“Retvisan” vs “Tsesarevich”, or Why not Kramp?

“Retvisan” vs “Tsesarevich”, or Why not Kramp?

Interested history domestic fleet Caricature of C. Crump, drawn in a number of sources, where the American shipbuilder is presented as an assertive businessman who came for the sake of profit to St. Petersburg with grandiose plans, is well acquainted. Having learned about the participation in the upcoming international competition of “famous shipbuilding companies in Europe” and realizing his lack of competitiveness, an unprincipled American, in order to conclude contracts for the construction of an armadillo and a cruiser, bypassing the competition allegedly went to give bribes to the head of the General Directorate of Shipbuilding and Supplies (hereinafter GUKiS) Vice Admiral V P. Verkhovsky and the Chief of the Fleet and the Naval Department, Admiral-General Aleksei Aleksandrovich. But what if through the prism of that era to try to look at the circumstances associated with the order of the future "Retvisan" and "Varyag", unbiased look?


After the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 and the “Triple Intervention” by Germany, Russia and France, which resulted in a humiliating refusal for the victorious country to annex the Liaodong Peninsula, Japan began to build up military power in preparation for further confrontations. In December 1895, the Japanese Parliament approved the “Post-War Program” for strengthening the navy, which envisaged the commissioning by 1906 of 119 warships with a total displacement of about 146 tons, including four battleships of the 495st class, six armored cruisers of the 11st class , five cruisers of the II class, 89 fighters and 93 destroyers of the I-III classes. Initially, during the implementation of the “Program”, it was planned to spend 978 yen taken from indemnity received from China, the total amount of which was 509,00 yen. The process of implementing the program outlined by the Japanese could not fail to attract the attention of outside observers. So, in July 364, an international congress of the British Society of Naval Designers and Marine Engineers took place in England, where, among others, Charles H. Cramp and assistant class inspector at the Technical School of the Maritime Department, junior shipbuilder P E. Chernigovsky. As old acquaintances, later at the Sir WG Armstrong Whitworth & Co Ltd shipyard, they together examined warships under construction for foreign customers, including the battleships Yashima and Hatsuse, as well as the American-style armored cruiser Asama. The fact of the construction of these ships was known to the Russian naval agent in England, captain 482st rank K.I. Grigorovich, apparently this circumstance was the reason for the visit to the world's largest shipyard engineer Chernigov.

At the end of 1897, when the battleships “Shikishima”, “Asahi” and “Hatsuse”, as well as the armored cruisers “Asama”, “Tokiwa”, “Adzuma” and “Yakumo” were on the slipway stage of construction, at the Special meeting of the highest ranks of the Marine Ministry, held under the chairmanship of Admiral-Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, formulated the basic requirements for the project of a new battleship (as conceived, "increased" Poltava "). Displacement of not more than 12 tons, increased speed to 000 knots, the main armament of the ship was to be four 18 "and twelve 12" guns. A few weeks later, work began on the “Technical Design Program” of the battleship at the Marine Technical Committee (hereinafter referred to as MTK) or, in modern terms, a tactical and technical task, in the final version of which, along with the above elements, the cruising range of up to 6 miles in a ten-node course and twenty 5-mm and 000-mm guns.

On February 23, 1898, Emperor Nicholas II approved a new shipbuilding “Program for the needs of the Far East”, developed by the Sea Ministry, which envisaged the construction of five squadron battleships, 16 cruisers, two mine barriers and 36 destroyers. In addition to the financial estimate of the Ministry of the Sea for 1898, which amounted to 67 rubles, according to the registered highest decree of February 500, 000,00, the Special loan was additionally granted for the needs of the Program under § Special in the amount of 24 , 1898 rubles.

In anticipation of the planned international competition on March 14, 1898 at the Special Meeting, it was “fundamentally decided” to use the Peresvet project as a prototype for new battleships with an increase in the caliber of the main artillery from 10 "to 12", replacing the three-shaft power plant with a two-shaft one and abandoning the wooden and copper cladding of the underwater body. A number of foreign shipbuilding companies sent in advance competitive invitations, to which two responded: Italian “Gio. Ansaldo & C ”and the German“ Schiff- und Maschinenbau-AG "Germania" ", objectively at that time outsiders of European shipbuilding. Apparently, including for this reason, the competition was not held, because taking into account the lack of experience among the emerging participants in the design and construction of modern battleships, it made no sense.

Long before the events described above, the Russian side initiated a long business correspondence with Ch. Kramp, conducted by Vice Admiral N. I. Kaznakov (the chief commander of the port of Kronstadt and at the same time the military governor of Kronstadt, who had been in office for more than six years, after which at the end of 1899 he was replaced by Vice Admiral N.O. Makarov) and other senior fleet officials, as a result of which in early spring of 1898 the head of the American shipyard received a message that the Naval Ministry of the Russian Empire “would be glad to to watch "his plans and proposals for the construction of" at least two first-class armadillos, two first-class guarded cruisers with the highest speed and thirty destroyers "in accordance with the new shipbuilding program, which was already finally approved by the Ministry and approved by Emperor Nikolai II a few weeks ago.

C. Crump arrived in St. Petersburg at the beginning of March 1898, where over the next few weeks bilateral discussions of the widest possible range of topics were held with the chief inspectors of shipbuilding, mechanical, artillery, mines and construction of the MTK, as a result of which a common agreement on all important issues and the “Program for the design” of the battleship was handed over to Kramp. The construction of a shipyard in Port Arthur was also discussed: T. Seligman, member of the board of the Belgian John Cockerill, shortly before Kramp left for Russia, informed the latter about the proposal made by the Russian side to build a shipyard in the Far East for his company, the amount the transaction was previously estimated at 30 francs (about 000 rubles). The American’s visit took place against the backdrop of increased business activity of agents and experts representing the interests of French and German shipyards in Russia, supported by embassies and banks of their countries, which had influence at the royal court, and here, C. Hramcock (Ethan Allen Hitchcock) provided all-round support and assistance. , US Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Russia, vigorously defending the interests of American industry. Following the results of meetings with C. Kramp at the end of March, Admiral General Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich and Chief of the Main Naval Staff F.K. Avelan approved the construction of a squadron battleship and cruiser I rank in America, the construction contracts of which were signed in Philadelphia on April 000,00, 7 of the year. A few weeks later, A. Lagan (Antoine-Jean Amable Lagane), chief designer and director of the shipyard of Forges et chantiers de la Méditerranée, visited St. Petersburg once again, and already on May 5000, 000,00, Adjutant General I. M Together with the cover letter, Dikov received a preliminary design and preliminary specification of an armadillo drawn up by a French engineer in accordance with the requirements of the ministerial Design Program. Ignoring the “principle decision” of the Special Meeting, Lagan used the Jauréguiberry battleship with a turret of medium artillery as a prototype, which, in turn, did not raise objections from the MTK, which, two months ago, in pursuance of the “principle decision” of the Special Meeting rejected the proposal made by Kramp as a prototype, the tower battleship “Iowa” in favor of the tower-casemate “Relight”. Soon, the French project was approved by the ITC, after which on July 11, 1898, the head of the Main Directorate of Civil Aviation, Vice-Admiral V.P. Verkhovsky, signed a contract with Lagan for the construction of a squadron battleship, which officially became known as “Tsesarevich” on January 26, 1898.


Armadillo Jauréguiberry


Armadillo "Iowa"

In addition to two foreign companies, the Ministerial “Program” was received by the Baltic and Mechanical Works of the Maritime Department. The four project options presented later for consideration by the MTK, developed by the senior assistant to the shipbuilder V. Kh. Offenberg, the captain of the hull of ship engineers K. Ya. Averin, as well as the junior assistants to the shipbuilder M.V. Shebalin and N.N. Kuteynikov, were further the development of the battleship “Peresvet”, however, even before the signing of the contract with A. Lagan, they were immediately rejected by the Admiral General, who on a non-alternative basis appointed the French project as a prototype when developing the design for the program Amma "Armadillos No. 2-8" series of five armadillos (battleship No. 1 - "Victory").

What actually underlie the adoption of this decision is not known, formally “Original booking mainly in the underwater part of the housing”.

However, the unequal conditions in which two foreign shipyards were in, as well as the fundamental rejection of the idea of ​​a domestic project for a promising battleship, make it possible to make an assumption about the political background of the order of the future “Tsesarevich” in France, a country that periodically lent the government of Russia amounts of hundreds of millions of gold rubles, and with which in 1892 Russia concluded a military convention and established close military-technical cooperation. In addition, there were rumors of corruption on the part of Deputy Admiral P. P. Tyrtov, Manager of the Maritime Ministry, and Grand Duke Aleksei Aleksandrovich, Chief of the Fleet and Maritime Department. Is it really so, will always remain a mystery, however, the patronizing and inexplicably condescending attitude of the Maritime Department to Lagan is a weighty indirect evidence in support of this assumption.

Lagan, unlike Kramp, was spared the need for weeks of grueling discussions at the ITC. The project of the main caliber towers proposed by the American company for the sake of observing the “uniformity of the material part” was rejected by the customer in favor of domestic installations, at the same time, the French shipyard received the right to install towers designed for the Cossarevic for armadillos of the Charlemagne type, thereby the Metal Plant was deprived of a profitable order (502 rubles), and the fleet - uniformity of the material part. The contractual deadline for Retvizan was calculated from the moment the observing commission arrived in America (arrived in Philadelphia two months after signing the contract), and the Tsesarevich from the date of final approval of the MTK drawings (ten and a half months after signing the contract). Whereas William Cramp & Sons undertook to build Retvisan in 000,00 months, Forges et chantiers de la Méditerranée immediately announced a 30-month period, later shortened to 48 months. The explanation given to this by R. M. Melnikov is “The actual recognition that a purely tower armadillo in terms of labor intensity is no less than one and a half times superior to armadillos of a tower-casemate type”.


However, this hypothesis is refuted by the practice of William Cramp & Sons, which built the Iowa tower battleship in forty-six months and the Maine turret-casino battleship in forty-six and a half months.


Armadillo "Maine"

At the same time, the contract value of the two armadillos was comparable (3 010 000,00 and 2 885 000,00 dollars, respectively). The threats of Krampu’s fine caused by the failure to meet the contract deadlines were removed only after the latter announced to Admiral General that there were already buyers at Retvisan, including Vickers, Sons and Maxim, Limited, which offered one million dollars more than the contract price of the ship. Lagan, who also disrupted the contract terms, was not threatened with fines. But the “Tsesarevich”, adopted with gross violations of contractual norms, unlike “Retvisan,” left for Port Arthur with an extensive list of deficiencies, which served as the basis for the delay in the last payment of 2 francs. When all the problems were finally fixed, it is not known, but the French specialists, who arrived in Port Arthur aboard the battleship, began to prepare for the elimination of the main one (the capriciousness of the ammunition supply system for main guns), in the middle of December 000, i.e., fifty-five months after the start of the countdown of the contract term for the completion of the Tsesarevich. Vice Admiral F.K. Avelan, manager of the Maritime Ministry, spoke about the payment of the last, delayed payment for the “Cesarevich”, and he spoke with the Minister of Finance Count V.N. Kokovtsev a year later, on December 000,00, 1903. Noteworthy is the higher, compared with the “Retvisan”, the cost of a ton of displacement “Tsesarevich”.


This contrast is all the more striking because the wages of workers at the two shipyards were different. The minimum daily wage at a French shipyard ranged from one to three francs, the maximum - from four to seven. At the same time, minters, ship carpenters, blacksmiths, etc. received $ 18 (93,29 francs) per week at the American shipyard, and coachmen and drillers received from $ 10 to 10,5 (from 51,82 to 54,42 francs) ) in Week. Lagan’s personnel policy was that the vast majority of his workers were Italian unemployed shipbuilders who came to work in France, accustomed to being content with the small, as a result, they often received less for their work than even their colleagues in Russia, where the workers of the New Admiralty, for example, those employed in the construction of the Oslyabya squadron battleship received an average of 1897 rubles (1,03 francs) per day in 4, while the maximum daily wage reached two rubles (8 francs).

It is interesting that to match the wage gap of American and French shipbuilders there was a daily allowance that the GUKiS paid observers for the construction of two battleships for the same period of time, in 1900, amounted to 244 days. Captain I rank I.K. Grigorovich received in France "travel allowances" for a total of 4 rubles, and captain I rank E. N. Shchensnovich in the USA - 748,82 rubles.

A commonplace in domestic sources was accusations against Kramp of giving a bribe for the sake of concluding a contract bypassing the "international competition" and subsequent extortion by the "sly cunning" of extra-contractual sums for replacing the varieties of deck and vertical armor "Retvizan", so we will consider these points in detail.

