deck in the part covered with 170 mm walls of casemates had 170 mm thickness — to get to it, it was necessary to break through the walls of the casemate or its 30 -40 mm roof. But below the upper deck in the protection barbetov there was noticeably greater diversity. So, from the upper to the middle deck (opposite the 250 mm of the armored belt) the barbettes of the 1 and 2 towers had a thickness of 80 mm - in order to reach them, the enemy projectile had to break through the 250 mm of the side and 30 mm of the armored partitioning first. However, there was a certain vulnerability inherent in almost all ships that have “patchwork” armor protection - if a heavy shell hit the upper deck without reaching the casemate wall, it would be separated from 80 mm of barbet only 30 mm of horizontal protection of the upper deck and vertical 30 mm armored partition that could not stop the large-caliber ammunition. The barbet armor of the 3 tower between the upper and middle decks had a variable thickness of 80-115 mm, and the 4-th tower was 200 mm at all. As for the protection from the medium to the lower deck (opposite the 350 mm armor plates), here, in the first three towers, it became thinner to 25 mm, and in the fourth - 115 mm. On the one hand, we again see a certain vulnerability, because the projectile could “get” to the space below the middle deck, piercing the upper belt of a very moderate 250 mm thickness at an angle, but for a significant part of the trajectory it would be resisted no longer by 30 mm, but 80 mm armored partition, towering above the lower deck on 80 cm and 25 mm actually barbet.

The battle cuttings of the Bayern type battleships had two, the main one located in the nose had a conical shape “top down” - its walls had an uneven inclination in 10 degrees to the center plane and 6-8 degrees. on the traverse. The conning tower had three floors - the upper one was protected by 350 mm with vertical armor and 150 mm with a roof, the middle one was protected with 250 mm, and the lower one, located under the forecastle deck, was 240 mm. Such design solution attracts attention - the width of the armored felling was 5 m, which was greater than the width of the chimneys, and allowed to see the stern of the battleship through the slots in the armor. In addition, in the battle, the slots in the wheelhouse were closed, and the review from it was carried out through periscopes placed on the 150 mm roof. The forward conning tower was connected with the central post, a special square mine located deep in the hull and with a width of 1 meter. The thickness of its armor was 70 mm above the deck of the forecastle and 100 mm below.

Everything was much simpler with the aft conning tower - it was smaller, had the shape of a cylinder, with 170 mm walls and a 80 mm roof. She also had an armored tank that had 180 mm armor above the deck of the forecastle and 80 mm - below it.


The battleship "Baden" in 1918 g. Aft military conning tower is well visible


In addition to all the above, the chimney cuts in the lower deck and the forecastle deck had protection. It consisted of armor grates, laid as if on top of the slots, allowing the smoke to rise upwards without fail, but still protecting the boilers from penetrating into the chimneys of large fragments. Unfortunately, the author of this article could not understand their design, but if briefly - they were a lattice of armored steel.

In conclusion, I would like to mention three more facts concerning the armor protection of Bayer-type battleships. The first is that all 75 mm and thicker armor plates were made from Krupp cemented armor, all armor of smaller thickness was homogeneous (it did not have a hardened surface layer). Second, the Germans attached great importance to the integrity of the armored belts, in the sense that they would not allow the plates to sink or fall out, even if they were not pierced by an enemy projectile. To this end, they not only paid exceptional attention to the joints of armor plates, but also provided for their fastening with keys. And finally, the third. The total weight of armor of Bayer-type battleships was 11 410 t., Or 40,4% of normal displacement.

This concludes the description of the booking of Bayern type battleships, but the review of these battleships will be completed only in the next article.

To be continued ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    28 December 2018 09: 48
    In my opinion, the best battleship of the First World War. Back in the beginning. 70s, when I saw his image in the magazine Modelist-Constructor, his "solidity" in comparison with "Queen Elizabeth" was immediately evident.
    Undoubtedly, the article is a plus, and the author - respect.
    1. +2
      29 December 2018 07: 46
      To claim the "best" battleship that did not pass the test in battle is somewhat strange. Paper characteristics are one thing, but how they behave under enemy fire is quite another. It is especially interesting about "solidity compared to Queen Elizabeth", who withstood the battle with almost the entire German fleet.))
  2. +2
    28 December 2018 10: 30
    It is interesting whether the British adopted the German experience after he fell into their hands. Great article.
    1. +3
      28 December 2018 19: 00
      Quote: seti
      It is interesting whether the British adopted the German experience after he fell into their hands.

