Military Review

About the causes of the death of the squadron battleship "Oslyabya"

237

As you know, the squadron battleship Oslyabya was destined to lead a mournful list of Russian ships that died in the Tsushima battle. At 13.49, “Prince Suvorov” opened fire, and at 14.40, that is, only 51 minutes after the start of the battle of the main forces, “Oslyabya” rolled over. And we can safely say that his death was predetermined even earlier, since at 14.20, when the battleship left the system, he was already doomed: by that time, Oslyabya had a roll of 12 degrees. to the port side and sat in the water with his nose to the very jams.


At the same time, the same type of Oslyaba Peresvet honorably endured all the hardships of the battle of Shantung, which took place on July 28, 1904, despite the fact that it hit at least 37 shells, including 13 305 mm caliber. In fact, the “Relight” turned out to be the most damaged Russian ship in that battle, but he managed not only to survive the battle, but also to return to Port Arthur on his own.

Why did one battleship die and the second survive? The question is all the more interesting because, according to today's data, the ships received much comparable, similar damage. In the proposed series of articles, I will try to find the answer to this question.

Short introduction


Since Oslyabya died in battle, no one, of course, could at least somehow comprehensively study and systematize the caliber of the shells that fell into it, the number and time of hits. If the damage to the squadron battleship "Peresvet", received by him in the battle on July 28, 1904 in the Yellow Sea, is meticulously recorded and described, then, according to the "Oslyab", the researchers of the future got only very fragmentary information from the reports of Russian and Japanese sailors. Moreover, the available evidence can be divided into 3 main categories.

Category 1 - this, of course, is the testimony of the Oslyaby crew members. They are the most valuable and reliable, since these people were on the battleship and saw what was happening with him with their own eyes. Nevertheless, this does not make such evidence true in the last resort - taking into account the turmoil of the battle and severe psychological trauma caused by the death of the battleship, their evidence may be somewhat confused or contain an approximate assessment of an event (for example, the caliber of a hit shell).

Category 2 — evidence of Russian sailors from “neighboring” warships, who were able to observe the Oslyaby shooting from a relatively short distance. Given the fact that Z. P. Rozhestvensky set the intervals between armored ships to 2 cable, from Sisoy the Great and Orel they could see Oslyabya from a distance of not more than 350 meters, and given the crowding of Russian ships at the beginning of the battle - and less than the specified value. But still there may be much more confusion and observation errors. There were no loungers among our sailors, everyone was busy with his own business, and, obviously, the sailors and officers of other ships could not constantly watch the Oslyaby, and did not have such a duty. Accordingly, their evidence could be significantly distorted and largely erroneous.

Finally, the third category should include the evidence of Japanese sailors. They, of course, knew well what they were doing themselves, but they only had a rough idea of ​​what was happening with Oslyaby, simply because Oslyaby was at a considerable distance from them.

Word to Captain Evidence


Let's start with the simplest. The Oslyabya squadron battleship died as a result of loss of stability: it had a strong trim on the nose and tilted on the port side until it lay on it, and then rolled over and sank. It is obvious that the ship received extensive flooding of the bow compartments and rooms on the port side, which caused its death. It is equally obvious that such flooding arose as a result of damage to the hull caused by enemy shells that fell into the area of ​​the Oslyaby waterline.

Thanks, Cap!

In view of the foregoing, the author of this article does not set himself the task of identifying, recounting and studying all hits in Oslyabyu. This is, frankly, ungrateful, and not necessary for our purposes. We focus better on studying the hits that caused the floods mentioned above.

Japanese data


Judging by the information available to the author, the decisive damage to the Oslyaba was inflicted by the Japanese battleship Fuji. His gunners believed that they had achieved three hits of 305-mm shells in the left side of the Russian ship - and they all fell into the waterline area. The first twelve-inch shell hit the Russian ship in the bow, unarmored part of the hull at about 13.56 (hereinafter - Russian time). Then, on December 14.12, almost simultaneously, two more 305-mm “suitcases” got into Oslyabyu. One of them, we will consider it the second in a row, hit the area of ​​coal pit No. 10. And another, third, was struck by a Russian battleship in the immediate vicinity of the place of the first hit.


Approximate places where 305 mm Fuji shells hit Oslyabyu

Of course, in addition to the Fuji, other Japanese ships shot at Oslyabyu. It cannot be ruled out that the Russian ship received some more heavy 254-305-mm “suitcases” from “Kasuga” and “Sikishima”. Without a doubt, the Japanese made numerous hits in Oslyabyu with shells of caliber 152-203 mm. But, as far as the author knows, other hits of shells in the area of ​​the Oslyaby waterline, in addition to the above, from the ships of the United fleet not observed.

Reports and reports of Oslyaby crew members


Of the three hits of 305-mm shells in the port waterline area, the Russian sailors from Oslyaby confirm exactly two - to the unarmored side in the bow, and to coal pit No. 10. This, of course, does not mean that the third 305 mm Fuji shell flew past the target. But the fact is that both of the above hits made a very noticeable effect, and demanded considerable effort from the crew to repair the damage. At the same time, our sailors did not seem to notice the third hit of the 305 mm projectile from the Fuji: we can assume that if it did, it did not cause noticeable damage to the battleship, or there was no one left alive who could harm to describe, why it was not fixed.

First hit


The most well-described was his Oslyaby mine officer, Lieutenant Mikhail Petrovich Sablin 1st:

“One of the first shots hit the living deck from the left side near the first bow bulkhead. Water got into the hole received from this shell in the first and second compartments of the living deck, and through the cracks formed in the deck, through the hatch and broken fan tubes, it went into the left bow 6-inch cellar and in the turret compartment. The hole was submarine, but due to the move and severe swell, it could not be fixed. The water distribution on the living deck was stopped by the second bulkhead, in front of the bow beam, and in the holds the water reached the separation of the bow dynamos and underwater vehicles. ”

How did the lieutenant know so well the damage from hitting this Japanese heavy projectile? As follows from his report, the Oslyaby commander, 1st-rank captain V. I. Baer, ​​ordered Lieutenant Sablin to be at the “electrical installations”, which were located in the immediate vicinity of the underwater minecraft compartment. Although this is not directly said, but from the context it is quite obvious that we are talking about the placement of dynamo machines. Immediately after the hit, Sablin went to the living deck: “When we got a hole in the bow, the smoke in the 1st and 2nd bow compartments was so dense that the incandescent bulbs were not completely visible and there was complete darkness. Assuming wires were broken there, I went there with an repair party. ”