The correspondence with the American shipbuilder, initiated by the Maritime Ministry, did not imply the latter’s participation in the “international competition” that had not yet been conceived, for this it was enough to send an invitation in the future. The idea to organize a contest came up after contact with the American was initiated to build a number of warships in the United States for the Russian fleet.

As for the vertical armor, the official documents of the Congress and the US Navy at our disposal open a different picture, different from the usual and long-standing textbook reader for the domestic reader. As you know, at the end of the 525th century, American metallurgical companies repeatedly supplied armor to Russia at a lower price than for ships under construction in the US Navy. The Krupp armor for the Retvisan was no exception, the average price of which was several tens of dollars lower than the cost of the Harvey armor supplied to the battleships Kearsarge and Kentucky, for example. The latter carried guarized nickel armor, the price of which, depending on the manufacturer, as well as the configuration, thickness and weight of the plates, ranged from 638 to XNUMX dollars per ton. The appeal to domestic sources supplements the foregoing with the details that are not available in American sources.

S. A. Balakin:

“... using insufficiently clear wording in the contract, I agreed to fulfill the terms of the customer only if they were paid extra. After another series of bickering, the parties somehow agreed. The American firm Betlehem Steel Company contracted 229 mm Krupp plates, and the Carnegie Steel Company was 178 mm, 152 mm, 127 mm and deck armor. For this, the Russian Maritime Ministry had to "fork out" for 310 thousand dollars in excess of the amount agreed upon in the contract. "


However, the facts are such that, in fact, the amount named by Balakin was paid only for deck armor, not only the Retvizana, but also the Varyag. As almost half a century ago, the shipbuilding journal wrote the historian of shipbuilding and the navy R. M. Melnikov:

“The order of the cruiser’s deck armor caused a conflict with the company. For the supply of it from the extra-soft nickel steel accepted by then, Kramp, referring to the contract, demanded an additional fee. Changing the grade of armor on an armadillo and cruiser cost the ministry $ 310 thousand. "


For the deck armor, the Varyag paid $ 85; on Retvisan, the similar surcharge amounted to $ 000, totaling $ 225. We will repeat, for replacing Harvey’s armor with Krupp’s armor, the Maritime Department did not have to pay extra to the Americans.

The low cost of building the Retvisan (compared to the Tsesarevich) amid higher than in France, the cost of American labor and American building materials cannot but give rise to reasonable doubts about the economic feasibility of the American giving bribes. On the contrary, these circumstances suggest that to date, the narrative that announced the conclusion of contracts with C. Crump as a result of the personal interest of the head of the State Institution of Civil Protection V.P. Verkhovsky and Admiral General Aleksei Aleksandrovich has exhausted its plausibility.


The battleship "Retvisan"


Armadillo "Tsesarevich"

The limited information available in the sources available to us does not allow us to make a full comparison of “Tsesarevich” and “Revizan,” so we are forced to confine ourselves to only a few aspects. The design features of the battleships being compared are such that, in a real combat situation, the Tsesarevich, despite the presence of the original mine protection, was in a worse position than other torpedoed Port Arthur ships. The torpedo hit the stern of the Tsesarevich’s port side near the beginning of the stern tube, the epicenter of the explosion was about 2,74 meters below the waterline and fell against the premises of the ship’s arsenal. The explosion resulted in a hole with an area of ​​18,5 square meters, the total area of ​​the deformed area - 46,45 square meters. The Tsesarevich received up to 2 tons of water, its maximum roll reached 000 degrees, at the same time, according to the calculations of the chief ship engineer of the port R. R. Svirsky and the French engineer Coudreau, an additional increase in the roll by enough was enough half a degree. Avoid catastrophe helped vigorous counter-flooding of nine compartments at once, carried out before the threshold of loss of stability.


The effect of a torpedo hitting the battleship "Tsesarevich"

As a result of a torpedo hitting the port side of the Retvizan in the area of ​​the underwater torpedo tube and the adjacent torpedo cellar, a hole was formed with an area of ​​about 15 square meters. The epicenter of the explosion was about 2,5 meters below the waterline, the total area of ​​the area deformed by the explosion was about 37 square meters. Three compartments with a total capacity of 2 tons were filled with water (according to other sources, 200 tons); by the time the ship began to straighten as a result of counter-flooding of the right cellars, the roll reached 2 degrees (the Retvizan artillery ports entered the water at 500 degrees).


The effect of a torpedo hitting the Rietvisan battleship

The weight of the Tsesarevich’s reservation is 3347,8 tons, while the Retvisan’s similar indicator was 3300 tons. With belt armor (490 square meters and 346 square meters, respectively), the “Tsesarevich” had a much larger freeboard area than “Retvisan”. But at the Retvisan, the casemates of 6 "guns on the outside were protected by armored plates with a total area of ​​about 128 square meters; in addition, the armadillo's board at the ends on an area of ​​about 170 square meters was covered with 51 mm thick armored plates. The reservation area of ​​the middle towers is caliber "Tsesarevich", depending on the angle of rotation, ranged from 33 square meters to 27 square meters. Thus, the total reservation area of ​​the two armadillos, excluding the turrets of the main caliber, markedly differed from each other, while flashing 517-523 square meters at Tsesarevich’s and 644 square meters at Retvisan on board. Which of the two systems is better, it’s impossible to say unequivocally, since both have their advantages and disadvantages. But in the context of the Russo-Japanese War, taking into account the rate Japanese mostly on HE shells that exploded at the slightest delay, the distribution of armor on the Retvisan looks more preferable.


Distribution of armor on the "Tsesarevich"


Armor Distribution at Retvisan
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rurikovich 4 January 2020 06: 53 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Greetings, Valentine hi A definite plus, definitely. good Now there is no time to talk more fully about the material, but the fact that despite the differences between the two ships in technical nuances, and especially in the approaches of the parties during the construction, both of them survived the battle on July 28, 1904 in the Yellow Sea. One became the prototype for the largest series of Russian battleships, which for the most part died under Tsushima (although I personally don’t see the Russians “guilty” - most likely questions to the Japanese in organizing the shooting), but they were not flawed. The second was a representative of the classic casemate-tower (or tower-casemate - like anyone) battleship. But in any case, they earned praise for the RPE. Although the ships are not fighting, but people.
    The rest is in the evening. Regards, I hi
    1. Jura 27 4 January 2020 07: 55 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Rumors that the Zhoribiberry was the prototype of Caesar are greatly exaggerated. There is nothing in common, except for the location of the GK and SK in the six towers of both.
      1. Jura 27 4 January 2020 16: 54 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And where did the author take the price of Caesar and Retvisan without artillery for the table? And why did they add the cost of two 12 "AUs for the American?
        Something Mikasa, straightforwardly “cheap” some, I don’t remember exactly, but like the English EBRs for the lemon went off the scale slightly (with weapons, of course).
        Retwisan, by the way, would have drowned if he had not stumbled to the shore, and Caesar, after straightening the heel, would have kept himself on the water. In addition, the latter has a more unsuccessful place for hitting a torpedo - part of the side turned out to be above the point of explosion.
        And yet, the laboriousness of Caesar’s, much more, because in addition to the PMF and reinforcements under the 6 "extra" towers with their barbets, the Franks themselves did ACs with machine guns. In addition, additional power was required for electric generators and other electrical equipment, and all this is a rather expensive part of the ship.
        1. Comrade 5 January 2020 03: 46 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Jura 27
          And where did the author take the price of Caesar and Retvisan without artillery for the table?

          The value of the contract, converted from francs and dollars to rubles at the gold parity of currencies in force at that time.
          .
          Quote: Jura 27
          And why did they add the cost of two 12 "AUs for the American?

          Under the contract, Kramp built an armadillo without towers of the main caliber, and Lagan, on the contrary, with towers. If we do not add the cost of two towers to the contract value of Retvisan, then it turns out that we compare the value of the Cesarevich with two 12 '' towers to the cost of Retvisan without two 12 '' towers.
          Quote: Jura 27
          Something Mikasa, it’s just “cheap”, I don’t remember exactly, but it seems like the English EBRs went off the scale for lemons slightly (with weapons, of course)

          Here is the total cost of the hull, cars and equipment, converted from yen to rubles at the gold parity of currencies, valid at that time.
          The figures are taken from an American analytical article of the beginning of the last century, the author of which took care that American armadillos are more expensive than English, and gave a price comparison in detail.
          How is this known? According to Schensnovich’s report, no one was going to sink.

          Quote: Jura 27
          the laboriousness of Caesar’s, much more, because in addition to the PMF and reinforcements under the 6 "extra" towers with their barbets, the Franks themselves did ACs with machine guns. In addition, additional power was required for electric generators and other electrical equipment.

          Compare the cost of the tower "Iowa" (3 010 000,00 dollars) and the tower-casemate "Maine" (2 885 000,00 dollars), is there a big difference?
          And then, let's not forget about the payroll and the cost of materials, Crump paid far more to workers and related enterprises than Lagan.
          1. Jura 27 5 January 2020 05: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            [/ quote] The value of the contract, converted from francs and dollars to rubles at the gold parity of currencies, valid at that time.

            I still don’t understand why the cost of the buildings, armor, cars and electric lighting of Cesar and Retwisan is indicated by you as 7,569 and 6,148 million rubles, despite the fact that the real value was 11,355 and 9,45 million, and at the same time at 11,355 Caesar includes the cost of AC and machine guns GK and SK.
            Here is the total cost of the hull, cars and equipment, converted from yen to rubles at the gold parity of currencies, valid at that time.
            The figures are taken from an American analytical article of the beginning of the last century, the author of which took care that American armadillos are more expensive than English, and gave a price comparison in detail.

            American doesn’t confuse anything? Did the Angles give the Yapes a 30 percent discount on the cost of similar EDB for RN?
            For example, for the “Bulwark” EDB, the hull cost 367.550 fbst, the car cost 145.565, and the armor 330.000. Total, for the three positions in your table - about 8,1 million rubles. Compare with Mikas - 5,8 million rubles. Something is not right here.
            How is this known? According to Schensnovich’s report, no one was going to sink.

            This Shchensnovich was not going to sink, but Retvisan was going to, therefore, he ran aground, where he was supposed to go quietly and then he was only taken to the harbor in a caisson, and as soon as the caisson was pierced, he immediately jumped aground again. And the compartments were flooded more than Schensnovich expected, including the flooding charging 12 "cellar, which was not on Cesar (the PMP saved).
            Compare the cost of the tower "Iowa" ($ 3) and the tower-casemate "Maine" ($ 010), is there a big difference? [Quote]

            Just on the cost of the tower AU. Russians also cost 634 thousand rubles. for six 6 "AUs. Compared to the cost of the EDB for 14 lemons, it’s not global either.
            1. Comrade 5 January 2020 05: 25 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Jura 27
              I still don’t understand why the cost of the hulls, armor, cars and electric lighting of Caesar and Retwisan is indicated by you as 7,569 and 6,148 million rubles, despite the fact that the real value was 11,355 and 9,45 million.

              The ruble exchange rate in relation to the French franc was changing. Was he alone at the time of the contract? during the construction process it became different.
              Since it was necessary to pay in foreign currency, this required a greater amount of rubles.
              Quote: Jura 27
              American doesn’t confuse anything?

              I do not think prices are accurate to the yen, no rounding, as in English directories, for example.
              Quote: Jura 27
              Did the Angles give the Yapes a 30 percent discount on the cost of similar EDB for RN?

              Sorry, where does this information come from? Private companies were built, where did such generosity come from?

              Quote: Jura 27
              Schensnovich was not going to sink, and Retvisan was going to, therefore, he ran aground

              An increase in draft due to the outboard water entering the ship does not mean that this ship should sink.

              Quote: Jura 27
              Just on the cost of the tower AU.

              Do you know the cost of the four towers of the battleship "Iowa"?
              1. Jura 27 5 January 2020 08: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                [/ Quote] The exchange rate of the ruble against the French franc has changed. Was he alone at the time of the contract? during the construction process it became different.
                Since you had to pay in currency, it took a larger amount of rubles. [Quote]

                But not one and a half times: 11,355 and 7,569 million rubles.

                "I do not think prices are accurate to the yen, no rounding, as in English directories, for example."

                Something is wrong there. Can I have a scan?

                "where does such generosity come from?"

                So I say: something is wrong there.

                "An increase in draft due to the outboard water entering the ship does not mean that this ship should sink."

                Retvisan without a caisson could not even move around the harbor, unlike Caesar.

                "Do you know the cost of the four towers of the battleship" Iowa "?"