      As is sometimes the case with ships, Bayern and Baden's proud self-destructive departure from the surface of the sea did not become the final chord of their short combat fate. However, after June 21, 1919, the paths of both brothers, who had hitherto run side by side, parted completely. Unlike Bayern, which hid under water for 15 long years, the attempt to self-flood on Baden failed. The sinking ship was dragged into shallow water by British tugboats and run aground there. Immediately after the catastrophe, the British began to raise the ship and already in July 1919, having pumped out the water and sealed up all the holes, they raised it to an even keel.

      Baden
      "Baden" was towed to Invergordon and put there in dry dock, where a special commission of the British Admiralty made a careful measurement of the contours of its hull, all protruding parts and propellers. The British climbed all the premises, thoroughly examined the internal structure of the battleship, meticulously made all the necessary measurements and calculations. They meticulously studied all the technical manuals and instructions found on board, and got a complete picture of the ship's structure. After intensive study of the design and drawing up of drawings, the battleship, which was the latest combat material of the first-class fleet that had just sunk to the bottom, was used by the British as a target ship to study the impact on it of 15 "shells of a new design of various types.

      The following is a description of all the trials and executions of "Baden" by the British
  3. +3
    28 December 2018 11: 39
    Thank! I will not anticipate the analysis of the author, I look forward to continuing. I have my own ranking among these ships, I'll see how it matches the findings of respected Andrei. But, of course, Germany’s advantage at that time in artillery production technologies was confirmed by Jutland, moreover, with tools of previous calibers and generations.
  4. +2
    28 December 2018 13: 47
    To be honest, in the 70s he himself was a fan of "invulnerable and mighty Baern".
    However, with a deepening of knowledge, Kaiser's overdreadnought ratings changed to moderate.
    The Bayern does not stand out in anything special in relation to similar British ships.
    The guns are powerful, but not overwhelming. The shells are clearly inferior to the British "greenboys". The belt armor is thick, but does not guarantee against being hit through the upper belt or casemate, and the decks are below any criticism.
    Summing up, we can draw the following conclusions:
    - strategically, four laid 15 "superdreadnoughts against thirteen similar ones at the enemy did not correct the balance of forces in any way;
    - tactically "Baerns" at a ratio of 1: 8 (1916), 2:10 (1917) and 2:14 (1918) could not withstand opponents;
    - armoring of battleships of the "Bayern" class did not allow them to fight confidently either at a short distance (50 - 70 cab.), or at a rendezvous / retreat distance (over 100 cab.);
    - the low speed did not allow the Baerns squadron to be assigned to a mobile fleet detachment (similar to the 5th battleship squadron of Adm. Evan-Thomas in the Battle of Jutland).
    If Tirpitz were more perspicacious (or rather, more attentive to the opinion of the Kaiser), then from 1913 Germany should have moved on to building a series of eight battle cruisers with Baern weapons and the rest of the Mackensen's characteristics. Actually, the laying down of the Erzats of York in 1916 was a completely belated recognition of a strategic mistake on the eve of the war.
    1. -1
      29 December 2018 07: 59
      Mackensen and Erzatz York had reservations almost similar to Derflinger. What happened to these cruisers after Jutland, everyone knows perfectly well. One drown, the second barely crawled to the base. So your statement is very controversial.
      1. +1
        29 December 2018 12: 08
        Because in the second and third phase of the battle they were literally driven out before the formation of the British fleet. In general, under Skagerrak, the Germans acted almost exclusively by reconnaissance forces (battlecruisers) and the 3rd squadron of battleships.
        The trick is that if the Hochseeflotte had a squad of even two Erzats Yorks, Beatty and Evan-Thomas would not have survived to join the main forces.
        With timely laying and accelerated construction, Germany could commission four such ships by mid-1916. The advantage in the course would allow this squadron to play the role of the "free hand" of the Hochseeflotte, providing a local fire advantage and the defeat of the enemy in parts.
        I would like to note that if the Baern had received 24 suitcases from a distance advantageous for the British (and they dictate it due to the advantage in speed and number), its fate would hardly have differed from the fate of Luttsev. The death of "Lyutsev" on 01.06.1916/12.10.2017/XNUMX and the detonation of the Baerna mine on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX once again confirmed the common disadvantage of all German-built battleships - poor division into compartments in the bow.
  5. 0
    28 December 2018 14: 18
    "Another drawback was much more significant - there were no reloading compartments for the supply of ammunition in the design of the towers." this is the opposite advantage. Transfer rooms are a greater risk of detonation or fire, complication of design. Everywhere they wrote about it, a more advanced system is when the ammunition is fed directly into the tower, and does not accumulate in a less protected place.
    1. +5
      28 December 2018 18: 43
      Quote: Usher
      Reloading compartments are a greater risk of detonation or fire, design complexity. Everywhere they wrote about it, a more advanced system is when the ammunition is fed directly to the tower, and does not accumulate in a less protected place.