Arriving on a residential deck, Sablin found a senior officer Pokhvistnev and a hold mechanic there. Sablin ventilated the premises, opening the porthole on the starboard side, and, apparently, checked the electrician for some time (he doesn’t write about it directly), but did not take part in closing the resulting hole. This follows from his report: “After a while I asked the senior officer how they managed to deal with the hole. He replied that it was impossible to fix the hole, but they managed to cope with the water and now the hole is not dangerous. ”

Apparently, by this time Oslyaby had no strong trim on the nose, and the ship had only a slight roll, otherwise D. B. Pokhvistnev, obviously, would not have been so optimistic about the possible threat. Lieutenant M.P. Sablin tried to return to his department, but he did not succeed: “I wanted to go to the submarine compartment, but the hatch was lifted up and there was 2 feet of water above it. I got on the phone - as they did, they replied that everything was fine. The nasal dynamos under the submarine compartment worked properly. ”

Why did this happen? The fact is that this hatch was pulled up from below by a mine-conductor V. Zavarin, who indicated in his report:

“I went down to my mine vehicles and dynamo car, but less than 10 minutes passed (this happened immediately after the start of the battle - approx. Author), when an enemy 12-inch shell hit our armadillo and made a surface hole, interrupted ventilation pipes; although the hole was sealed, before the sealed water got into the underwater mine vehicles. “I temporarily left the minecraft department to screw up the neck of the armor cap, which I did.”
Having closed the lid, the conductor returned back, saw that water continues to arrive through the ventilation pipes and ordered to close them. At that moment Sablin managed to contact him: “How, Zavarin, how are you, can you be controlled?” I replied that there is little water, I can manage. "

In the future, Lieutenant M.P. Sablin, apparently, did not descend below the level of the living deck, since he does not mention anything about it. It should be noted that his report is extremely detailed, but of course there is no minute-by-minute timing in it, and only the sequence of actions committed by this officer is described. As mentioned earlier, with the start of the battle, he was somewhere near the dynamo, then, after 13.56, when a 305-mm shell hit the Oslyaby’s bow, went to the living deck, repaired or checked something, talked with a senior officer, could not return, but managed to contact the department of underwater vehicles. All this took him 16 minutes, and then the second, and maybe the second and third 305 mm shells from the Fuji hit the Oslyabyu.

Second hit


Sablin notes in the report:

“... the shell hit on the left side in the 10th coal pit, breaking through the armor. Then water appeared in the left spare hook chamber, and the roll began to increase. “At the beginning of the roll, three side corridors began to fill with water on the right side, and then, with an increased roll, the right cartridges”.

How did he know all this? As follows from his report, Sablin managed to talk with the hold mechanic and ship engineer Zmachinsky, who insisted that it was necessary not only to limit onboard corridors, but urgently “counter-flood” the cellar cellars. Sablin himself was instructed to start turbines No. 4-6, and only here he mentions the trim on the nose: "The roll continued to increase, and we sat down with our nose."

Then Sablin tried to contact his mine team, located in the submarine mine department and in the dynamo department, but it turned out that neither the telephone nor the voice communications were working anymore. Then he sent down the Chernov mineral, which was to go down through the bow tower and order everyone to go out and batten down the hatches. Realizing that this would lead to a stop of the dynamo machines, Sablin decided to let the others in the batteries go. But the lieutenant no longer attempted to descend into the hold or establish contact with those in it.

What happened to the mine team at this time? V. Zavarin points out:

“The ship began to roll; I ordered to open the trigger valve, which drains the water from the premises of the underwater mine vehicles and in the hold of the dynamo cars and start the turbines to pump out the water accumulated in the room of the underwater mine vehicles; then ordered to look in the turret compartment for water; there, too, water appeared through ventilation pipes, which flooded the premises; all of this was patched up in a timely manner. ”
.
This fragment of the report contains an implicit indication of the time of what is happening. A small roll at Oslyaby appeared after the first hit, as indicated by Lieutenant Sablin. And it would have been strange for him not to appear: after all, water flowed along the living deck, flooding it (at least) by 60 centimeters, which led to a considerable overload and flowed into the hold. But this roll, apparently, did not increase, or at least did not increase noticeably, otherwise the senior officer of the armadillo would have no reason to consider the hole safe. A sharp increase in the roll occurred only after the second Japanese 305 mm shell hit the coal pit No. 10, as a result of which both this pit and the left hook camera were flooded. Thus, the above passage of the report of V. Zavarin refers to the moment when Oslyabya received the second (or second and third) hits.

We see from his report that the mine team was struggling with the flow of water, but this fight was unsuccessful: the measures taken did not help. In the testimony of the Commission of Inquiry V. Zavarin indicated:

“I opened the drain valve and the water went into the hold, then, to pump out the water, I launched the turbines, but apparently this did not help, as the water began to penetrate into the turret compartment, which was soon flooded, and I ordered the room to be closed and everything was tight. close. "

Seeing that his actions did not succeed, V. Zavarin tried to contact the mine officer, that is, Lieutenant Sablin:

“I went to the phone, I wanted to ask the mine officer what and how to do, because the vessel was very tilted and water was added to the premises, but it turned out that the phone was not working. I - to the pipes, which were also broken; at this time there was a team: "Save through the tower, whoever can," because the battleship began to roll very quickly. "

Apparently, Sablin and V. Zavarin tried to communicate with each other at about the same time, but both failed because the telephone and voice communications were no longer working. And then, probably, “Chernov” sent by Sablin “arrived” - although this is not explicitly stated anywhere, but most likely it was he who gave the order to the mine team to leave through the tower. Which she did, having previously stopped the dynamo cars and closed up the hatches.

The death of "Oslyaby"


According to the testimony of midshipman Shcherbachev 4th (the squadron battleship “Eagle”), by the time the Oslyaby went out of service at 14.20 the ship had a strong roll to the left side and sat with its bow to the very tops. The author is inclined to trust this judgment, since the observation was carried out at an extremely small distance from which it would be difficult to make a mistake, and it is fully confirmed by the evidence of other eyewitnesses. In this position, the ship of the port of its battery deck were in close proximity to the water.


M.P. Sablin wrote:

“When the roll was very large and the water began to pour into the living deck through the hatches and the fan from the battery, I went up to the battery deck and saw that the water was pouring into the gun port of the battery ... Then I called in a few people and wanted to shut up the neighboring port, but soon made sure that this is impossible. The half-portals were killed, and in the wake, the water rolled into the port in a jet, knocked out our suitcases and covered us with our heads. ”

Obviously, being in a similar position, the Oslyabya squadron battleship could no longer count on salvation. He was doomed for the simple reason that the flow of water into his hull took on a completely uncontrollable character - the battery deck was very hot, and the emergency parties could not do anything about it. But noteworthy is a very interesting nuance - M.P. Sablin indicates the flow of water through the battery port, and not through holes in the Oslyaby building. After another 20 minutes, at 14.40. "Oslyabya" rolled over.