                No, but there is a price difference.
                1. Comrade 5 January 2020 17: 37 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  But not one and a half times: 11,355 and 7,569 million rubles

                  To be precise, the ruble has changed in 1,389 times.

                  Do not lose sight of the contracts indicated basic amounts, then they could change depending on the vagaries and / or wishes of the customer.
                  For example, over-contract payments for Bogatyr amounted to 305 marks, incomplete the amount of over-contract payments for Askold is 226 marks.
                  All this inevitably reflected in the final cost of the product.
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  Something is wrong there.
                  Everything is there so, colleague, I checked.
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  Retvisan could not even move around the harbor without a caisson
                  There have been attempts, and can you provide documents confirming this?
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  No, but there is a price difference.
                  The lack of necessary information in open sources does not allow us to delve into details so beloved by subtle connoisseurs. To do findingsinstead of replacing them assumptions, you need to compare all expense items when building two American armadillos, and not the total amounts.
                  1. Jura 27 6 January 2020 04: 33 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    [/ quote] To be precise, the ruble exchange rate has changed 1,389 times. [quote]

                    This requires confirmation.
                    Supplements were not so significant.
                    "Everything is there, colleague, I checked."
                    Then we must admit that Mikasu was given a discount of up to 30%, which is unbelievable.

                    "There have been attempts, and can you provide documents confirming this?"
                    This famous case was described by Balakin and Semenov, when under the cross-over fire of the Yap through Liaoteshan, the caisson was damaged and Retvisan again had to stumble to the shore. And before that, from the Tiger's tail, Retvisan withdrew with a caisson in his nose. The Caesar, after leveling the heel, walked along the port without any caissons. By the way, the PMP was not broken through and the second-hand 12 "turret was not damaged, unlike Retvizan (of the bow turret, of course).
                    1. Comrade 6 January 2020 05: 20 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      This requires confirmation.

                      The Note to the table indicates the source, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Empire, and the tables of gold parity of currencies.
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      Then we must admit that Mikasu was given a discount of up to 30%, which is unbelievable.
                      You transfer the cost of "Bulwark" from pounds to rubles at the rate established after thatas the ruble fell, in the table the value of "Mikasa" was converted from pounds to rubles at the exchange rate that took place beforeas the ruble fell.
                      The amount of pounds paid for the two aforementioned armadillos is close.
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      This famous case was described by Balakin and Semenov, when under the cross-over fire of the Yap through Liaoteshan, the caisson was damaged and Retvisan again had to stumble to the shore.

                      The authority of Balakin, after it was revealed to me that Kramp was not paid extra for replacing Harvey’s armor with Krupp’s armor, fell in my eyes. So if you are so sure that if the “Retvisan” had not run aground, it would certainly have sank, please indicate to me in which report of Shchensnovich it is possible to read about it.
                      1. Jura 27 7 January 2020 11: 17 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        [/ quote] Please indicate to me in what report of Shchensnovich it is possible to read about it. [quote]

                        About this you can see the photo in the work of the same Balakin, where the retvisan nose deck sank to the very water after the caisson was damaged by the rupture of the Yapov shell, while the EBR touched the bottom. That is, if the depth were greater, then Retvisan would turn into a float (at best).
            2. Comrade 5 January 2020 06: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Jura 27
              For example, for the “Bulwark” EDB, the hull cost 367.550 fbst, the car cost 145.565, and the armor 330.000. Total, for the three positions in your table - about 8,1 million rubles. Compare with Mikas - 5,8 million rubles. Something is not right here.

              You are transferring from pound sterling to rubles at a later rate, around ten rubles per pound, so you have the impression that
              Quote: Jura 27
              Something Mikasa, direct "cheap" some
              .
              You need to count at the rate that was in effect at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and not at the later rate that was in effect during the construction process.
              1. Jura 27 5 January 2020 08: 37 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                [/ quote] You are transferring from pound sterling to rubles at a later rate, around ten rubles per pound, so you have the impression [quote]


                Ships of some years of construction, there was no such significant difference in the courses of salutes.
                1. Comrade 5 January 2020 17: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  Ships of some years of construction, there was no such significant difference in courses of salutes

                  Again.
                  When they agreed on the construction, there was one ruble exchange rate, and at the conclusion of the contract the Tsarevich theoretically cost the treasury one amount of rubles. Upon completion of payments, due to the fall of the ruble (almost in one и four tenths times), it was already a different amount of rubles.
                  The table shows the value of ships in rubles at the time of conclusion of the contract.
                  You have found the final cost in the directory, compared with the original and can not understand where such a difference came from.
                  1. Jura 27 6 January 2020 04: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    [/ quote] When we agreed on the construction, there was one ruble exchange rate, and when concluding the contract, the “Cesarevich” theoretically cost the treasury one amount of rubles. Upon completion of payments, due to the fall of the ruble (almost one and four tenths), it was already a different amount of rubles. [Quote]

                    When did the course change? Ggmmch?
                    Payments were made in approximately equal tranches, and an advance was paid before the commencement of work. It turns out that the contract was concluded in May-June 98g, and the ruble fell 1,4 times already in July 98g? Why would such a fall?
                    1. Comrade 6 January 2020 05: 28 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      Payments were made in approximately equal tranches, and an advance was paid before the commencement of work.

                      Can you indicate the date and size of the first payment?
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      It turns out that the contract was concluded in May-June 98g, and the ruble fell 1,4 times already in July 98g?

                      Colleague, it seems that you are writing hastily, in addition, you do not own the subject that you are arguing about, and arguing for the sake of argument.
                      You didn’t even bother to see when the contract was signed with Kramp, and this is stated in the article. The contract was signed in Philadelphia on April 11, 1898. From your words, in July 1898 the first payment was made. Can you indicate the documentary source, where did you read about this?
                      1. Jura 27 7 January 2020 11: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        [/ quote] So you did not even bother to see when the contract was signed with Kramp, [quote]

                        I wrote: "let's say."
                    2. Comrade 7 January 2020 02: 47 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      When did the course change?

                      I do not know this. The table of the Ministry of Finance in 1898 gives one exchange rate, and in 1899 - already another, sharply declining.
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      Payments were made in approximately equal tranches, and an advance was paid before the commencement of work.

                      I did not find anything about this in Melnikov in his book "Battleship" Tsesarevich "."
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      It turns out that the contract was concluded in May-June 98g, and the ruble fell 1,4 times already in July 98g?

                      The first payment could not be made in 1898, since there was nothing to pay for. The first sheet of the horizontal keel was laid in May 1899.
                      And to get first payment, you had to have a degree of readiness in excess of six percent. One sheet is not even one percent.

                      So it turns out, dear colleague, that they began to pay the French in 1899, when the ruble “lost weight” in relation to major currencies.
                      I repeat, in 1898 the situation with the exchange rate, according to the table of the Ministry of Finance, was different. The ruble was "fatter" by almost forty percent.
                      However, it is not clear why you attach so much importance to this minor detail? A ton of Tsesarevich’s displacement at any exchange rate is much more expensive than a ton of Rietvizan’s displacement.
                      In my opinion, much more interesting is the debunking of the myth of the alleged surcharge to Kramp for replacing Harvey’s armor with Krupp’s armor.
                      Remember how you were indignant at one of the topics and insulted Kramp for allegedly “divorcing” Russia?
                      And here we look at the documents of the US Congress, why the American metallurgists put the armor of Krupp on the Retvisan, and then we look at the annual report on the US Navy, on which the American metallurgists delivered the armor to the American ships, and Balakin’s bike appears before us either an alternative, or a lie (cross out the necessary).
                      1. Jura 27 7 January 2020 11: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        [/ quote] I do not know this. The table of the Ministry of Finance in 1898 gives one exchange rate, and in 1899 - another, sharply declining. [Quote]

                        Can they be seen? (Google is somehow silent or banned me laughing )
                        “However, it is not clear why you attach so much importance to this secondary detail? A ton of the Tsesarevich’s displacement at any exchange rate is much more expensive than a ton of the Rietvizan’s displacement.
                        The fact of the matter is that not much, approx. 8%.
                        "In my opinion, much more interesting is the debunking of the myth of the alleged surcharge to Kramp for replacing Harvey’s armor with Krupp’s armor."


                        There, too, not everything is so simple (surcharge, for only deck armor, is too big). Although Krupp, cheaper than Harvey.
                      2. Comrade 8 January 2020 03: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        The fact of the matter is that not much, approx. 8%.

                        Let's check this together.
                        a) the cost of the squadron battleship "Retvizan»With reservation and without weapons under the contract amounted to 4 358 000,00 dollars. Add the cost of two towers (502 rubles / 000,00 = 1,94337 dollars), we get 4 616 312,00 dollars. Let me remind you that we do this because the contract price of the “Tsesarevich” included towers of the main caliber, but the contract value of the “Retvisan” did not.
                        b) the cost of the squadron battleship "Tsarevich»With reservation and without weapons under the contract made 5 842 605,00 dollars (converted from francs to dollars at the gold parity of currencies).
                        Do not consider it work, colleague, please calculate the cost of a ton of displacement of each of the two battleships in dollars and lay out a separate commentotherwise the rubles will confuse you, and the exchange rate will not give you rest.
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        There, too, not everything is so simple (surcharge, for only deck armor, is too big). Although krupp, cheaper than harvey

                        Everything is simple there, extra-soft nickel steel was slightly cheaper than Krupp armor. I don’t write the exact number, I can’t find it right somewhere in one of the eight multi-page Word documents that I worked with while writing this article.
                        And initially it was assumed that ordinary shipbuilding steel would go on deck, offhand, four times cheaper. Again, I don’t remember the exact number; I write the ratio from memory.
                        Along the way, in France, steel was cheaper than in the States, and Crump paid more for materials than Lagan.
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        You can see a photo about this in the work of the same Balakin, where the retvisan nose deck sank to the very water after the caisson was damaged by the rupture of the Yapov shell, while the EBR touched the bottom

                        There are enough photos on this subject, here is one of them, taken even before the installation of the caisson. Water is being pumped out, markings for installing the caisson are visible.
                      3. Jura 27 8 January 2020 04: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        [/ quote] Let's check it out together. [quote]

                        Come on! Was - was not !!! Only we will consider it correctly.
                        So, according to the SS of 1904, Caesar with AC cost 11,355 million rubles, retvisan without AC 9,45 million rubles.
                        Then we subtract from the value of Caesar the cost of AC (let them cost conditionally equal to Russian, because the value of the whole Caesar is approximately equal to Russian counterparts, “Borodinians”): minus 502 thousand rubles for two 12 "AUs and minus 634 thousand rubles for six 6" AUs. In total, 10,219 million rubles remain, - for Caesar without AC.
                        Which is 7,52% more than the cost of Retvisan.

                        "Everything is simple there, extra-soft nickel steel was only slightly cheaper than Krupp's armor."

                        This is very strange, in Russia, armored steel was three times cheaper than Krupovskiy Zembroni and almost as much more expensive than ordinary shipbuilding steel. But Frankish nickel armored steel was very expensive (at least for export to Russia).
                        But I meant that the Varyag’s armored deck weighed about half as much as Retvisan’s, and was almost three times cheaper.

                        "Along the way, in France, steel was cheaper than in the States, and Crump paid more for materials than Lagan."

                        This should not be, because the cost of a ton of construction of ships in France is more than Amerovskaya, respectively, and components should be slightly more expensive.

                        "There are enough photos on this subject, here is one of them, taken before the installation of the caisson. Water is being pumped out, the marking for installing the caisson is visible."

                        Pumping takes place with a fixed hole, and Balakin has a photo when Retvisan plunged his nose on the very top deck, after damage to the caisson (first) and the water that poured into the hole.
                      4. Comrade 8 January 2020 04: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        Come on! Was - was not !!! Only we will consider correctly

                        Here you are correctly and calculate based on the initial cost of the battleships.
                        The figures that you cited include those or other surcharges, which affected the final cost of the battleships, and you know this no worse than me.
                        Did Kramp pay extra for replacing the steel grade of the armored deck?
                        Pay extra.
                        Lagan had to put extra-soft nickel steel on Tsesarevich, but did Russia pay extra for this?
                        No, the French did not have to change the variety, nor did the Russians pay extra for this.
                        What kind of steel was going on deck, I did not understand from French sources. The term there is technical, denoting the grade of steel, and it has already become obsolete. But this is not extra-soft nickel steel, since it was the same on earlier French battleships built before the Tsesarevich.