      belay
      "Indefatigable" ..... "Queen Mary" ...... "Invincible" .....
      They had an "advanced system" for supplying ammunition to the turret without a reloading compartment. wink
  6. +3
    28 December 2018 14: 27
    Thank ! Great article! I am not an expert, but even then I was interested!
    1. +1
      28 December 2018 18: 39
      Quote: Ekaterina Shtepa
      I am not an expert, but even then I was interested

      belay what Interesting ladies sometimes request smile love
  7. 0
    28 December 2018 16: 25
    why didn’t you try to cover the barbet of elevated towers with anti-mine caliber towers?
    1. 0
      28 December 2018 16: 34
      Because it's stupid. Starting from the fact that in order to place the PMK towers close to the GK barbette, you need to find a place under the cellar, and there are usually few of them in those places, not to mention the fact that the Germans were not even going to place them in the PMK towers . In addition, what will this scheme give you? The PMK towers will have to be protected with thick enough armor so that the effect of the diversity of protection plays as it should, so it’s better then to hang this armor on the barbet in plus to what is already there.
      1. 0
        28 December 2018 21: 30
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Starting from the fact that in order to place the PMK towers close to the GK barbette, you need to find a place under the cellar, and there are usually few of them in those places, not to mention the fact that the Germans were not even going to place them in the PMK towers .

        Maybe your opponent has seen enough of Italian schemes? "Dante Alighieri", the same battleships like "Vittorio Veneto", modernized "Andrea Doria"? what request smile
        1. +1
          28 December 2018 21: 42
          But where is the PMK in the proposed configuration? smile On "Vittorio" the towers are close, but do not overlap the barbet itself, on "Andrea Doria" similarly, on "Dante Alighieri" the cellars of the towers are also located close to the cellars of the towers of the main battlegrounds, but still behind the latter, and not right next to them. A colleague, after all, implies such a configuration, when the secondary armament towers "stick around" the elevated barbet from all sides, thereby supposedly increasing its security, but this particular thing has never happened on any ship in history, and for a reason.
  8. +3
    28 December 2018 16: 40
    In general, we can say about the Bayerns that they, like some other things, are far from ideal, but nothing better at that time has yet been invented laughing At the same time, the Germans could indeed create an outstanding ship ... But the modest size for such weapons, limited by the TTZ, played a role. Had it been on 3-5 thousand tons heavier, with more powerful EI and armor, with all the others as in reality - it would have turned out to be something noticeably stronger than peers.
    1. 0
      28 December 2018 17: 15
      common cellars? The rest is past
      1. +2
        28 December 2018 17: 38
        Quote: prodi

        common cellars?

        You first find a place on them where the PTZ is usually forced to narrow because of the absence thereof, and then we'll talk. No, purely theoretically, you can put in the PMK cellar there - either by critically reducing the supply for the GK guns, or by abandoning the PTZ in the cellar area.
        Quote: prodi
        The rest is past

        The rest is just appropriate, but, apparently, it is useless for you to talk about it. I repeat, for anyone who is at least somehow versed in the design of ships of that time, such an idea is utter stupidity, which does not have any special benefits, but which requires enormous weight and size expenses. The fact that this has never been done anywhere before is vivid proof, in the best case, MZA was placed around the barbets of the elevated towers of the GK, and this is infrequent, and that is only because there is usually not a lot of space under the MZA.

        By the way, this is a bit of the wrong comment for your answer)
        1. 0
          28 December 2018 18: 07
          And what, under the "regular" casemates, was there a place for the PTZ?
          1. 0
            28 December 2018 18: 11
            Quote: prodi
            And what, under the "regular" casemates, was there a place for the PTZ?