Results and conclusions


To begin with, let's look at the bow of the ship and determine where exactly the mine officer M.P. Sablin and conductor V. Zavarin. The yellow fill indicates the dynamo room, the green indicates the separation of underwater mines, and the red line is the living deck


On the image - a fragment of a longitudinal section of the battleship "Relight", but they with the "Oslyabya" were of the same type

As you can see, none of the Oslyaby crew who survived the Tsushima battle and wrote reports “on instances” could not observe the compartments located in the nose from the turret compartment of the bow of the 10-inch tower and below the living deck (circled in the diagram blue). Thus, we, of course, cannot possibly know what was happening there for sure. However, from the evidence of V. Zavarin and M.P. Sablin we know that:

1. As a result of a 305 mm projectile entering the bow of a battleship at the level of a residential deck, water not only spilled on this deck, but also began to penetrate through the hatches, cracks of the deck and ventilation shafts into the rooms below it.

2. At the same time, water was very actively flooding even the rooms very distant from the place where the projectile burst, such as a 6-inch cartridge cellar, rooms for underwater mine vehicles (it was located immediately behind the compartment for underwater mine vehicles

From this it can be assumed that the rooms located closer to the rupture site were filled with water even more intensively, since in this area of ​​leaks through the cracks and damaged ventilation there should have been much more. But, apparently, from 13.56 to 14.12, that is, in the interval between the first and second or third hits of the 305 mm Fuji shells, relatively little water entered the nasal compartments, this did not cause a sense of danger for the senior officer D.B. Pokhvistneva, neither Lieutenant M.P.Sablin, who were next to the hole.

However, another interpretation of events is also possible. The nasal compartments below the waterline could fill up quite intensely, but DB Pokhvistnev and M.P. Sablin did not pay attention to this, attributing the appearance of trim on the nose to the appearance of water on a residential deck.

And then, on December 14.12, Oslyabyu was hit by a second 305-mm shell, which fell into the area of ​​coal pit No. 10. This caused flooding first of the pit itself, and then also the placement of a spare hook-camera under it: I must say, it was very similar damage, and with similar consequences received “Relight”, but more on that in the next article. Naturally, these flooding caused a roll, which they tried to correct with counter-flooding. Unfortunately, the author could not figure out which compartments were counter-flooded, but common sense suggests that these were compartments on the starboard side opposite the 10th coal pit.

What should all this lead to? Recall the logic of protecting the ends of armadillos that did not have a full armored belt along the waterline. Their creators were well aware that the bow and the stern of such ships unprotected by armor in battle could get damaged, which is why they will be flooded. But at the same time, it was assumed that this water would only flood the compartments at the waterline, and an armored deck would protect it from penetrating deeper, that is, into the hold of the ship. Thus, it turned out that the flooding would be limited from below by the armored deck, and in the direction to the center of the ship by armored traverses, which means that the ship will take a relatively small amount of water, which will not prevent it from continuing the battle.

Thus, if everything went “according to the textbook”, and if Japanese hits did not cause extensive flooding of the hold compartments in the nose of the Oslyaby, then the water entering the body through the hole from the 305-mm “suitcase” and any other shells that fell in the nose of an armadillo, at some point it would simply stop arriving. A certain amount of it would have spilled onto the living deck, probably creating some trim on the nose, but that was all, because the compartments remained buoyant below the armored deck. Then, "Oslyabya", slightly sinking under the weight of water taken from flooding and counter-flooding, was supposed to return to an even keel, without significant heel and trim.

But instead, the trim on the nose and roll to the port side continued to increase. And this suggests that after 14.12/305, that is, after a 10 mm projectile from Fuji got into a coal pit, Oslyaby’s bow compartments were intensively flooded with water, primarily the port side compartments were heated. If water would evenly fill the nasal compartments of both the left and right sides, then the battleship sank strongly, but did not have a big roll. If it were not the bow compartments of the port side that were drowned, but the others that were next to the coal pit No. XNUMX, then in this case the battleship should have gotten a big roll, but its trim on the nose remained small. But all observers indicate the presence of both heel and trim, which refutes both hypotheses just expressed. Accordingly, there are no other options besides intensive flooding of the nasal compartments, and first of all - on the port side.

What could cause these flooding? It is possible that their cause was precisely the third 305 mm Fuji shell, in the opinion of Japanese artillerymen, struck Oslyabyu in the immediate vicinity of the first twelve-inch hit. It is also possible that there was no hit, and that the Japanese shell simply exploded near the side, but the hydrodynamic shock shook the leaking hull structures of the ship, which caused the influx of water into the bow compartments on the port side to increase significantly. And maybe there was no third hit either in the Oslyaby corps, or next to it, and that all this was only a mistake of observation among the Japanese, and the whole point is that after the occurrence of the bank due to the flooding of coal pit No. 10, a semi-underwater hole in the bow of the ship from the first hit it became "underwater", the pressure of water increased, and this accelerated the flooding of the compartments on the left side of the doomed battleship.


Could it be that the hull structures in the bow of the Oslyabi received additional damage from other smaller Japanese shells, which caused intense flooding? This is extremely doubtful, and here's why. No matter how powerful the 152-203-mm high-explosive shells of the United Fleet were, but still, in order to cause significant damage to the residential deck, they had to get into it. But from the testimony of M.P. Sablin, we know that the living deck in the bow fell much below sea level: it began to be flooded from the battery deck, which was above it and which was drowned through damaged gun ports. So, if there were a lot of Japanese landmines on a residential deck, then it would be drowned primarily through holes from gaps, meanwhile M.P. Sablin doesn’t mention anything like this - neither about holes, nor about flooding.

Thus, the hypothesis that Oslyabya was incapacitated and completely lost its combat efficiency as a result of only two or three hits of 305-mm shells in the waterline on the port side, seems to be the most reliable. And even if not a single Japanese shell had fallen into an armadillo, he still could not have fought, since a ship with a roll of 12 degrees and sitting in the water to the very clutches, obviously, was not able to continue the battle.