                        So count as it should, do not cheat. Give the purity of the experiment!
                        laughing
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        This is very strange, in Russia armored steel was three times cheaper than Krupp's cambron

                        My colleague, I have not only the information department on hand, but something there, including the cost of some grades of American and French steel and armor during the period under discussion.
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        But I meant that the Varyag’s armored deck weighed about half as much as Retvisan’s, and was almost three times cheaper.

                        If we knew how much extra-soft nickel steel was in the weight of the armored deck, then everything would fall into place.
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        This should not be, because the cost of a ton of construction of ships in France is more than Amerovskaya, respectively, and components should be slightly more expensive.

                        How can it! It’s just that corruption in France was good, and there’s more than enough unproductive expenses. You read and wonder.
                        Here we look at the expense items when building armadillos in France, a report to Parliament. All accounted for up to one sou. What do we see? First they build, but they don’t enter the system, they begin to "improve". Now they add, then this, it all costs money. And to think about it, it wasn’t necessary to do anything of this, there is a "dough cut" under specious pretexts.
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        Pumping takes place with a fixed hole, and Balakin has a photo when Retvisan plunged his nose on the very top deck, after damage to the caisson (first) and the water that poured into the hole.

                        Clear.
                        It can be argued that the water went further than it could have gone after the torpedo explosion, because there the repairmen dismantled part of the deformed internal structures.
                      5. Jura 27 8 January 2020 08: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        [/ quote] Here you are correct and calculate, based on the initial cost of the battleships. [quote]

                        It is calculated as correctly as possible - you need to put the ships in the same conditions.

                        "But this is not extra-soft nickel steel, since it was the same on earlier French battleships built before the Tsesarevich."

                        Nickel steel was used long before 1898 and Caesar.

                        "You can object, .."

                        Not possible. If the structures are deformed, then they immediately pass water. With the exception of specially designed PMP and PTP, which were not on retvisan.
                      6. Comrade 9 January 2020 04: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        It is calculated as correctly as possible - you need to put the ships in the same conditions.

                        So put it. Take away all over-contract payments for everything that the Marine Ministry has imagined during the construction.
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        Nickel steel was used long before 1898 and Caesar.

                        The very extra-soft one on which the shell left a spoon-shaped cavity?
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        If the structures are deformed, then they immediately pass water.

                        But what about the bulkheads bulging by the explosion, but without cracks or tears, could they pass water through them?
                      7. Jura 27 9 January 2020 08: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        [/ quote] So put it. Take away all over-contract payments for everything that the Marine Ministry has imagined during the construction. [Quote]


                        I brought them into line with each other. These were not fantasies, but just demands.

                        "The very extra-soft one on which the shell left a spoon-shaped cavity?"
                        In general, yes.

                        "And what about bulkheads bulging by the explosion, but without cracks or tears, could they let water pass through?"

                        Then it makes no sense to disassemble them, to correct the bulges, and that’s all.
  • Comrade 5 January 2020 03: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Jura 27
    Rumors that the Zhoribiberry was the prototype of Caesar are greatly exaggerated.

    We are reading from R. M. Melnikov.
    1. Jura 27 5 January 2020 04: 26 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      [/ quote] Read from R. M. Melnikov. [quote]

      This is a personal opinion of RMM and it is not confirmed by the structural features of both EDBs.
      1. Comrade 5 January 2020 05: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Jura 27
        This is a personal opinion of RMM

        The specification is not a "personal opinion", but a document to which Rafail Mikhailovich referred.
        1. Jura 27 5 January 2020 08: 40 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          [/ quote] The specification is not a "personal opinion", but a document to which Rafail Mikhailovich referred. [quote]


          The fact of the matter is that nothing is left of the internal structure of the case and mechanisms of the Zhoribiberry. In "Cesarevich", everything else.
  • Comrade 5 January 2020 04: 28 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Greetings, Valentine

    My respect, Andrew!
    Quote: Rurikovich
    A definite plus, definitely

    Thanks I was trying.
    Quote: Rurikovich
    One became the prototype for the largest series of Russian battleships, which for the most part died under Tsushima (although I personally do not see the Russians “guilty” of this)

    Just our fatally unlucky.
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Although not ships are fighting, but people.

    Definitely.
    Although the guys repaid their debt in full, the force did not take it. Nothing, in the forty-fifth we recouped for Tsushima with interest.
  • Jura 27 5 January 2020 17: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I also wanted to compare the cost of the EDB with the tower location of the SK and the casemate, the same Iowa with Alabama, which would be more correct than comparing the first with Maine, because they have almost the same displacement, the same type of boilers and armor: so, the total cost of "Iowa" is 5.871.206 greens, and the casemate "Alabama" is 4.077.010 greens. Somehow the "tower", much more expensive out. And the cost reflects the complexity.
    1. Comrade 5 January 2020 19: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Jura 27
      I also wanted to compare the cost of the EDB with the tower arrangement of the UK and the casemate, the same Iowa with Alabama, which would be more correct. the total cost of "Iowa" is 5.871.206 greens, and the casemate "Alabama" is 4.077.010 greens

      No, that’s incorrect. You need to compare contract costs, i.e., the total cost of cars, buildings and armor.
      Quote: Jura 27
      And the cost reflects the complexity.

      Do you know what proportion of the value of the American battleship is the payroll? I have data for Russia and France, but not for the States.
      1. Jura 27 6 January 2020 04: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        [/ quote] You need to compare the contract costs, that is, the total amount of the costs of cars, buildings and armor. [quote]

        Then, only the hulls (with the same displacement) and the cost of the AU.
        However, the “old” Iowa is clearly more expensive than even the later EDBs with a large displacement. Only the "two-story" KiKs approach Iowa in value.
        I can see the salary fund later at Kolpychev, maybe there is.
        1. Comrade 6 January 2020 05: 33 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Jura 27
          Then, only the hulls (with the same displacement) and the cost of the AU

          What do you mean by
          Quote: Jura 27
          AU
          ?
          Please do not use abbreviations, I have to strain.
          Only come to my mind Аrtillery Уinstallation, but it is doubtful.

          Quote: Jura 27
          However, the “old” Iowa is clearly more expensive than even the later EDBs with a large displacement.

          Without specific numbers, this is just a hypothesis, albeit backed up by your inner conviction.
          1. Jura 27 7 January 2020 11: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            [/ quote] Only the Artillery Installations come to mind, but this is doubtful. [quote]

            Don’t be in doubt, the thought is absolutely correct.

            "Without specific numbers, this is just a hypothesis, albeit backed up by your inner conviction."

            More expensive, only much later EDB, with a much larger displacement.
  • unknown 4 January 2020 09: 08 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The old one, I would say, has already become a “classic” argument, which of the two armadillos is better, and most importantly, which of them should be chosen for serial construction.
    In fact, there can be no argument.
    Definitely, "Retvisan."
    It was this type of armadillo that was more familiar for domestic shipbuilding, the terms for the serial construction of ships of this type, in our conditions, would definitely be lower.
    The Tsesarevich, like the Borodino-type ships, under the conditions of the tactics used, fighting in the wake column, and even with a pathological underestimation of the speed factor, had no advantages over the Retvisan.
    The battleship “Tsesarevich” is a representative of a different, “dumped” tactic. When using such tactics, it is assumed that active maneuvering not by a whole wake column, but by separate units. Violation of the wake of the enemy, a battle in which the attacking ship fires simultaneously with both sides. It is with this tactic that the placement of medium-caliber guns in tower installations, with increased angles of fire compared to the casemate, is justified.
    Under Tsushima, the separation of battleships of the Borodino type into a separate detachment operating at high speed, like the Japanese idea of ​​a "flying detachment" that did not take place. Unloaded from operational overload (surplus fuel and supplies not required in battle), from part of the construction overload (boats and thermal insulation of residential premises), with a bottom cleared of fouling, battleships of the Borodino type would have a speed higher than the detachment led by Mikasa " The Japanese were hindered by the Fuji, which really could not walk more than 15 knots. In addition, even the new Japanese battleships had certain problems with the CMU. The English fleet, like the fleets of other countries, experienced difficulties with the introduction of water tube boilers. The British managed to get rid of the "childhood diseases" of the new boilers on ships of a later construction than the Japanese battleships.
    But, to use the “dump” tactics, other commanders with a different level of tactical thinking are needed.
    Commanders that the Russian fleet did not possess.
    PS About the failed Japanese idea of ​​a "flying squad."
    The ships that were built for this idea did not fully meet its requirements.
    Armored cruisers of the "Asama" type in actual operation had speeds from 18 to 15 knots for a long time, which corresponded to the speed of modern battleships. When joining the "Azuma" squad, with its extremely poorly assembled CMU, the connection speed decreased to 15 knots, not exceeding the speed of the squad of armadillos. The German-built cruiser, Yakumo, although it was the most technically advanced in design from the entire six, could not go more than 16 knots for a long time. The armament of armored cruisers of the Asama type with 8 "main-caliber guns, with" light "shells of the" colonial "type, weighing 97,5 kg, and medium caliber, with excess projectile weight for Japanese sailors, which sharply reduced the rate of fire in long-term battle, did not allow to fight effectively with modern armadillos.
    And to build six ships only to finish off damaged enemy ships, it’s too sophisticated even for the Japanese.
    I agree with those who believe that two or three battleships, even of an obsolete type, the Fuji would be more useful. At the same speed in real use, they had a 12 "main caliber.
    1. Rurikovich 4 January 2020 17: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: ignoto
      The ships that were built for this idea did not fully meet its requirements.
      Armored cruisers of the "Asama" type in actual operation had speeds from 18 to 15 knots for a long time, which corresponded to the speed of modern battleships. When joining the "Azuma" squad, with its extremely poorly assembled CMU, the connection speed decreased to 15 knots, not exceeding the speed of the squad of armadillos. The German-built cruiser, Yakumo, although it was the most technically advanced in design from the entire six, could not go more than 16 knots for a long time.

      So the Japanese did just that in the REV - they gave Asam and Yakumo along with the Garibaldi subordinate to Togo, and the remaining 4 cruisers Kamimura. Therefore, in any case, he had a superiority of 1-1,5 knots over the wok. wink
      Quote: ignoto
      The armament of armored cruisers of the Asama type with 8 "main-caliber guns, with" light "shells of the" colonial "type, weighing 97,5 kg, and medium caliber, with excess projectile weight for Japanese sailors, which sharply reduced the rate of fire in long-term battle, did not allow to fight effectively with modern armadillos.

      The presence of a large area of ​​unarmored side in armored ships of the beginning of the century caused the presence of medium artillery in ships of the line. so if 6 "artillery of armadillos is designed to destroy unarmored extremities and superstructures, then why not participate in this 8" artillery of armored cruisers. The effect will even be higher due to the greater mass of the projectile. That's why armored cruisers with 8 "artillery were put in line, because in principle they could withstand several hits of large shells due to booking, but they could also cause decent harm to the enemy. And if you take into account that the main forces always shoot at themselves, this the ships worked quite comfortably if you didn’t get into the thick of it ... Everything is relative yes
      Quote: ignoto
      I agree with those who believe that two or three battleships, even of an obsolete type, the Fuji would be more useful. At the same speed in real use, they had a 12 "main caliber.