            1) The casemate guns are located closer to the midsection, there is a greater width of the hull than in the area of ​​the barbets of elevated towers;
            2) The power plant itself, located in the middle of the hull, is not so demanding on the width, which allows not only to place the PMK cellar there, but also deeper than at the ends of the PTZ. In this regard, the GK cellars are much more demanding in terms of volume, and the hull narrows in the underwater part quite noticeably, which makes it necessary even without the PMK cellars in those places to strongly "compress" the GK cellars and reduce the PTZ depth. In later times, by the way, this was even considered a problem on some ships like the Scharnhorst, what kind of secondary battery cellars should be located in those places.
            1. 0
              28 December 2018 18: 24
              is it difficult to imagine an inclined elevator in the GK cellar? Moreover, if the average caliber did not shoot at 20 km, then the practical need for about 20-30 half-armor-piercing shells on the barrel could be stored in the tower (charges in the cellar of the Civil Code)
              1. +4
                28 December 2018 18: 35
                Quote: prodi
                is it difficult to imagine an inclined elevator in the GK cellar?

                Are we talking about elevators now? smile If for you the elevator and the cellar are one and the same thing, then I don’t want to seem like a boor, but your knowledge of the materiel is a little depressing.
                Quote: prodi
                then the practical need for the order of 20-30 semi-armor-piercing shells on the barrel could be stored in the tower (charges - in the cellar of the Civil Code)

                Absolutely unsuccessful proposal, from the word "absolutely". The placement of BC in the towers was abandoned at the beginning of the 20th century, and even before that they had not been very actively used - the most famous example with the Asamoids, and that was rather a forced decision. In the towers, and so crowded, where do you shove 30-XNUMX more shells there? Increase the reserve volume? This will entail an increase in the mass of the structure, the mass of armor, the need for more powerful turning mechanisms, and the charges will still have to be stored in the cellar, because there are no necessary conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.) to keep them in the tower, and it is simply dangerous. But you already, I remember, were told once when you suggested balancing the towers in this way, so as not to make them thick rear armor plates - but you continue to consider this a great idea. I'm sorry, but it isn't.
                1. 0
                  28 December 2018 19: 12
                  a spreader - an elevator, a cellar - a cellar, a window in a thinner barbet (1.5x0.5), covered by a flap, armor of an auxiliary tower and breech of its guns. The shells can be mixed between those laid in the general cellar of the Civil Code, it doesn’t matter
                  1. +1
                    28 December 2018 19: 23
                    Quote: prodi
                    a window in a thinner barbet (1.5x0.5), covered with a shutter, the armor of the auxiliary tower and the breech of its guns

                    Those. do you propose making barbets of elevated towers even finer? Moreover, the bad idea is 1) you won’t get the necessary weight savings for the armored towers of the PMK 2) Shells can easily and easily go directly to the weakened part of the barbet, bypassing the tower and 3) Spaced armor with rare exceptions works worse than monolithic. GK thin barbet plus GK towers that are somehow protected - consider that you only made it worse.
                    Quote: prodi
                    The shells can be mixed between stacked HA, it doesn’t matter

                    Yeah, will we throw all the mechanisms and workplaces that are there overboard?) I repeat to you once again - the towers are CLOSE, they are usually crimped in such a way, they have such a configuration of mechanisms that there is simply no free space there - the volume is either occupied or necessary for the work of the servant. The only exceptions are some tower designs, where the BC was placed ONLY in the rear, and ONLY as a forced measure - mainly Japanese ships, BrKr and Fuji with Yashima, and this was caused by the shortcomings of the feed elevators, which is why it fell rate of fire, and partial placement of ammunition in the turret helped to make at least the first shots as quickly as possible. And - this system was recognized as vicious, and no one ever returned to it, the MAXIMUM in the tower could hold the first shots in anticipation of a battle, in order to start firing faster if something happened, but this is very rare. But you, apparently, want to declare all ship designers fools, and challenge the practical experience of several generations of people who understand the topic more than me or you wassat
                    1. 0
                      28 December 2018 19: 29
                      Quote: arturpraetor
                      Sparse armor, with rare exceptions, works worse than monolithic. GK thin barbet plus GK towers that are somehow protected - consider that you only made it worse.