Furthermore. The author of this article will venture to suggest that these two or three Japanese twelve-inch shells from the Fuji caused not only a complete loss of combat effectiveness, but also the death of the ship. The fact is that, according to the reports of the same V. Zavarin, Oslyaby’s bilge compartments continued to be flooded all the time while he was downstairs - regardless of the measures he had taken. Most likely, the water flowed down from the flooded living deck and seeped out from the flooded bow compartments, that is, its appearance was in no way connected with other hits in Oslyabya. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the flooding from the 305-mm shells from the Fuji hit the Russian battleship gradually took on an uncontrolled character, and would still have led to the death of Oslyaby, although this, of course, would have happened a little later than happened .

However, even if the author is wrong in this assumption, it should be understood that all other hits only finished off the ship. In this case, “misericord” should be considered damage to the gun ports, which ceased to be closed, despite the fact that in conditions of a rather rough sea they could not be repaired. These damages turned out to be quite enough for the Oslyaby’s death, and other hits on the hull, towers, and superstructure of the battleship did not play a decisive or even at least somewhat significant role.

Now consider the damage to the squadron battleship "Relight", received by him in battle on July 28, 1904 in the Yellow Sea.

To be continued ...
Author:
237 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Cowbra
    Cowbra 11 July 2020 05: 05
    59 th
    At the same time, the same type of Oslyaba, Peresvet, endured with honor all the hardships of the battle of Shantung

    Forgive me for drinking Peresvet is the same type as Oslyaba? !!! Well, for this wonderful heroic battle, you can tell in more detail what caliber Peresvet received from old Chinese cannons - so, "by an abomination"? And compare with the fact that 12 inches were stuck into Oslyabya - not a horseradish.
    The author, would you catch your breath, huh?
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 11 July 2020 05: 12
      25
      Minus from me, sorry for rudeness. request
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 11 July 2020 05: 48
        21 th
        I agree, rightly so. But again, I do not get there - why did Oslyabya and Peresvet become of the same type, but for that battle ... It's just obscene. Heroic victory over scows, edrit-clobber!
        Type "Peresvet" - that's just not at all "Peresvet", for Oslyabya still Stepan Osipovich, who - said Makarov, and it was not for Peresvet. where are the bulkheads, beyond Oslyabya ...
        1. Rakovor
          Rakovor 11 July 2020 07: 41
          18
          What are the scows and old Chinese guns? Did you smoke uncle? Actually, under Shantung, Peresvet fought with the same Japanese battleships as Oslyabya under Tsushima.
    2. PPD
      PPD 11 July 2020 09: 01
      19
      Dear Cowbra!
      No matter how indignant you are, it would be nice to express your thoughts more clearly.
      Easier to communicate and understand each other. hi
      And yes, Peresvet is the same Oslyaba. And Victory, by the way, in general, too.
      The battle of Shantung is actually a battle in the Yellow Sea on July 28, 1905.
      From the Japanese side
      "4 squadron battleships (Mikasa, Asahi, Fuji, Sikishima) and 2 armored cruisers (Kassuga and Nissin);
      1 armored (Yakumo) and 3 armored cruisers (Kasagi, Takasago and Chitose).
      2 armored cruisers ("Hashidate" and "Matsushima") and 1 armadillo of the 2nd class ("Chin-Yen" [1]).
      1 armored cruiser (Asama) and 4 armored cruisers (Akashi, Suma, Akitsushima, Itsukushima).
      18 destroyers and 30 destroyers. "
      where did you find there-
      tell what caliber from old Chinese guns
      riddle.
      The number of hits 12 "is different at times. And not in favor of Oslyabi.
      In the Yellow Sea, there was also Victory 3. There were hits in it too.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 July 2020 11: 59
      22
      Quote: Cowbra
      Why excuse me the overpower Relight is of the same type as Oslyab? !!!

      Have you tried to learn history? These are the same type of ships
      Quote: Cowbra
      Well, for this wonderful heroic battle, you can tell in more detail what caliber Peresvet received from old Chinese cannons - so, "by an abomination"?

      "Peresvet" received hits in the ZhM from Japanese battleships. And if you think that Chinese cannons were standing on them ... Then it was the Chinese cannons that drowned the Oslyabya.
      Quote: Cowbra
      And compare with the fact that 12 inches were stuck in Oslyabyu - not horseradish.

      In Peresvet, as I already wrote in the article, 13 (THIRTEEN) 12-inch shells hit
      Quote: Cowbra
      The author, would you catch your breath, huh?

      Commentator, would you go to teach materiel.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 11 July 2020 15: 12
        14 th
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Commentator, would you go to teach materiel.

        Meant - time. Sorry. I am a commentator, not a commentator, but you and Makarov, peace be upon him, argue, and he spoke precisely for Oslyabyu. Moreover - for the alteration. Ships let Nikolashke showing. how is guano drowning. You know that. I suspect. That Oslyabya and Peresvet are one-part series, thanks. author, I already knew. It is precisely that there was a lot of blackbird in Oslyab, and it is, I repeat, Stepan Osipovich. Purely accidentally enraged?
        1. Scaffold
          Scaffold 12 July 2020 00: 39
          +7
          When they say "for", meaning "about", it instantly betrays a deaf, uneducated province in the speaker.
  2. Catfish
    Catfish 11 July 2020 05: 08
    +6
    Andrew, hello and best wishes, I am glad to meet again! smile
    So, it turns out that after the first two hits, the Japanese could no longer spend Oslyaby's shells at all. The question is, why was such a ship needed at all? With the same type "Peresvet" it is still more understandable - two mines are not two shells. But still somehow not very much.
    1. Comrade
      Comrade 11 July 2020 06: 27
      13
      Quote: Sea Cat
      The question is, why was such a ship needed at all? With the same type "Peresvet" it is still more understandable - two mines are not two shells.

      Dear colleague, let us recall the English dreadnought "Audacious". Just one German mine, and aha!
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 11 July 2020 06: 40
        +3
        Sorry, colleague, but everything is learned by comparison. "Breslau" began to sink only after the explosion on the fourth and fifth mines. Then the "Goeben" ran into a mine, but the Germans did not even think to cancel the operation, I do not remember exactly how many mines it caught that day, but neither mines nor landing they did not prevent him from going aground for repairs to Sevastopol.
        1. Astra wild
          Astra wild 11 July 2020 07: 49
          -6
          The cat, as I understand it, are you talking about the German ship Geen? TN in WWI fired at Sevastopol, but with what fright: "to leave on their own for repairs to Sevastopol"? Excuse me, where is the logic: shell Sevastopol and return to there?
          I didn’t use anything, maybe you?
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 11 July 2020 08: 04
            11
            Yes, I'm talking about the battle cruiser "Goeben", after it broke into the Dardanelles and raised the Turkish flag, and the officers put on the fez, it began to be called "Sultan Selim Yavuz", and at least back in the nineties it was afloat and stood like a memorial laid up in Istanbul.