      What is cheaper to drive to support light forces against enemy cruisers - an armadillo or even an armadillo but a cruiser? what wink hi
      1. unknown 5 January 2020 00: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        1. The Japanese are not quite rationally distributed ships between the compounds. Having scrutinized the Fuji and replacing it with a second pair of British-built armored cruisers, they could increase the speed of Togo's squad by at least two knots. And “Fuji”, in this situation, would have looked quite good as the flagship of the Kamimura squad. There, his real 15 nodal speed would not be at all confronted with the 15 nodal speed of the Azuma.
        2. The superiority in speed over the wok, the Kamimura detachment did not have. “Rurik” really walked at the same speed as the “Azuma”. After the “Rurik” was knocked out, the advantage in speed clearly appeared on our side. The Japanese failed to catch up with the Stormbreaker and Russia. The devil is hiding in trifles: officially Kamimura stopped the pursuit because the ammunition had ended in the nose tower of his flagship. In the bow tower, that is, its guns fired in the "line of fire" sector.
        But what if the flagship in the Kamimura squad was a Fuji with 12 "modern guns?
        3. Japanese armored cruisers were just very lucky in that war. They ended up in the "Elusive Joe" position from an old joke. "Asama" could not withstand the firing of the oldest of the Russian battleships, 12 "guns which had barrel lengths of only 30 calibers. Of course, it was worth making a discount on the" plasticine "guards. But any of the Japanese armored cruisers was unable to withstand the battle alone one with a modern battleship.
        And the “Garibaldians" are also affected.
        4. There were many situations in that war when the Japanese had to use armored cruisers to support light forces? In reality, two “Garibaldians” would have been enough. By the way, in the absence of Asama-class cruisers in the Japanese fleet, Kamimura’s detachment in a battle with a wok could consist of one battleship of the Fuji type and two Garibaldis.
        In the Far East, we had only three armored cruisers. Three in the composition of the wok. There is only ONE in Port Arthur. And its firepower did not exceed the firepower of armored cruisers with a displacement of 6000 tons. And the Kasug pair was the real opponent of our large armored cruisers. Moreover, there were only five of them (large armored cruisers) at the beginning of the war. One in the composition of the wok. One is lost on the very first day of the war. Moreover, even in the absence of Asama, Rudnev would not have broken through from Chemulpo. A pair of "sleepy goddesses" was not actively used. Only the Askold remains.
        Therefore, the presence of the Japanese two or three armadillos, even such outdated ones, such as the Fuji, would bring much more benefit than six armored ships of the Asama type.
        5. According to the results of the REV, the Japanese made a completely seemingly unexpected conclusion about the value of large armored cruisers. Japanese cruisers of the second rank were low-sailing, weakly armed, quickly lost combat stability even with a few hits, in conditions of excitement they could not maintain a high speed.
        On the contrary, the large armored deck cruisers of the Russian fleet turned out to be seaworthy (it was not for nothing that the British believed that the displacement of 6000 tons was the minimum acceptable displacement for a ship in the ocean zone), which were resistant to combat damage, could maintain high speed during rough seas, and were distinguished by high fire performance. Of course, Askold is immediately remembered. But the Japanese got the Pallas. Allegedly not fast, poorly managed. The Japanese just changed the location of the variable cargo, the cruiser stopped burying its nose, handling improved, speed increased to 20 knots. And the airborne salvo of five 6 ”guns was not much smaller than that of the Varyag. By the way, Askold went into battle in the Yellow Sea without two guns, having six guns in the airborne volley, and not seven.
        1. Rurikovich 5 January 2020 12: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: ignoto
          Kamimura’s detachment did not have superior speed over the wok.

          Alas, this is not so. At meetings before this campaign, the real maximum wok speed was indicated at 15 knots. And even if we take into account the fact that the Japanese also showed non-passport speeds, the speed of the Kamimura squad was 1-1,5 knots higher. than wok. Even in the diagram of Kamimur’s temporary cutoffs, they are faster than Russians.
    2. Comrade 5 January 2020 04: 35 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: ignoto
      The old one, I would say, has already become a “classic” argument, which of the two armadillos is better, and most importantly, which of them should be chosen for serial construction.

      This is true, but only in part, a colleague.
      The leitmotif of the article is an attempt to erode the prevailing opinion that Crump allegedly gave a bribe, fearing competition at the competition.
      Figuratively speaking, it is as if the German or Argentine soccer teams of the mid-1980s offered a bribe to a judge at the World Cup so that he would help them, afraid to play with the Chinese or Indian national team.
    3. 27091965 9 January 2020 22: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      Armament of armored cruisers of the "Asama" type with 8 "guns of the main caliber, with" light "shells of the" colonial "type, weighing 97,5 kg,


      Why "colonial"?
  • lucul 4 January 2020 09: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thumbs up.
    And most importantly, the logic of comparison is very finely selected.
    1. Comrade 5 January 2020 04: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: lucul
      Thumbs up.
      And most importantly, the logic of comparison is very finely selected.

      Thank you for your kind words and interest in the topic, colleague.
  • Earth 4 January 2020 10: 13 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    aesthetically, the Cesarevich is prettier in contours; practically Retvizan showed himself better in battle.
    But the First survived that war and broke into the neutral port. But the second lived longer being even flooded. Even served as a target
    both are the best that had 1TOE
  • VohaAhov 4 January 2020 11: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It would be even more interesting if “Prince Potemkin of Tauride” was added for comparison. “Potemkin” looks, in my opinion, preferable.
    1. mark1 4 January 2020 13: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I agree with you - still one of the prototypes, the most adapted to our then technological capabilities. In addition to the relatively low speed, it seems like there are no shortcomings.
      1. bayard 5 January 2020 01: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It is the low speed of “Potemkin” that does not allow him to be put on a par, although a larger number of SK guns and experiments with liquid fuel for part of the boilers ... But in that war, the main advantage was squadron speed, it allowed to dictate the nature of the battle. And it was built exclusively for the Black Sea.
        1. mark1 5 January 2020 06: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: bayard
          But in that war, the main advantage was squadron speed

          Squadron speed was affected by factors such as ship overload and mechanism wear.
          Potemkin was dispersed to 16,9 knots (17,9 for Retvisan), but at Efstafiy and Zlatoust the speed did not exceed 16-16,3, which was of great importance only during the WWII.
    2. Comrade 5 January 2020 05: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: VohaAhov
      "Potemkin" looks, in my opinion, preferable

      No doubt, “Potemkin” is good, and as part of the 1st Pacific squadron would have looked great. A speed of 16 knots would not matter, since there were already three, and then two "low-speed ships" there.
  • Ryaruav 4 January 2020 13: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As practice showed at that time, the firing of SK casemate guns was more effective than tower
    1. Rurikovich 4 January 2020 17: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Shooting casemate guns effective in autonomous shooting. With centralized firing at a single target with its own firing control post, tower artillery is preferable. Moreover, the total visual area of ​​the towers is less than the area of ​​the casemates. Despite the fact that the casemate system does not particularly benefit in survivability in front of the towers. An example of Malaya under Jutland is indicative when the whole battery of 152-mm starboard guns was disabled with two shells ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 January 2020 17: 55 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Rurikovich
        With centralized firing at a single target with its own firing control post, tower artillery is preferable

        Andrey, it doesn’t matter. Fire control devices are easily installed in casemates
        1. Rurikovich 4 January 2020 18: 50 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          it makes no difference.

          Yeah hi drinks ,I do not argue. But still, to WWII on the new capital ships, the casemate scheme has outlived itself. And more convenient control of the turret firing was one of the most significant factors. what request
  • Saxahorse 4 January 2020 23: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The article is very good, thanks to the author!

    There was a very well-founded rumor that Crump received Potemkin's blueprints as a thick hint of what exactly the Russian admiralty wanted to see. However, the princes suddenly came under the mantle of reins, exactly right after a visit to loving Paris. :) After which the main project suddenly changed to Tsesarevich.

    Frankly, the Tsesarevich project is better. Borodinians could develop an unusually powerful fire not only onboard, but also in frontal combat. Another thing is that admirals capable of using these advantages in real combat in the Russian Empire were not, by definition. And from a technical point of view, these advantages, and the very design of a difficult case, were far from being realized in the best way.

    For all this fuss with games in projects, two years were lost. Meanwhile, it is obvious that if RI had to advance the main forces of the fleet (even Borodintsev even Potemkintsev) to the Far East on time, then the war would simply not happen. The Japanese would grit their teeth, and give the impudent Bezobrazov damn concessions on the Yalu River .. And the PMV in this situation would also be delayed for ten years if not more.

    That's what Parisian sexual intemperance brings to! laughing
    1. Nehist 5 January 2020 01: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I wonder how Caesar and Borodino could develop a strong fire in the frontal projection? Fire performance depends not only on the number of guns but also on the rate of fire than 6 "turret guns could not boast of, which negated the location of the SK towers
      1. Comrade 5 January 2020 05: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nehist
        Fire performance depends not only on the number of guns but also on the rate of fire than 6 "tower guns could not boast

        Yes, casemate 6 '' guns of the Bogatyr type cruisers, for example, fired more often than turret guns.
      2. Saxahorse 5 January 2020 17: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nehist
        I wonder how Caesar and Borodino could develop a strong fire in the frontal projection? Fire performance depends not only on the number of guns but also on the rate of fire

        However, the rate of fire is only the next parameter. The first is the very presence of guns capable of conducting longitudinal fire. Japanese battleships, for example, could not fight with the front line with the Borodino people. Which in itself opened up interesting tactical options for Russian commanders. Which unfortunately no one took advantage of.

        And the problem with the rate of fire of the towers was not absolutely catastrophic. These are just flaws in the tower mechanisms, which can be solved if they were paid attention to on time.
    2. Comrade 5 January 2020 05: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      The article is very good, thanks to the author!

      And thank you for the compliment.
      Quote: Saxahorse
      After which the main project suddenly changed to Tsesarevich.

      Yes, this is just as interesting as the unexplored question, I mean the motives that guided us in agreeing with Lagan.
      The Forges et chantiers de la Méditerranée society was anonymous, and what kind of persons were the ultimate beneficiaries is not stated in open sources.
      But we can safely assume that these were, among other things, high-ranking French politicians.
      By the way, Lagan personally received a good jackpot when he "sawed" Russian money received for "Tsesarevich", something about a hundred thousand francs premium.

      From the practice of the 1920s, such a case is known. The Poles decided to order several warships in France, they did not have money for this. Then the French gave them money on credit, but at the same time the then prime minister pointed them with a finger which shipyard they should agree to build ships with. The shipyard was a typical "sharaga", it built slowly and poorly.
      But the Prime Minister, who organized the issuance of the special-purpose loan to Poland, was also a member of the board of directors of the company for which it was necessary to build ships. The question was simple - we give you money, but you will order ships only where we tell you. I do not agree - you will not get a loan, which means ships.
      The Poles were forced to agree.
  • lucul 5 January 2020 10: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    On February 23, 1898, Emperor Nicholas II approved the new shipbuilding Program for the needs of the Far East, developed by the Maritime Ministry

    Hmm, if Alexander 3 had lived another 10 years, there would have been no Russo-Japanese War, and most likely the revolution too ........
    1. mark1 5 January 2020 15: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: lucul
      and the Russo-Japanese War would not have happened, and the revolution most likely too ........

      This is all cryptic, but Vitaly wouldn’t have used it for sure ...
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2020 11: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Greetings, dear colleague!
    I'm afraid this time I will be forced to take the position of constructive criticism :))) Unfortunately, right now there is no time, I will try to unsubscribe tonight
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2020 14: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Hello again, dear Valentine!
    The explanation given to this by R. M. Melnikov is “the factual recognition that a purely tower armadillo in labor intensity is no less than one and a half times greater than armadillos of a tower-casemate type”.
    However, this hypothesis is refuted by the practice of William Cramp & Sons, which built the Iowa tower battleship in forty-six months and the Maine turret-casino battleship in forty-six and a half months.

    It does not refute at all. The complexity and speed of construction, of course, are interrelated things, but not directly: complexity can be offset by the pace of work or the number of workers and equipment.
    At the same time, the contract value of the two armadillos was comparable (3 010 000,00 and 2 885 000,00 dollars, respectively).

    What are we talking about. Maine had a total displacement (I won’t tell you the normal displacement of Iowa, although it would be right to compare it) was 2,2 thousand tons more, it was built later (inflation!) - but it was cheaper. This example confirms Melnikov’s data, but does not refute them.
    Did Retvisan cost $ 4 under the EMNIP contract?
    Noteworthy is the higher, compared with the “Retvisan”, the cost of a ton of displacement “Tsesarevich”.

    Admittedly, the table raises the most questions. First, the cost of the same “Relight” completely coincides with the data of the “Ship List” of 1904. However, for the “Retvisan” and “Tsesarevich”, the “Ship List” gives completely different numbers than those you give - without artillery, mine weapons and Retvisan's supply cost 9 rubles, and the Tsesarevich - 450 francs, or 000 thousand rubles. That is, the numbers are completely different from those that you give. Balakin, by the way, in his monograph on Retvisan, gives figures much closer to the Ship list - 30 rubles.
    Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that for "Relight" you take the "real value" from the "Ship List", and for battleships of foreign construction - the contract value at a certain rate. But the problem is that the cost of Retvisan you have given is more than one and a half times lower than the “actual value” of the Ship List!
    And this suggests that something is very wrong with the numbers - a similar difference cannot be explained either from the point of view of the dollar exchange rate (thank God, neither Putin nor Nabiullina with their eternal ruble depreciation was then there) with any additional work .
    If you allow me to state a version, the contract and “real” costs are simply not equivalent, that is, the contract price most likely did not include any equipment / work that was either listed in other costing items, or was not included in the contract at the time of the conclusion of the contract included and added later. But in this case, their comparison "head-on" is not possible.
    The design features of the battleships being compared are such that in a real combat situation the “Tsesarevich”, despite the presence of the original mine protection, was in a more distressed situation

    I completely did not understand where this came from. Both Cesarevich and Retvisan were blown up, both took a comparable amount of water. The roll, generally speaking, is not indicative, since counter-flooding began on Retvizan, when the roll continued to increase - on Cesarevich they could simply hesitate with counter-flooding, hence 18 degrees (but this is not accurate, it is necessary to study).
    The weight of the Tsesarevich’s reservation is 3347,8 tons, while the Retvisan’s similar indicator was 3300 tons.