                      What are you? Standardly armored towers + lightweight barbet = general lightening of the structure without loss of combat properties.
                      As for the rest, in your opinion, tanks and self-propelled guns do not have a right to exist at all
                      1. +3
                        28 December 2018 19: 55
                        Quote: prodi
                        What do you mean?

                        Is this a discovery for you? laughing Well, the question is being removed, the level of technical literacy is clear. Why, for example, three decks in 30mm are worse than one in 90mm, you probably do not know.
                        Quote: prodi
                        As for the rest, in your opinion, tanks and self-propelled guns do not have a right to exist at all

                        And I kept waiting, when will you remember tanks and self-propelled guns)) But, alas and ah, you are now comparing the seat with a finger. At sea, different calibers, different thicknesses of armor, different weight distribution, in general, other realities. In a tank, any hit into the armor-plated space of a striking element is fraught with its destruction, therefore shells can be shoved anywhere (and then, they prefer not to shove, play with various "wet" ammunition racks, etc.) - if the shell pierced the armor, then that's it. , khan. At the same time, internal volumes are often increased for the BC (for example, at the expense of the rear of the tower), since the shells, in principle, have nowhere to shove, and not just to keep them in relative safety in some cellars below the overhead line and behind the PTZ with an armored deck. On a ship, hitting one small (against the general background of the ship) tower with ammunition inside is fraught with detonation of this ammunition in the tower, and this is, at best, severe damage, and at worst, if the fire hits the cellars, and the death of the entire ship, therefore it is so easy to exchange as you suggest, you will fail. On ships, it is required to minimize damage when armor is pierced, and ammo in such an easy accessibility, apart from weight and size reasons, go equal against the stated principle.

                        For this, I say goodbye to you, because I see no reason in continuing the dialogue.
                      2. +2
                        28 December 2018 23: 17
                        Goodnight. Gentlemen, debaters, let me get in with my opinion. If you place secondary battery towers on the sides of the barbet of towers "B" and "C", then what sector of fire will remain at the end towers of the main battery? It turns out that you need to keep to the enemy, almost strictly with a traverse, otherwise the towers "A" and "D" will be turned off from the battle. And how will it look from the standpoint of structural strength, if there are three holes in a row in the hull?
                        For the sake of interest, I printed Bayern's scheme and drew 4 PMK towers, complete crap turned out.
                      3. 0
                        29 December 2018 06: 14
                        you are right with the sectors, although this is not so noticeable at medium and long distances.
                        as for the holes in the deck, the PMK towers are much smaller, the breech bars are smaller, and there is no need to blindly copy the main structure. A hole, of course, is needed to lift a not so large projectile, but otherwise, install an epaulet on the deck, in which the rotation mechanisms will be located
                      4. +3
                        29 December 2018 07: 21
                        Quote: Oleg Kolsky 051
                        If you place the secondary battery towers on the sides of the barbet of the towers "B" and "C"

                        Oleg, this is the case here - Arthur Praetor rightly pointed out that the PMV tower itself is a vulnerability in the construction of any battleship, and so, by the way, it always has been. Of course, she cannot protect anything by definition.
                      5. 0
                        29 December 2018 13: 04
                        And I actually do not argue. Just look at the thickness of the armor of the PMA towers.
  9. +1
    28 December 2018 18: 00
    As always an interesting article.
  10. +1
    28 December 2018 18: 36
    In principle, there is nothing to comment so far, because the very first plus, delivered as early as in the early morning, is already worth Yes
    And since it is for the German fleet (in this case, for the "buyers") that I have already read everything, then we will look further ...
    I will add (for the umpteenth time) that it is almost impossible to create an ideal ship if there are all sorts of restrictions. And they in this case were undoubtedly present Yes
    The design of the superdreadnought posed a difficult and responsible task for the German engineers. The creators of the Bayern design had to proceed from a number of conditions that left an imprint on the entire further project. First of all, it was necessary to take into account the need to place all the powerful weapons of the battleship in a hull, which in dimensions and tonnage should not significantly exceed the already built dreadnoughts of the König class. This requirement of the naval command was quite objective - quite recently, expensive work was completed to deepen and widen the fairways and anchorages, as well as the Emperor Wilhelm Canal (Kiel Canal), and there was still hope that this work would be sufficient for the next decade. Secondly, the new battleship needed to provide an equally high level of protection from both artillery fire and underwater explosions.