            Now about the use: in the morning I do not drink even with a hangover.

            And regarding logic, do not take the trouble to re-read (if you even read it) the history of the First World War and the Civil War, then, I hope, you will not ask stupid questions with some kind of transparent hints of my drunkenness.
            I have nothing more to say to you.
            1. Astra wild
              Astra wild 11 July 2020 12: 54
              +3
              Cat, my misfortune is that I do not know the history of the fleet. I knew that Geben fired at Sevastopol,. And you write that you ate up to Sevastopol for repairs. I decided that he then got the otvetka
              2) I'm sorry if I offended
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 11 July 2020 13: 23
                +6
                Nevermind. It’s just that in 1918 the Germans were already bossing in Sevastopol, and only there was a dock that could take a battlecruiser.
                1. vladcub
                  vladcub 11 July 2020 16: 32
                  +1
                  Kostya, purely out of mischief: 1918 is another story. If not for February 1917 and the complete collapse of the Republic of Armenia, Geben would not see Sevastopol
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 11 July 2020 16: 35
                    +4
                    Am I arguing? The revolution is always to blame. smile
          2. Ryaruav
            Ryaruav 11 July 2020 09: 30
            +8
            geben in 1918 docked in Sevastopol after the Brest peace
        2. VIP
          VIP 11 July 2020 07: 51
          +2
          Once at a time -1 is not necessary. German quality speaks for itself-2
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 11 July 2020 13: 26
            +3
            In terms of quality, are you right, how many torpedoes did the Bismarck take? Here I am about the same, but "Oslyab" had two rounds. True, these ships are considered different eras, but still.
            1. vladcub
              vladcub 11 July 2020 16: 24
              +6
              Kostya, hi. We have joy: Andrei remembered us.
              Agree that without his work it was monotonous. Not enough bright materials
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 11 July 2020 16: 37
                +2
                Of course I agree! Not even monotonous, but just bored.
                1. vladcub
                  vladcub 11 July 2020 17: 46
                  +1
                  You're not quite right: Ryzhov and Shpakovsky enliven a little
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 11 July 2020 18: 04
                    +2
                    If not for them, then it would be possible not to approach the computer. I meant the overwhelming mass of material on the site.
        3. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 13 July 2020 09: 18
          0
          Quote: Sea Cat
          Sorry, colleague, but everything is learned by comparison. "Breslau" began to sink only after the explosion on the fourth and fifth mines. Then the "Goeben" ran into a mine, but the Germans did not even think to cancel the operation, I do not remember exactly how many mines it caught that day, but neither mines nor landing they did not prevent him from going aground for repairs to Sevastopol.

          But what about the Pommern? He, too, was drowned after a torpedo strike and no vaunted German quality helped him)
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 13 July 2020 09: 44
            +3
            Squadron battleship "Pommern" 1905 Hit by one or two torpedoes from a British destroyer. Detonation one of the shell cellars. The explosion broke the ship in half. What questions?
            1. Trapperxnumx
              Trapperxnumx 13 July 2020 10: 28
              0
              But how did they allow !!!!
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 13 July 2020 10: 32
                +3
                And who to ask, everything turned into dust there. "Golden Bullet" (torpedo laughing ). Remember "Hood", there is generally a full paragraph.
      2. Cowbra
        Cowbra 11 July 2020 06: 49
        -4
        Quote: Comrade
        Just one German mine, and yeah!

        Or
      3. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 16: 03
        +2
        mines are different :)
        a mine that caused problems for "Baden" would easily send "Peresvet" to the bottom
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 July 2020 12: 01
      +6
      Quote: Sea Cat
      Andrew, hello and best wishes, I am glad to meet again!

      Good afternoon, dear Konstantin!
      Quote: Sea Cat
      So, it turns out that after the first two hits, the Japanese could no longer spend any more "Oslyaby" shells.

      I guess, yes
      Quote: Sea Cat
      The question is, why was such a ship needed at all?

      let's get back to this conversation after analysis on Relight drinks
  3. Comrade
    Comrade 11 July 2020 06: 24
    11
    At the same time, water was very actively pouring in even the rooms very distant from the place where the projectile burst, such as a 6-inch cartridge cellar, underwater minecraft rooms (it was located immediately behind the underwater minecraft compartment

    Last but not least, such an extensive distribution of water is associated with the poor quality of the construction of the battleship, design flaws and omissions during the operation of the ship.
    The seams of the watertight bulkheads flowed, water poured in jets through rivet holes passed by negligent builders, half-decayed rubber of doors and hatches passed through the water, missing oil seals. Water found its way in the places of passage of rods, pipes, cables of the engine telegraph, as well as through bulkheads and decks. The door from the right aft stoker to the engine room was first left open to lower the water level in the stoker and to be pumped out by the engine room drains. And then failed to pull up the "waterproof" door - it just did not close.
    By the way, dear Andrey, in one popular LJ there was an assertion that one of the shells hit by Oslyabya was not 12 "from" Fuji ", but armor-piercing 8" from one of the armored cruisers. Since we are talking about hitting the armor belt, the 12 '' high-explosive projectile could not penetrate the armor plate.
    It sounds, of course, reasonable, but cases are described when the force of the explosion of a 12 '' high-explosive projectile sometimes simply pressed the armor plates inward, thus opening access to water inside the ship.
    even if the author is wrong in this assumption, it should be understood that all other hits only finished off the ship.

    Moreover, there were relatively few of them, hits with other calibers. And what the 6 '' - 8 '' shells of the Japanese are capable of, the battle showed on August 1. Many dozens of hits in "Russia" and "Thunderbolt", so what?
    1. VIP
      VIP 11 July 2020 07: 30
      +1
      Well, if the brute did, then why fence the garden? In this case, "no questions asked"
    2. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 11 July 2020 10: 12
      -2
      Quote: Comrade
      Last but not least, such an extensive distribution of water is associated with the poor quality of the construction of an armadillo

      Strange, then the rabbis and jamshuts were not allowed to be built, and those who drink all the water from the taps were sitting below the Pale of Settlement. Russian Orthodox people built, and when they descended, they sanctified and sprinkled it. And here it is.
      1. Kostya Rokol
        Kostya Rokol 30 July 2020 11: 25
        0
        Once I read about the "renovation" of the new gunboat "Brave" in France - I was amazed at a lot, just as the French at one time marveled at the peculiarities of our shipbuilding. Although, of course, this should not be extended to all of our shipbuilding, but an illustrative example.
        1. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 30 July 2020 11: 46
          -1
          Quote: Kostya Rokol
          Once I read about the "renovation" of the new gunboat "Brave" in France - I was amazed at a lot, just as the French at one time marveled at the peculiarities of our shipbuilding. Although, of course, this should not be extended to all of our shipbuilding, but an illustrative example.