    Equal mass of armor does not guarantee equivalent protection. And we can say that the 51-mm vertical armor of the Retvisan extremities was a much worse solution than the armored belt of Tsesarevich
    Yours faithfully,
    Andrei
    1. Nehist 5 January 2020 15: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Greetings. That's just the total area of ​​armored cover Caesar was inferior to Retvisan
    2. Comrade 5 January 2020 18: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Hello again, dear Valentine!

      Hello, dear Andrey, I am very glad to see you in the subject!
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I'm afraid this time I will be forced to take the position of constructive criticism

      Well, a long time ago we did not discuss.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      It does not refute at all. The complexity and speed of construction, of course, interconnected things
      Dear colleague, the claim is not addressed.
      The point is not that we do not know the number of man-hours spent on the construction of Retvizan and Tsesarevich, but on the fact that Melnikov directly linked the speed and laboriousness of the construction.
      Literally, since Lagan requested months and a half more times than Kramp, then “Tsesarevich” is one and a half times more labor-intensive.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Maine had a total displacement (I won’t tell you the normal displacement of Iowa, although it would be right to compare it) was 2,2 thousand tons more, it was built later (inflation!) - but it was cheaper.
      It's just that they paid less for the vertical armor for Maine than for Iowa.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      First, the cost of the same “Relight” completely coincides with the data of the “Ship List” of 1904. However, for “Retvisan” and “Tsesarevich”, the “Ship List” gives completely different figures
      Peresvet was built in Russia, and its value did not depend on fluctuations in the ruble exchange rate.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      the problem is that the value you have given to Retvisan is more than one and a half times lower than the "actual value" on the Ship List!
      There is no problem, dear Andrey. By the time the first payments to the Americans and the French began, the ruble “fell” almost 1,4 times against what it was when they agreed on the cost of construction with the businessmen.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I completely did not understand where this came from. Both Cesarevich and Retvisan were blown up, both took a comparable amount of water.

      “Tsesarevich” (with anti-mine bulkhead) received up to 2 tons of water, “Retvizan” (without anti-mine bulkhead) 000 tons - 2 tons, while the roll of “Tsesarevich” reached 200 degrees, and “Retvizan” - 2 degrees. And this despite the fact that he took the last ten to twenty-five percent more water than the "Crown Prince".
      It is striking that the “Tsesarevich” took less water, but the angle of heel was much larger. It turns out that the notorious French mine defense did not justify the high confidence shown to it.
      You know, it’s easy for me to talk about French frivolity, before my eyes there are a lot of already modern examples of French witty decisions from one or another area of ​​human life, which at best give a neutral effect.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 January 2020 16: 23 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And again - hello, dear Valentine!
        Quote: Comrade
        Well, a long time ago we did not discuss.

        I am very glad to exchange opinions :))))
        Quote: Comrade
        The point is not that we do not know the number of man-hours spent on the construction of Retvizan and Tsesarevich, but on the fact that Melnikov directly linked the speed and laboriousness of the construction.

        AND! Well - yes, this, of course, is superfluous. Which, however, does not replace what I said about the laboriousness of Iowa and Maine - after all, Maine turned out to be cheaper, despite the fact that it was larger, and was built later.
        Quote: Comrade
        It's just that they paid less for the vertical armor for Maine than for Iowa.

        That is, ceteris paribus, the price of Maine would be even less :))))
        Quote: Comrade
        There is no problem, dear Andrey. By the time the first payments to the Americans and the French began, the ruble “fell” almost 1,4 times against what it was when they agreed on the cost of construction with the businessmen.

        Dear colleague, I did not find evidence that the ruble fell in 1899. Is there an error here?
        The fact is that that period was an interesting process of transition to the gold standard in Russian circulation. Usually 1897 is indicated, but this is rather the year the Witte monetary reform was completed, and it began much earlier. Before the transition to the gold standard, it will be very difficult to talk about the ruble against the dollar - such, in general, did not exist, the ruble was "sausage", and the ministry of finance made money on speculative ruble rates. But the problem was that with all this, the ruble was not convertible.
        On May 8, 1895, Nicholas II approved the law, according to which all legal transactions could be concluded in Russian gold currency and payment for such transactions could be made in gold coin or by credit at the exchange rate of gold on the day of payment. True, this did not work out, so the State Bank even took the next step: on September 27, 1895, it announced that it would buy and accept gold coins at a price not lower than 7 rubles. 40 kopecks for the semi-imperial, and in 1896 the purchase rate was determined at 7 rubles. 50 kopecks These decisions led to the stabilization of the ratio between the gold ruble and the credit in the proportion of 1: 1,5.
        So, in 1897, when the gold standard was introduced, the Russian Empire turned out, as it were, 2 exchange rates of the ruble - one gold, the second - credit (not secured by gold). And the 1,4-fold difference that you indicate suspiciously resembles the difference between a gold and a credit ruble. You wrote Yure27
        Quote: Comrade
        The table of the Ministry of Finance in 1898 gives one exchange rate, and in 1899 - already another, sharply declining.

        Therefore, I ask you to clarify - is it really about the gold ruble? It’s just that none of the sources known to me writes about the depreciation of the gold ruble almost as much as one and a half times.
        Quote: Comrade
        “Tsesarevich” (with anti-mine bulkhead) received up to 2 tons of water, “Retvizan” (without anti-mine bulkhead) 000 tons - 2 tons, while the roll of “Tsesarevich” reached 200 degrees, and “Retvizan” - 2 degrees.

        You indicate the flow of water already taking into account counter-flooding, in addition, as I understand it, straightening the roll on a ship that has received a hole in the nose is somewhat more difficult than onboard (it is impossible to flood the corresponding rooms on the other side - strong trim on the nose). Therefore, I can only repeat - the amount of water and the size of the roll here are very indirectly related to survivability indicators. I will continue below! hi
        1. Comrade 9 January 2020 04: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          My respect, deeply respected Andrew!
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Which, however, does not replace what I said about the laboriousness of Iowa and Maine - after all, Maine turned out to be cheaper, despite the fact that it was larger, and was built later.

          Only a comparison of the man-days required for the construction of two ships can make a point in this matter.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          about, ceteris paribus, the price of Maine would be even less:

          On the contrary, the Iowa would have been cheaper if its armor were paid at the same price as the armor of the battleship Maine.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Dear colleague, I did not find evidence that the ruble fell in 1899. Is there an error here?

          Dear colleague, your humble servant decided to cut the Gordian knot of exchange rates and counted contract value two battleships in pounds sterling, after which the contract value was divided by the total weight of the hull, car and reservation.
          Favor.
          a) Retvisan (under a contract of $ 4)
          895 498,00 £ / 9 090 t. = 98,514 £ / t.
          b) “Tsesarevich” (under the contract 0 280 000,00 francs)
          1 200 560,00 £ / 9 896,30 t. = 121,314 £ / t.

          In my opinion, it is incorrect to take into account high-contract payments, because, on the one hand, they retreated at £ 100 to Retvisan, and on the other, R. M. Melnikov never named a single specific amount of over-contract payments for " Tsesarevich ", which suggests that they were not at all or they were insignificant.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          there is a simple fact - during the battle of Shantunge pr 10-12 dm, the projectile damaged a 51-mm plate, which led to its cracking and tearing off the mounts and, as a result, to heavy flooding. The armored belt of the “Tsesarevich” would probably not have noticed such a blow.

          The armored belt of the Retvisana too.
          Dear colleague, I'm afraid I put it unsuccessfully, and you misunderstood me. I will try again :

          a) High-explosive shells, on which the Japanese relied, did not even penetrate 51 mm armor.
          b) High-explosive shells, on which the Japanese have relied, made holes of 2,13 meters by 2,35 meters in unprotected sides, for example.
          c) The reservation area of ​​the lateral projection "Retvisana" (without towers of the main caliber) is 644 square meters.
          d) The reservation area of ​​the lateral projection "Tsesarevich" (without towers of the main caliber) - 517-523 square meters (depends on the angle of rotation of the towers of medium caliber).
          e) The ratio of the reservation areas of the two battleships ranged from 1,24 to 1,23 in favor of the Retvisan.
          g) Theoretically, it could be that all the shells that hit the “Retvisan” hit exclusively unarmored sections, and all the shells that hit the “Tsesarevich” fell only in the main armor belt.
          g) The distribution of hits is a matter of chance, but the ratio 1,23/1 gives the one in whose favor this ratio a theoretical advantage.
          h) The probability of receiving a “gate” on board with Retvisan was lower than that of the Cesarevich, by twenty-three percent.

          The report is finished.
          Regards, Valentine
          1. Jura 27 9 January 2020 16: 33 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            [/ quote] b) “Tsesarevich” (under the contract 0 280 000,00 francs)
            1 200 560,00 £ / 9 896,30 t. = 121,314 £ / t. [Quote]

            Well, you can’t do that. At Caesar, the AU was included in this cost, and this is a very expensive article, it per ton is much higher than the body or armor.

            "In my opinion, over-contract payments are incorrect,"

            On the contrary. This is a fee for bringing Retvisan to the level of the Cesarevich. Tsesarevich, with a protective deck of ordinary shipbuilding steel, etc., would have cost less than the value declared by Lagan.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 January 2020 17: 01 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Good day, dear Valentine!
            Quote: Comrade
            Only a comparison of the man-days required for the construction of two ships can make a point in this matter.

            Perhaps, yes, although ... in fact, I have a lot of work with man-days, so I declare responsibly that they won’t even put a point, anyway there will be questions :) One is only a question of mechanization of production ... and the ratio produced by yourself / acquired on the side? That is, the fact that both ships are assembled by the same company does not take into account either technical progress, or labor productivity, which could vary, or the amount of work directly at the shipyard (some work in one ship was done by ourselves, for the other we bought a ready-made semi-finished product) But, probably , this will be the best approximation possible.
            Quote: Comrade
            On the contrary, the Iowa would have been cheaper if its armor were paid at the same price as the armor of the battleship Maine.

            Yes exactly:)
            Quote: Comrade
            Dear colleague, your humble servant decided to cut the Gordian knot of exchange rates and converted the contract value of two armadillos to pounds sterling

            good hi
            Fine! Nevertheless, dear colleague, I am not sure of the correctness of the resulting figures. After all, the same Retvisan towers, delivered separately, as I understand it, you did not include in the calculation? But there were not only towers there ....
            Quote: Comrade
            Over-contract payments, in my opinion, are incorrect

            Yes, God be with them, there would be to deal with the contract :))))
            Quote: Comrade
            The armored belt of the Retvisana too.

            Dear colleague, from the battle in ZhM, we most certainly know that the Retvizan armored belt did not withstand such a blow
            Quote: Comrade
            High-explosive shells, on which the Japanese made a bet, did not even penetrate 51 mm armor.

            Yes. But they damaged it, tore it off the mounts, and as a result, the integrity of the side at the waterline was broken and water began to flow into the ship.
            Quote: Comrade
            High-explosive shells on which the Japanese relied on holes in the unprotected sides were 2,13 m by 2,35 m, for example.

            No objections
            Quote: Comrade
            The ratio of the reservation areas of the two battleships ranged from 1,24 to 1,23 in favor of the Retvisan.

            I agree, but in this case this calculation is not applicable.
            Dear colleague, we are talking with you about such an important aspect of booking as protecting the ship's waterline, that is, protecting the ship from flooding.
            Quote: Comrade
            The probability of getting a “gate” on board with Retvisan was lower than that of the Tsesarevich, by twenty-three percent.

            That's right. But the fact is that the "gate" in the board above the waterline does not have a special effect on the combat effectiveness of the ship. But the "gates" at the waterline - have, and very large. So, for all the time of the battle in ZhM we only had one Japanese shell on our ship pierced a plate of 102 mm of armor, and that, possibly, was armor-piercing. And the "Tsesarevich" with its minimum 120 mm side could "sleep peacefully" - such high-explosive armored plates were too tough for the Japanese landmines. That is, the armored belt of Tsesarevich perfectly protected the ship's waterline from flooding, not only the central part, but also the extremities, which can not be said about Retvisan, which received real flooding in a real battle, although 51 mm armor was not formally broken. And against this background, the retweisan superiority of 23% in the area of ​​the armored side is completely lost - what's the point?
            Quote: Comrade
            The report is finished.
            Regards, Valentine

            :))))
            1. Comrade 10 January 2020 05: 31 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Hello, dear Andrey!
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Perhaps, yes, although they won’t even put an end to it, all the same, questions will remain .. But, probably, this will be the best approximation possible.