    Therefore, the Germans tried, within the allotted framework, to the maximum (in their opinion) to use their differentiated protection. Alas, it was the "buyers" who did not have a chance to check the correctness or erroneousness due to known reasons smile And if the “queens” stuffed a little “könig” with their 15 ”blanks (and the“ buyers ”differed little in their booking from the predecessors of the“ königs ”), then indirectly one can still judge the quality of the protection, the same“ queens ”did not have a chance to experience the power of German, albeit light, but still the same 15 "blanks.
    All the same, you need to wait for a complete comparison, then it will be possible to talk about something Yes
    Articles of this series are very useful for lovers of the development of naval technology, therefore, they are recommended for general development feel
    Colleague, a definite plus for the next article in the cycle! Yes good
    Best regards drinks hi
  11. +6
    28 December 2018 18: 57
    "The British 381-mm / 42 gun was a liner on which many kilometers of red-hot rectangular wire were wound - and then the resulting structure was placed in a tube - the outer casing of the gun."
    I will allow myself clarification. The wire was wound cold with a certain tension created by a special load.
    It looks something like this.
  12. +3
    28 December 2018 20: 13
    Andrey, thank you very much for the interesting cycle. In terms of the quality of articles and arguments, you are personally # 1 for me on VO and other resources. If you have any knowledge or a theory why Britain has so stubbornly followed the "wire" barrel manufacturing technology - please tell me about it in the next part. The British have given the Navy the best minds and technologies for centuries, so skipping the obviously more advanced barrel-making process is a very interesting moment.
    1. +4
      28 December 2018 20: 23
      Quote: looker-on
      If you have any knowledge or a theory why Britain has so stubbornly followed the "wire" barrel manufacturing technology - please tell me about it in the next part. The British have given the Navy the best minds and technologies for centuries, so skipping the obviously more advanced barrel-making process is a very interesting moment.

      Yes, there, EMNIP, there is only one reason - the low cost of "wire" barrels. It would seem that for Britain is not the most compelling reason, but given HOW MANY artillery barrels they usually needed ... Even a penny saving on one barrel would mean huge savings in general. Well, I will also add that the British, in fact, very often showed a fair amount of conservatism on this topic, in terms of the development of naval artillery, they generally lagged behind by the end of the XNUMXth century, one of the last having switched to breech-loading guns, a long emphasis on wire barrels in some least was just a continuation of this picture.
  13. +2
    28 December 2018 20: 24
    More about the driving performance (speed) of these ships. The design capacity of Bavaria and the sitterships is 55000hp, the speed is 22 knots. Almost all German dreadnoughts exceeded the power by 20-25%, and, accordingly, the speed by 10%. De facto, full-fledged tests were not carried out during the war. But it can be assumed that the actual speed would not be less than 23 knots. Which would put them definitely closer to the queens than to the "R" series. But this is all subjunctive and conjectural.
    s.s I never paid attention to the fact that the original form of the towers of German ships from WWII went from Bavaria. Thank you for this discovery, among other things.
    1. +2
      28 December 2018 21: 16
      Quote: Potter
      I never paid attention to the fact that the original form of the towers of German ships from WWII went from Bavaria

      what The Bayern and Bismarck towers have nothing in common, except for their versatility. Each weapon was a separate development.
      The Germans had experience in creating 380-mm guns. Until the end of the First World War, two Bayern-class dreadnoughts armed with eight SK L / 45 cannons of the 1913 model entered service. The latter are often referred to as the prototype of the Bismarck main battery, but this is not so. In fact, the new guns were the original development of the Krupp concern. They were tested already during the construction of the ships, after which they were put into service under the designation "38cm / 52 SK C / 34", which means "38cm / 52-clb naval gun model 1934" Schiffkanone, C - Konstruktionsjahr).

      The tower installations themselves had both a general similarity and a number of differences. But, in any case, I have not come across assertions that the Bismarck towers were based on the Bayern towers. Yes, the dimensions and weight are almost identical, but the armor is also different, the location of a number of internal mechanisms, the absence of an additional compartment for ammunition ... And the versatility was chosen by the Germans rather out of practicality - any costs for assembling such a tower are less than casting armor plates of complex shapes for more elegant towers of the same "queens" request
    2. 0
      29 December 2018 12: 24
      By the middle of the Battle of Jutland, the speed of German ships decreased from 21-23 knots (forcing) to 17-18 knots due to slagging of the furnaces and fatigue of stokers. Similarly, battlecruisers who started the battle at 25-26 knots reduced their speed to 20 knots (and later, they crawled on their belly as a result of injuries).
      1. +2
        29 December 2018 19: 22
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        By the middle of the Battle of Jutland, the speed of German ships decreased from 21-23 knots (forcing) to 17-18 knots due to slagging of the furnaces and fatigue of stokers.