          And where can you get acquainted with the ALL list of defects on the "Brave"?
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 July 2020 12: 03
      +4
      Quote: Comrade
      Last but not least, such an extensive distribution of water is associated with the poor quality of the construction of the battleship, design flaws and omissions during the operation of the ship.

      I absolutely agree, dear colleague!
      Quote: Comrade
      It sounds, of course, reasonable, but cases are described when the force of the explosion of a 12 '' high-explosive projectile sometimes simply pressed the armor plates inward, thus opening access to water inside the ship.

      It is truth too. I will mention all this when I get to "Peresvet" drinks
      1. 27091965
        27091965 11 July 2020 17: 17
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Comrade
        Last but not least, such an extensive distribution of water is associated with the poor quality of the construction of the battleship, design flaws and omissions during the operation of the ship.

        I absolutely agree, dear colleague!


        You can make a small addition to this, indicated in the scan from a report in my 1898

    4. rytik32
      rytik32 15 July 2020 00: 17
      +2
      Quote: Comrade
      Moreover, there were relatively few hits by other calibers.

      I had at least 30 hits in Oslyabya, and most likely 40-50. Not so little.
      And now I can fully justify these 40-50 hits in terms of% hits.
      1. A detailed analysis of the rate of fire on the example of the failed Fuji, Nissin, Azuma guns suggests that in the initial phase of the battle the rate of fire was in places 1,5-2 higher than the average for the battle.
      2. I found evidence from Jackson that as a result of intensive training of Japanese artillerymen before Tsushima, the accuracy of stem firing increased from 40% to 60%. This is 1,5 times !!!
      Quote: Comrade
      And what the 6``-8 '' shells of the Japanese are capable of, the battle showed on August 1. Many dozens of hits in "Russia" and "Thunderbolt", so what?

      There was no "hail of shells" effect in that battle. The hits were very extended in time and managed to deal with their consequences quickly.
  4. Cartalon
    Cartalon 11 July 2020 06: 55
    +3
    Em overload and shitty building?
    1. Constanty
      Constanty 11 July 2020 08: 36
      +2
      Overload is also at the very construction stage, but what I think is decisive here also due to oversized carbon reserves.
      All this led to the low buoyancy of "Oslyabiya"
    2. Andy
      Andy 11 July 2020 09: 55
      +2
      of the three "overexposures" Oslyabya is the most unfortunate
  5. unknown
    unknown 11 July 2020 08: 26
    12
    In order for the karapas deck to be able to fulfill its function of limiting the flow of water in the event of a hole in the bow tip, an uncovered belt, it must be in the calculated position.
    All armadillos of this type were built with overload.
    The minimum - at "Pobeda" - 646 tons.
    Average - at "Peresvet" - 1136 tons.
    Maximum - at - "Oslyabi" - 1734 tons.
    As a result, the draft of "Peresvet" with a normal coal reserve was 0,5 meters more than in the project.
    With a full supply of coal, the main armor belt went under the water by 0,3 meters.
    In this case, the waterline was protected by an upper, thinner and shorter belt.
    Karapas stopped working, fulfilling his function.
    Makarov ordered not to accept more than two-thirds of the total supply of coal on "Peresvet" and "Pobeda".
    Construction overload "Oslyabi" is greater.
    That is, in order for its waterline to be protected by the main armor belt, and the Karapas could normally perform its function, it must be further underloaded with coal.
    But, in this case, taking into account possible damage to pipes, a drop in traction, an increase in coal consumption, the question arises, would the Oslyabya reach Vladivostok?
    It turns out that "Oslyabya" was doomed from the very beginning.
    Or maximum unloading, but a critical shortage of coal, or as in real life: one hit, which became "golden" and led to the death of the ship.
    Then another question arises: the battleship "Fuji had the same booking scheme, with bare extremities and a carapace.
    All Japanese battleships entered the battle with a huge operational overload of fuel.
    Accordingly, the "Fuji" carapace was also not in the calculated position, and could not fulfill its function. With all the ensuing consequences, in the event of a "golden" hit.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 11 July 2020 09: 19
      +3
      Quote: ignoto
      With all the ensuing consequences, in the event of a "golden" hit.

      Here comes into force such an aspect as the quality of the shells. If the Japanese high-explosive shell tore the unarmored casing, like an ace warmer, giving, in addition to the main hole of a large area, a bunch of holes from fragments, the Russian armor-piercing shell had an effect only when it hit the armor. And that is scanty. . And when hit in the unarmored part, he could simply fly further unexploded. The effect of hitting Russian shells is perfectly described by the example of the Kamimura cruisers after the battle in the Korean Channel with the wok
      https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/28064.html
      Personally, I see the low quality of ammunition of the Russian fleet as one of the main points of failure at sea in the REV.
      So we can only dream of drowning Japanese EDBs and cruisers from artillery fire. request smile
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 11 July 2020 10: 18
        +5
        Quote: Rurikovich
        then the Russian armor-piercing projectile gave effect only when hit in armor. And that is scanty. . And when hit in the unarmored part, he could simply fly further unexploded. The effect of hitting Russian shells is perfectly described by the example of the Kamimura cruisers after the battle in the Korean Channel with the wok
        https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/28064.html

        By the link that you provided, the author writes:
        "At the same time, the destructive effect of the shells themselves was quite strong - in the event of an explosion. A relatively small explosive charge and a fuse in this case turned out to be advantages. If Japanese shells usually exploded when passing through the hull plating, with most of the high-explosive and a significant part of the fragmentation action "Remained" outside the ship, then Russian shells exploded inside the hull. The explosion formed large fragments with great destructive and lethal force, which pierced the cabin bulkheads, decks and even the opposite side. This could lead to extensive flooding with water entering the lower deck when hit near the waterline at the extremities (such a scenario was realized on the Asama in the Tsushima battle, during Ulsan hits on Izumo, Iwate and Takachiho did not result in flooding due to the calm sea), and ensured the defeat of people in a large area (this the scenario was realized when the "Rurik" shell hit "Takatih about").
        In general, it can be argued that the effect of Russian shells - mediocre - was not the cause of defeat in battle. Much more important was the hit ratio. "
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 12 July 2020 13: 19
          +1
          BORMAN82, in this case it was necessary to give another part. Which went before this paragraph wink
          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. Mast and pipe hits were practically harmless to the enemy - meanwhile, these parts accounted for up to a third of all hits