              It’s not a problem to get man-days for Retvisan, but where to get data on the Tsarevich?
              There are a number of man-days according to Orel, alas, only for several years, which means that the information is incomplete.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The same Retvisan towers, delivered separately, as I understand it, you did not include in the calculation?

              Yes, I didn’t include it in absent-mindedness, you are absolutely right.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              "Tsesarevich" with its minimum 120 mm board could "sleep soundly" - such a high-explosive shells were too tough for Japanese HE mines.

              How to say, dear colleague ...
              Here is a fragment of Polomoshnov’s book with a description of getting into a 127 mm plate.

              As you can see, the effect when hit in 127 mm plate is the same as when hit in 51 mm plate - cracks, the plate itself is pressed. And where there are cracks and dents, there are flooding.
              “Tsesarevich” was just lucky that he didn’t receive a semi-submersible hit with “suitcase” in 120 mm armor, otherwise flooding in the compartment would not have been avoided.
    3. Comrade 5 January 2020 18: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Sorry, Andrey, this is a continuation of the answer, the whole site was not accepted, I had to split up.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Equal mass of armor does not guarantee equivalent protection. And we can say that the 51-mm vertical armor of the Retvisan extremities was a much worse solution than the armored belt of Tsesarevich

      About "much"a moot point. Here's the 51mm Retvisan plate that hit the suitcase."
      The plate cracked, bent, but survived.

      Let us recall the “gates” made by the “suitcases” on the sides of the Poltava or Oslyaby.
      1. Comrade 6 January 2020 05: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And now a photo from the "Eagle".

        Hit 12 '' projectile to the left of the bow of the medium caliber, the size of the hole 2,13 m. To 2,35 m.
        Shells of the same caliber, but the difference in the consequences of the hit is obvious.
        A concave and cracked 51 mm plate of Retvisana and a gap of five square meters on board the Eagle.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 January 2020 16: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Comrade
          Hit 12 '' projectile to the left of the bow of the medium caliber, the size of the hole 2,13 m. To 2,35 m.

          Unarmored side. And the Tsesarevich there would be from 120 mm and above
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 January 2020 16: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Comrade
        As for the "significantly" controversial issue. Here is the 51mm Retvisan plate that hit the “suitcase”.
        The plate cracked, bent, but survived.

        Dear colleague, there is a simple fact - during the battle of Shantunge, 10-12 dm, a shell damaged a 51-mm plate, which led to its cracking and breakdown from the mounts and, as a result, to heavy flooding. The armored belt of the “Tsesarevich” would probably not have noticed such a blow.
        Quote: Comrade
        Let us recall the “gates” made by the “suitcases” on the sides of the Poltava or Oslyaby.

        Well, we're talking about Tsesarevich and Retvisan :))))
    4. Comrade 5 January 2020 18: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      By the way, the image of the armor plate of the cruiser "Nisshin", as we see, the Russian 305 mm armor-piercing shell "pierced" it through and through.

      This fragment of the plate was donated by the Japanese to the Argentine naval attache, who observed the course of the Tsushima battle from the Togo flagship battleship, and is now exhibited in one of the museums in Buenos Aires.
    5. Rurikovich 5 January 2020 20: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      And we can say that the 51-mm vertical armor of the Retvisan extremities was a much worse solution than the armored belt of Tsesarevich

      what Personally, I slightly disagree with this statement. Do not you know that the value of the armored belt, and therefore the combat stability of the ship depends not only on its thickness, but also on what the enemy shoots at you. Would you not know that with the same Tsushima 76-mm armor of the PMA casemates kept a hit of heavy high-explosive shells. Therefore, even the 51mm armor of the Retvisana extremities could well cope with a heavy shell without critical destruction. The shell could explode on the armor, causing it to deform, but it fulfills its task of not placing a high-explosive shell inside the ship. Use Japanese armor-piercing shells, then consider that the reservation is not there. So the Russians used mostly armor-piercing shells, because they pierced even the thicker armor of the Japanese, but there is a double-edged sword - Russian shells did damage only if they exploded successfully. Once again, I will give the conclusions of the Japanese after the battle in the Korean Channel on August 1, 1904
      The destructive effect of Russian shells as a whole also turned out to be weak. This is due to the peculiarities of the “work” of Russian fuses, which, on the one hand, were not sensitive enough, and, on the other hand, had a relatively large slowdown. As a result, when fired from a long range, at the end, the fuses simply didn’t work (which apparently explains the fact that all the 75-mm shells that didn’t explode) - and when hit from a short distance, the shells didn’t always have time to explode inside the case enemy ship. Hits in the mast and pipes were practically harmless to the enemy - meanwhile, these parts accounted for up to a third of all hits (Table 2). However, it should be noted that the only really potentially dangerous hit was a 152-mm projectile in the Izumo foremast at 09.15 - if the projectile burst, its fragments could cause heavy losses among people on the upper and lower bridges (the location was 5,5 m above the shelterdeck).

      At the same time, the destructive effect of the shells themselves was quite strong - in the event of an explosion. The relatively small charge of the explosive and the fuse in this case turned out to be advantages. If the Japanese shells usually exploded when passing through the hull, while most of the high-explosive and a substantial part of the fragmentation action "remained" outside the ship, then the Russian shells burst inside the hull. The explosion formed large fragments with great destructive and destructive force, which pierced the cabin walls, decks and even the opposite side. This could lead to extensive flooding with the entry of water under the lower deck when hit near the waterline at the extremities (such a scenario was realized on Asama in the Tsushima battle, when Ulsan hit the Izumo, Iwate and Takatiho did not result in flooding from over a calm sea), and ensured the defeat of people over a large area (this scenario was realized when the Rurik shell hit Takatiho).

      Despite the fact that if you look at the photographs of Russian ships after the battle, you can see the huge destruction of unarmored parts of the hulls and pipes.
      So even relatively thin armor can play a role if the enemy does not use armor-piercing shells hi
      1. Alexandra 5 January 2020 21: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        which apparently explains the fact that all the 75 mm shells that hit the target did not explode


        A little clarification. If you recall Melnikov R. M. ("Rurik was the first"), then the Russian cruisers fired in that battle with steel armor-piercing, to a much lesser extent cast-iron 75 mm shells.

        In 75 mm armor-piercing arr. 1898 (I write the year of memory) there was no explosive charge and fuse. In 75 mm cast iron and the latest 75 mm steel armor-piercing mod. 1902 was a bursting charge, powder.

        And in the shell arr. 1902 explosive charge was 50 grams of gunpowder. In both cases, the fuse was the bottom tube of the 1884 sample of inertial (not instantaneous, but not delayed) action. This tube, as a rule, worked correctly, unlike the Brink delayed-action fuse, which was used in the case of 152 mm and 203 mm armor-piercing shells with a bursting charge of wet pyroxylin.

        If all the 1 mm shells that fell in the battle on August 1904, 75 did not explode, then all that fell were 75 mm steel armor-piercing shells of the 1898 sample without a bursting charge. Most likely the latest 75 mm armor-piercing shells of the 1902 model were not on the cruisers of the Vladivostok detachment.
        1. Rurikovich 5 January 2020 22: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So this does not refute the conclusions of the Japanese - 75mm shells did not explode, hence the damage from them is zero. And if they caused damage, then, as a rule, minimal request
        2. Rurikovich 5 January 2020 22: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: AlexanderA
          If all the 1 mm shells that fell in the battle on August 1904, 75 did not explode,

          I can, if interested, list the results of their hits
          Izumo
          The cargo boom of the main mast is pierced by a 75 mm shell.
          A 75-mm caliber projectile that fell from the bow on the starboard side pierced through the bed nets under boat No. 3 and damaged the base of the cargo mast of the focus mast.
          A 75 mm caliber projectile hit from the port side damaged a sloop beam and pierced the side of a mine boat No. 2 on the port side. On the Izumo damage diagram attached to the commander’s report, the caliber of the projectile is indicated as “12-cm”, and in the table with the damage description, “12-fn”. The second, apparently, is true since the damage turned out to be small.
          Another shell, 75-mm caliber, hit from the starboard side, pierced through the middle of the stern pipe.
          The middle chimney was pierced right through with a 75 mm shell hit from the port side.
          A 75 mm caliber projectile pierced the bedside defense of a 76 mm gun No. 7 located on the roof of the right stern casemate of a 152 mm gun on the upper deck.
          Azuma
          An unexploded ordnance of 75 mm caliber pierced the left side in the officer’s bathroom (hole 150x120 mm) and damaged the coaming of the engine room hatch.
          The rear part of the front chimney was damaged by a projectile (in the “Medical Description” ... the caliber was estimated at 75 mm), flying from the starboard side, from a direction near the beam, and falling into the pipe tangentially.
          Another shell, hit from the starboard side from the bow course angles, damaged the keel of boat No. 2 and pierced through the casing of the middle chimney
          According to Japanese data, shells of 75mm caliber didn’t get into ships anymore.
        3. unknown 7 January 2020 09: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          According to Shirokorad, until 1905, only armor-piercing shells were included in the ammunition of 75mm guns. Japanese, or rather English 76mm guns also had only armor-piercing shells.
          On January 16, 1905, a bullet diaphragm shrapnel was introduced, and a high-explosive shell was already 1907.
          Then, the “cry” that the 75mmmm Russian destroyers were completely useless was completely useless, due to the lack of high-explosive shells. And on Japanese destroyers TWO 76 mm guns were useful in the absence of high-explosive shells?
          1. Alexandra 7 January 2020 15: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Shirokorad in the question of shells for weapons of the Russo-Japanese war wrote a lot of mistakes.

            For the 75 mm Kane gun in the RIF, shots with a cast-iron projectile with a bursting charge of black powder, shots with 75 mm armor-piercing shells of the sample 1892 and the 1998 sample without a bursting charge, a shot with a 75 mm armor-piercing shell of the 1902 model with 50 grams of explosive charge of smokeless gunpowder (not melinite, as Shirokorad wrote. Melinite was re-loaded after the war). On the ships of the 1st TOE, 75 mm rounds with armor-piercing shells of the 1902 model did not seem to be.

            In 1905, 75 mm bullet shrapnel appeared. About 1905 thousand pieces of such shrapnel shells were produced until the end of 4.

            What about the Japanese 76 gun with a long barrel of 40 calibers (or rather the British 12pdr 12cwt QF Mk I), then for it in the Japanese fleet (unlike, for example, from the Italian), only a shot with a high-explosive (HE) shell was accepted .

            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-40_mk1.php

            And if the British in their shells for 12pdr 12cwt QF Mk I then still used black powder, then the Japanese are already a brisant explosive.

            That is why in the Japanese Navy the failure of the guns due to ruptured shells of barrels was observed on guns with a caliber from 305 mm to 76 mm inclusive. But let’s say complaints about such problems with the 37 mm, 47 mm and 57 mm guns of Hotchkiss used on Japanese ships you will not find. In their small-caliber shells there was no "shimoza".
            1. unknown 9 January 2020 17: 30 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What are these shells of 1902? The same story as with a 1912 model projectile to a 12 "gun? A projectile weighing 512 kg. Did someone hear something, but no one saw it?
              According to the views of that time, armor-piercing shells should have been used against destroyers. The 3 "projectile was supposed to reach boilers and steam engines through coal pits.
              With what fright did the Japanese have to give up armor-piercing shells of this caliber?
              1. Alexandra 9 January 2020 19: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                http://www.vif2ne.org/forum/0/arhprint/1025581

                "Yes. The armor-piercing cane of samples 1892 and 1898 didn’t have a burst chamber. But the fact of the matter is that the 75-mm cannon shell of samples 1902 and (especially) 1907 (universally accepted for service) had a chamber. Just arr 1902 Because it didn’t receive distribution in 1902 because gunpowder was not the best filling for the shell, according to the art committee, melinite and dry pyroxylin self-exploded in it, as it was later self-invoked in mod 1907 when breaking through thick sheets of armor (of the order of caliber more)."

                > According to the views of that time

                Not British and Japanese views.


                QF 12 pounder common pointed shell

                Common Pointed shell, or CP were a type of Common Shell used in naval service from the 1890s - 1910s which had a solid nose and a percussion fuze in the base rather than the Common shell's nose fuze. The ogival 2 crh solid pointed nose was considered suitable for attacking shipping but was not armor-piercing - the main function was still explosive. They were of cast or forged (3 and 6 pounder) steel and contained a gunpowder bursting charge slightly smaller than that of a Common Shell, a tradeoff for the longer heavier nose.