        Be afraid of God .... The speed of the linear ships of Scheer was limited by the armadillos of Mauve - 16 knots Yes Speeds over 20 königi knots! showed only during the exit from the trap in the form of "crossing T", set by Jellicoe Scheer. The rest of the time the average speed of Hochseeflotte was 16 knots, fluctuating between 15 and 17 knots
  14. 0
    5 January 2019 19: 14
    "In general, the following happened - in order to hit the space protected by the citadel, the enemy shell had to overcome ..." - isn't it more logical to write in order to hit the KTU or PB? what is so terrible about "hitting the space protected by the citadel." And then you need to reconsider ALL reviews of booking systems from a respected author :)
    1. -1
      6 January 2019 11: 38
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      Isn’t it more logical to write to hit KTU or PB?

      Not more logical, since there are other compartments / units in the citadel
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      what is so terrible about "hitting the space protected by the citadel"

      Hmmm ... well, actually, there’s KO, MO, and the artillery cellar. And so - nothing.
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      And then you need to slightly review ALL reviews of reservation systems from a respected author :)

      What for?
      1. 0
        6 January 2019 13: 54
        For me, the Citadel is a zone protected by the main armor belt (the Bavaria has two lines of 350 mm and 250 mm). The Citadel includes the KTU and PB zones, as well as the upper zone of the Citadel.
        The upper zone of the "Citadel" 250 mm + 30 mm vertical armor, under certain circumstances, is affected even by weak weapons, for example, 305-mm / 52.
        KTU + PB - a separate zone, inside the "Citadel". When firing at point-blank range, the total armor thickness reduced to the trajectory line is from more than 460 mm (invulnerable during WWI) - there is nothing to think about, in real combat conditions the Greenboy is already holding 350 mm (the tests were carried out, as I understand it, without taking into account the course corners).
        With a trajectory line of 20 degrees, the total armor thickness reduced to the trajectory line is about 385 mm. The 381-mm projectile of the "Greenboy" (post-Yutladn) type at a distance of 14 m has a speed of 170 m / s and a trajectory angle of 472 degrees. If it hits the upper belt, such a projectile will pierce it, the anti-splinter partition and the 14,5 mm deck, exploding above the armored deck.
        Thus, the TO and PB "Bavaria" are invulnerable from the "Greenboys" (we are tactfully silent about the rest of the shells of the KF and RIV), KOs can be damaged (it is not clear how seriously) the explosion of the "Greenboy" over the main armored deck in the area of ​​the armored grates, which, again, he is holding the Greenboy (we are tactfully silent about the rest of the KF and RIV shells).
        Previously, “Bavaria” rules.
        The question remains: what does the "Bavaria" have between the 250-mm belt and the 170-mm casemate armor, since if the shell hits the section of the deck between them, then ...
        1. -1
          6 January 2019 16: 42
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          For me, the Citadel is a zone protected by the main armor belt

          Well, for some reason, the world believes that this is a zone fenced by GBP, traverses and the main armored deck
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          Thus, the TO and PB "Bavaria" are invulnerable to the "Greenboys"

          :))))) Let's get to the comparisons. In general, did you see a photo of Bayern's broken frontal tower on 75 cables?
          1. 0
            6 January 2019 17: 38
            Well, for some reason, the world believes that this is a zone fenced by GBP, traverses and the main armored deck laughing I wrote so. and your text understood that for you even what is above the main armor deck but beyond the upper part of the main armor belt. This dispute does not make much sense, since the defeat of CP, PB and MO is critical, and the CO is extremely unpleasant. Let's discuss on this basis. drinks
            In general, did you see a photo of Bayern's broken frontal tower with 75 cables? - belay Greenboy has never really penetrated Bayern's 350mm armor. For example: frontal armor of the second turret - shot 14 shooting number 1 = through hole 45 cm in diameter, fragments of the armor went inside, however, the remains of the shell scattered OUTSIDE the turret and were not found. Shot 9 shooting number 1 = the same result in the third tower barbet.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"