          The total area of ​​the armored parts of the ship is much less than the total area of ​​the visible silhouette, therefore the probability of hitting unarmored parts is higher than into armored ones. The effect, if the shells were high-explosive, would be higher than from armor-piercing, a third of which simply flew overboard. The concomitant effect from the explosion of a land mine with a large amount of explosives is higher than from an armor-piercing one. Even without penetrating armor with land mines, you can inflict more damage on the enemy, or even lead the ship to death (Tsushima as an example) And if at least one armor-piercing projectile fulfilled its function, breaking through the armor and disabled at least one car or boiler, disabling the ship , then you could talk about something. But that was not the case. The failure of "Asama" under Tsushima due to damage to the steering drives is not a very convincing example, and it is a single one.
          Consequently, with an equal number of hits, Japanese shells look more effective than Russian ones. Accuracy issues are already on a different plane than the quality of ammunition.
          1. Bormanxnumx
            Bormanxnumx 12 July 2020 14: 59
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            And if at least one armor-piercing shell fulfilled its function, breaking through the armor and incapacitating at least one car or boiler, disabling the ship, then it would be possible to talk about something. But that was not.

            Hit the aft tower "Fuji" Lucky, extinguished ...
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 12 July 2020 15: 42
              0
              The result - 4 Russian EDBs died from artillery fire and not a single Japanese one was lost according to the results of the main phase of the daytime battle of the main forces at Tsushima. So it doesn't matter if you're lucky or not.
            2. Alexandra
              Alexandra 12 July 2020 17: 13
              +2
              Armor penetrations were, tower, waist ...

              https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/70594.html

              The 1884 sample tube was not a delayed action fuze, and the shell exploded immediately behind the armor. The action of "large fragments" to which a weak explosive charge of smokeless gunpowder gave little energy during an explosion did not spread beyond the compartment in which the projectile explosion took place. For example, the rupture of a high-explosive (most likely) 305 mm Russian projectile after breaking through the 178 mm plate of the main armor belt of the battleship "Mikasa" in the battle at Shantung on July 28, 1904:

              "A" plug "in the form of a truncated cone was knocked out of the armor, with an outer base diameter of 350 mm and an inner base diameter of 850 mm. The inner wall of the cofferdam was punctured, water tanks No. 2 and No. 4 located at the point of impact, and the pumping pipe of tank No. 2 were damaged Below the waterline, under the impact site, 7 rivets were damaged connecting the casing sheets, a leak occurred.The head of the projectile was found behind the armor plate, fragments fell into tank # 2, however, the internal bulkhead of the tank remained intact, and this made it possible to avoid serious flooding. "

              As we see the bulkheads and decks were not broken through with fragments - a very weak armor effect.

              With "Fuji" the same story - the weak action of the explosion of the shell could only set fire to the powder charges. The explosion of the Russian shell could not cause the detonation of the Japanese shells in the tower:

              "The projectile hit over the embrasure of the right gun (Fig. 5) and exploded inside the turret, in the rear of it - apparently, upon impact on the rear armor wall, which was ripped off the mountings and thrown overboard. The right gun was damaged, both telescopic sights were broken. The handrail on the right wing of the aft bridge was damaged by shell fragments. Inside the turret, 8 semi-charges located in the fighting compartment caught fire. 40 minutes after the hit, the turret was re-activated, but until the end of the battle only the left gun was firing. "

              The frontal armor of the dome of the Fuji turret was 152 mm thick.
              1. rytik32
                rytik32 13 July 2020 01: 57
                0
                Quote: AlexanderA
                As we see the bulkheads and decks were not broken through with fragments - very weak armor action

                A broken cork indicates that the shell exploded in the armor. Those. too thick armor for that projectile speed.
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra 13 July 2020 13: 02
                  0
                  Quote: rytik32
                  A broken cork indicates that the shell exploded in the armor.

                  Yes. The 850 mm diameter of the inner base of the knocked-out plug "tells" that the shell exploded in the armor. It is known that the explosive charge of the Russian 12 "high-explosive" projectiles is a smokeless gunpowder. At the same time, the "ordinary" (not delayed) shock tube Baranovsky.

                  It is less known that the explosive charge of Russian armor-piercing shells was also a powder.

                  http://istmat.info/node/25120

                  From the most comprehensive report on the Ministry of War on the activities and condition of all branches of military command in 1904

                  "In order to increase the destructive effect of armor-piercing shells, the question was raised about equipping such shells with any strong explosive. But since all explosives used to equip high-explosive shells, such as pyroxylin or melinite in their pure form, do not withstand the impact of a shell into a slab and explode with such an impact before the projectile has time to penetrate the slab, it was decided to test some chemical compound of an explosive with inactive substances for equipping armor-piercing projectiles (as a result of which the explosive becomes more inert), and at present the Commission on the Use of Explosives settled on explosive B, which promises good results. "

                  It is surprising at the same time that there are very competent authors (including the naval_manual author quoted above) who claim that Russian shells with Brink’s two-capsule tube:

                  a) "burst inside the hull" of the ship;
                  b) due to "large fragments with great destructive and lethal force" had a sufficient destructive effect.
                  1. rytik32
                    rytik32 13 July 2020 23: 57
                    +1
                    Are you sure that the talk in this report is about armor-piercing shells used in the Navy?
                    I believe that the Minister of War in his report will not go into the affairs of the Minister of the Sea.
                    1. Alexandra
                      Alexandra 14 July 2020 11: 43
                      0
                      Do you think the explosion in the pyroxylin charge shell before the shell managed to break through the armor plate somehow depended on the department, the Military or the Marine?
                      1. rytik32
                        rytik32 14 July 2020 16: 22
                        +1
                        It does not depend on the department, but very much on humidity. Probably various departments used pyroxylin of different humidity.
                        And I sincerely do not understand the essence of the problem. In the fleet, our shells did not suffer from premature explosions. Fortunately, a lot of materials on this topic are available now. In the same Tsushima, our shells were completely burst for 152 mm armor.
                      2. Alexandra
                        Alexandra 14 July 2020 21: 09
                        0
                        It does not depend on the department, but very much on humidity. Probably various departments used pyroxylin of different humidity.


                        By the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, there was no explosive at all in the armor-piercing shells of the War Department. There were no high-explosive steel shells with a pyroxylin explosive charge. There were cast-iron shells with a bursting charge of black powder and a head shock tube of a sample of 1884.