                In British service Common Pointed shells were typically painted black, except 12-pounder shells specific for QF guns which were painted lead color to distinguish them from 12-pounder shells usable with both BL and QF guns. A red ring behind the nose indicated the shell was filled.
            2. unknown 9 January 2020 17: 37 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Was there a "shimoza" at all? Did the Japanese produce medium and large caliber shells?
              Possessed such technologies? Or did they just reload shells received from the British? And in this case, they possessed technologies for changing the internal volume of shells?
              In my opinion, everything is simpler. No “suitcases”, no “shimozy”. English shells equipped with melinite. According to the results of their use by the Japanese, the British refused to equip large-caliber shells with melinite. The Germans and French, according to the results of the NRF, continued to improve the armor-piercing projectile.
              1. Alexandra 9 January 2020 21: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The Japanese arranged the production of shells of all calibers, both with molded cases and with forged ones. Industrial technology for the production of picric acid was borrowed from the Germans. I quote the translation of a paragraph on this topic from Japanese Wikipedia:

                “For one year from January 1898, Masamitsu Shimose traveled to Europe and the United States to present picric acid production technology. He met Bernike, a former chief engineer at Griesham GmbH in Germany, and signed a contract to supply more than 20 plant plans for the synthesis of picric acid and technology for the production of picric acid at a price of 50 yen, however, the price of 000 yen was not paid, and Bernike sent a letter urging him to fulfill the contract in April 50, and Shimose in response accompanied Minister of the Ministry of Naot about Saito, but was quietly killed. "

                According to the results of their use by the Japanese, the British refused to equip large-caliber shells with melinite


                Firstly, the British called it BB Lyddite ("liddit").

                British explosive shells filled with Lyddite were initially designated "common lyddite" and beginning in 1896 were the first British generation of modern "high explosive" shells. Lyddite is picric acid fused at 280 ° F and allowed to solidify, producing a much denser dark-yellow form which is not affected by moisture and is easier to detonate than the liquid form. Its French equivalent was "melinite", Japanese equivalent was "shimose". Common lyddite shells "detonated" and fragmented into small pieces in all directions, with no incendiary effect. For maximum destructive effect the explosion needed to be delayed until the shell had penetrated its target.

                And the British switched from "Liddit" to other high-explosive explosives already during the First World War.

                When World War I began Britain was replacing lyddite with modern "high explosive" (HE) such as TNT. After World War I the term "common lyddite" was dropped, and remaining stocks of lyddite-filled shells were referred to as HE (high explosive) shell filled lyddite. Hence "common" faded from use, replaced by "HE" as the explosive shell designation.

                The Germans and French, according to the results of the NRF, continued to improve the armor-piercing projectile.


                And the development of high-explosive did not continue? :)

                The Russian fleet in the Russo-Japanese War had three shell problems:

                - obsolete steel armor-piercing armor-piercing with an insignificant powder explosive charge and inertial (explosion almost without deceleration) shock tube of 1884 as a fuse;
                - unsuccessful, as it were, "high explosive" (actually also armor-piercing) shells with an extremely insignificant explosive charge of pressed wet pyroxylin and giving mass failures with a Brink delayed-action fuse;
                - completely obsolete cast-iron shells, dangerous for their own guns, with a minimum powder explosive charge, steel blanks without a explosive explosive charge and fuse, inefficient segmented (shrapnel from segments) shells - all of them only occupied a place in the cellars, but when shooting showed insignificant destructive effect .

                The Japanese fleet did not have normal armor-piercing shells (primarily because there was no delayed fuse for them), but the high-explosive shells of the Japanese fleet, with a high filling ratio of such a blasting explosive as picric acid ("shimoza") and Ijuin sensitive fuses on that the moment was probably the best in the world (if they hadn’t exploded in the trunks of their own guns, they would certainly be the best in the world).
  • e-sam 7 January 2020 03: 04 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    “Retvisan” vs “Tsesarevich”, or Why not Kramp?

    Because a license was issued to Tsesarevich for the production of machines that were not in Russia. But she was not attached to Retvisan.
    It's a pity. Kramp’s project (but not specifically Retwizan, where they saved on armor) was no worse than Sikishima and Hatsuse, the most powerful and successful Japanese battleships.
    But Cesarevich was .... except obscene, there are no other words.
    Although there is. And worse. This is if you recall the so-called "Borodinians" (4 pcs.) and Glory.
    1. unknown 7 January 2020 09: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And again about the devil in the details.
      "Cesarevich" is designed in a metric system. Even with its literal reproduction in the series. it would have to be converted to an inch system. What it could bring: “Bogatyr” - metric, and “Oleg” - inch, resulting in plus 600 tons.
      The Retvisan is an inch, but the technologies used by Kramp in Russia have not been used.
      Yes, and Nikloss boilers, even with a license this is a problem.
      Of course, the Retvisan project is very underutilized, but ... in fact, a new project would have to be created on its basis.
      Therefore, in the Retvisan or Tsesarevich dispute, it is more correct to speak more about the choice of the concept of an armadillo: casemate or tower (in relation to the medium caliber).
      PS Somewhere I met a statement that the British strongly recommended that German companies not participate in the competition for the project of an armadillo for the Russian fleet. And they could get something like "Schlesien" with 12 "and 6". Yes, and Lagan actually already had a project for the future "Patry".
      1. ssm
        ssm 7 January 2020 12: 33 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: ignoto
        The Bogatyr is metric, and the Oleg is inch, resulting in plus 600 tons.

        And one machine on Oleg partially did not work either due to the metric system? Or is it all about maid in Russia?
        Quote: ignoto
        but the technologies used by Kramp in Russia were not used.

        Do not invent nonsense.
        Quote: ignoto
        Yes, and Nikloss boilers, even with a license this is a problem.

        Nikloss boilers are not a problem. if you serve them. If they do not care, then Belleville boilers became a problem.
        Moreover, in Retvisan there was such a colossal supply of water supply that in clones Nikloss’s boilers could easily be replaced with Belleville boilers.
        Quote: ignoto
        Of course, the Retvisan project is very underutilized, but ... in fact, a new project would have to be created on its basis.

        And why is that? To reduce the supply of coal, and thereby increase the weight of the armor, as well as replace the boilers, is this a new project? You are clearly joking.
        Quote: ignoto
        Therefore, in the Retvisan or Tsesarevich dispute, it is more correct to speak more about the choice of the concept of an armadillo: casemate or tower (in relation to the medium caliber).

        Nonsense.
        1. unknown 9 January 2020 17: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The technologies used by Kramp were not used in Russia. For example, profiles of a Z-shaped section were used. And the replacement of boilers (weight, size, possibly quantity and location) is still another project.
    2. unknown 7 January 2020 09: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The strongest Japanese battleship was the Mikasa.
      "Sikishima", "Hatsuse", "Asahi" carried the HARVEE armor.
      Or Harvey in the Japanese - is it good, but in Russian - is it bad?
      1. ssm
        ssm 7 January 2020 12: 38 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: ignoto
        The strongest Japanese battleship was the Mikasa.

        The strongest in YaIV were Sikishima and Hatsusa. Of these two, Hatsuse was the most fortunate.
        In addition, the most powerful ships in those days were NEVER flagships. These were the “fists" for strikes. Therefore, the presence of the commander there was too dangerous for him and the whole formation.
        Quote: ignoto
        "Sikishima", "Hatsuse", "Asahi" carried the HARVEE armor.

        Not Garvey’s, but Harvey’s nickel armor. This is also Harvey’s armor, but different, of the second type. It is much closer in the Krupp type 1 armor than to the Harvey type 1 armor.
        Quote: ignoto
        Or Harvey in the Japanese - is it good, but in Russian - is it bad?

        Nickel harvey was not much weaker than Krupp type 1, but much cheaper. For example, on Bayan, Krupp type 1 armor was CONSCIOUSLY replaced with type 2 Harvey armor (nickel).
        1. Comrade 8 January 2020 06: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: ssm
          Nickel harvey was not much weaker than Krupp type 1, but much cheaper.

          You are mistaken, their cost was almost the same (see something like the "All-Substantial Report on the Naval Department" of the American Navy at the beginning of the last century). There, not only prices are indicated, but prices depending on the configuration, weight, thickness of the plate and the manufacturer.
          Krupp and Nickel Harvey were very close in cost, in the States, anyway.
        2. unknown 9 January 2020 17: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Neither Belov A.A. nor Balakin S.A. in their monographs about the battleships of the Japanese fleet they do not write that the "Sikishima" and "Hatsusa" were the most powerful Japanese battleships. Even Asahi had certain advantages over this pair, and Mikasa, all the more.
  • Jura 27 7 January 2020 11: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: ignoto
    According to Shirokorad, until 1905, only armor-piercing shells were included in the ammunition of 75mm guns. Japanese, or rather English 76mm guns also had only armor-piercing shells.
    On January 16, 1905, a bullet diaphragm shrapnel was introduced, and a high-explosive shell was already 1907.
    Then, the “cry” that the 75mmmm Russian destroyers were completely useless was completely useless, due to the lack of high-explosive shells. And on Japanese destroyers TWO 76 mm guns were useful in the absence of high-explosive shells?

    This is not entirely true, or rather, not at all.
    1. unknown 9 January 2020 17: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Echoes of the old "forum" discussions?
      Not the fact that Shirokorad is wrong.
  • Alexandra 9 January 2020 21: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Dear colleague, from the battle in ZhM, we most certainly know that the Retvizan armored belt did not withstand such a blow


    And from the battle of Tsushima, we know that the Eagle armored belt could not withstand such a blow.

  • Jura 27 10 January 2020 03: 30 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: ignoto
    Echoes of the old "forum" discussions?
    Not the fact that Shirokorad is wrong.

    Yes, Chinese diploma was laid out on Tsushima (in English) on Askold shells accepted in the arsenal, and there already in 1904, shrapnel was present along with others.
  • Nikolai Korovin 17 January 2020 16: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The article, of course, is very interesting. Comparative data on the level of reservation and other components, information on prices for that, on salaries in French, Russian and American shipyards, from which it is clear that Russian workers lived relatively well, etc. - all this is very important and interesting. They say that work cannot be criticized for what is not in it, but it is necessary to criticize what is. But in my opinion, the fidelity of such a formulation of the question is very relative. Sometimes it is necessary to criticize for what is not. I will criticize for the key point, which is not, and which is more important than all the circumstances described.

    The article does not touch on the most important moment of the conning tower device. It was clearly inadequate at Tsesarevich, which led to the death of Admiral Witgeft and its headquarters, the circulation of Tsesarevich, the attack of Retvizan, and the loss of the battle won on July 28 (August 10) in 1904 due to the loss of control of the squadron - about the inability Prince Ukhtomsky has been written a lot, I will not repeat it. And, accordingly, to the loss of the Russo-Japanese War.

    The campaign of the 2nd squadron further than Madagascar was absolutely useless, since the newest battleships could not fight the Japanese, in fact, not only because of the soaked pyroxylin, but also because of arbitrary deviations from the prototype during construction, which led to a sharp deterioration in the TTD. The "Alexander III", the first to enter service, nearly fell over on the circulation at the very first test. They managed to eliminate the design flaw that caused this effect, but still, the stability of the battleships remained very low (there are Rozhestvensky’s orders on this occasion), which clearly confirmed the battle, and the main armor compared to the prototype was significantly weakened for the sake of cosmetic improvements in booking casemates.

    Consequently, the 2nd squadron could only help the 1st, and even then, provided that the ammunition was replaced, and could not fight the entire Japanese fleet on its own, and from Madagascar deliberately went to the slaughter. This is not news, it seems. But the important factor of free thought of the designers, which Rozhestvensky mentioned, due to which the battleships were not overloaded with coal at all, contrary to the generally accepted opinion, but constructively, and, in particular, among other things, could not hold the declared move, is not very well known. By the way, if I’m not mistaken, the design of the conning tower on the battleships of the 2nd squadron was the same as on the Tsesarevich, which under Tsushima also played a certain role, but less than in the case of the Tsesarevich.

    Consequently, in retrospect it turns out that the design of the conning tower of the "Crown Prince" led to the collapse of tsarism. The following chain is being built: the death of Wittgeft with headquarters - the loss of the battle - the death of the remains of the squadron in Port Arthur - the death of the 2nd squadron - the loss of the war - general popular indignation of mediocre tsarism. Before Tsushima, it was not so total. And if the battle of July 28 were won (if there was a normal conning tower), and the 1st squadron broke through to Vladivostok, maybe it would have somehow managed. But I wonder how the situation with the conning tower was at Retvisan.