                        During the war, coastal artillery received high-explosive steel bombs.
                        http://ava.telenet.dn.ua/history/10in_coast_gun/desc_1905/gl_03.html
                        "According to the 1904 artillery order No. 115, steel bombs will henceforth be made instead of ordinary cast iron bombs. The steel bomb (sheet XXXV, Fig. 2) consists of a body a, a screw-in bottom b and a lead gasket under the screw-bottom flange. A pyroxylin charge in a case is placed into the cavity of the bomb, and a fuse is screwed into the screwed hole in the bottom. Instead of pyroxylin, the bomb can be loaded with smokeless gunpowder and a bottom shock tube, model 1896 [137] "

                        Do you suppose that the Maritime Department hid from the War Department the percentage of pyroxylin moisture at which the pyroxylin charges of armor-piercing shells do not explode during the piercing of the armor plate? :)
                      3. rytik32
                        rytik32 14 July 2020 23: 13
                        0
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Do you suppose that the Maritime Department hid from the War Department the percentage of pyroxylin moisture at which the pyroxylin charges of armor-piercing shells do not explode during the piercing of the armor plate? :)

                        I suppose that the minister mutilated some scheme for the sake of new orders)))
      2. rytik32
        rytik32 13 July 2020 01: 49
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        The effect, if the shells were high-explosive, would be higher than from armor-piercing shells, a third of which simply flew overboard

        Here are just all the important parts of the battleship protected by armor. Therefore, the projectile must penetrate the armor and explode behind it. Japanese shells were not able to do this because of the instant fuse and the tendency of the shimosa to detonate when hitting an obstacle.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Even without breaking through the armor with a landmine, it is possible to inflict more damage to the enemy, or even cause the ship to die (Tsushima as an example)

        Tsushima is a bad example, we cannot compare. We have no data on hits on our ships. Even for Eagle, the data are very contradictory. But according to ZhM everything is scheduled! And our shells look good compared to the Japanese ones.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        And if at least one armor-piercing projectile fulfilled its function, breaking through the armor and incapacitating at least one car or boiler

        To do this, at least you need to get closer than 20 cables. Otherwise, armor penetration was not enough.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Therefore, with an equal number of hits

        Where does the data about an equal number of hits come from? It turned out that in the eyeballs, the Japanese fired at least 2 times more accurately.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 13 July 2020 14: 30
          0
          Quote: rytik32
          Here are just all the important parts of the battleship protected by armor.

          As the experience of "Tsesaervich" shows, it is possible to bring the EBR into an incapacitated state even without hitting the HHF.
          1. rytik32
            rytik32 14 July 2020 00: 11
            0
            Polomoshnov:
            In general, the battleship "Tsesarevich" did not receive serious damage in vital parts. The propeller-steering group, cars, boiler rooms worked smoothly, but the vulnerability of the conning tower, where due to its design flaws, vertical armoring was not involved in ensuring invulnerability, led to the temporary failure of the steering wheel of the hydraulic steering gear. The battleship retained the main offensive and defensive elements. Damage to the upper parts of the ship, a temporary loss of control would not play a significant role if the squadron were sufficiently stable. The decisive grounds for refusing a breakthrough to Vladivostok were damage to chimneys (especially the aft, which required replacement) and the foremast. As a result of the fall in natural draft, fine coal did not burn out during artificial draft, but was carried out into pipes, and the consumption of coal increased significantly, which was not enough before Vladivostok. A broken foremast with increased excitement and wind could carry overboard and destroy the entire nose bridge.
    2. Alexandra
      Alexandra 12 July 2020 13: 26
      +1
      Quote: BORMAN82
      In general, it can be argued that the effect of Russian shells - mediocre - was not the cause of defeat in battle


      The author who claimed this very dismissively addressed the question of the design features of the Russian shells used in the Tsushima battle.

      "Mediocre" action was demonstrated by Russian 12 "shells with a powder explosive charge and a bottom tube of the sample of 1884 as a fuse. Armor-piercing shells of smaller calibers with a bursting charge of wet (waterlogged) pyroxylin and a Brink delayed-action fuse or simply did not explode due to problems with the fuse or the initiation charge of dry pyroxylin did not detonate the main over-wet charge of the compressed pyroxylin, and the effect in this case was even worse than mediocre.

      The author in his notes gives examples of mediocre action after breaking through the Japanese armor of Russian shells with a powder explosive charge and a bottom tube of the sample of 1884 without indicating what kind of shells they were. The reader has the impression that a similar action was also shown by Russian shells with a charge of wet pyroxylin (blasting explosive) and a Brink fuse. But this is not so.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 12 July 2020 15: 50
        0
        Quote: AlexanderA
        The author who claimed this very dismissively addressed the question of the design features of the Russian shells used in the Tsushima battle.

        And here is Tsushima, if the author described the results of hits of Russian shells in the battle on August 1, 1904 in the Korea Strait? And based on these results, conclusions are drawn on the quality of Russian shells at 75,152 and 203mm request
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 12 July 2020 18: 21
          +3
          Quote: Rurikovich
          And here Tsushima


          The mentioned author has repeatedly addressed the topic of the quality of shells, for example here:

          https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/70594.html

          I probably will not reveal a big secret that shells with a bursting charge of smokeless gunpowder and a bottom tube of the Baranovsky model of 1884 and shells with an explosive charge of wet pyroxylin and a bottom tube of Brink of the 1896 model had different armor action and different problems of both the fuse and bursting charge (in the first case, much smaller). Alas, for the aforementioned author, in his projectile "questions and answers", the type of fuse and the type of explosive charge are trifles that do not deserve attention.

          Do you want to see the connection between the battle of August 1, 1904 and Tsushima? Good:

          http://tsushima.su/RU/libru/i/Page_7/page_18/page_19/Page_31/page_31_001/

          "One of the weakest points of the Russian fleet in the Russo-Japanese war turned out to be shells. This topic deserves a separate serious discussion. Within the framework of this article, we will only note that serious doubts about the quality of ammunition among the artillerymen of the detachment appeared only after the Tsushima battle. Experienced shooting from the cruiser. "Russia" on old ship boilers, bed nets and a cistern showed that 152-mm high-explosive shells with bottom two-capsule Brink tubes and equipped with 920 g of wet and 45 g of dry pyroxylin were in service and exploded only upon impact the ground (in this case, about 30 meters behind the target, that is, at a distance exceeding the width of the ship) This was explained by the fact that the Brink tubes were designed for armor-piercing shells, and therefore gave too long a break delay. The depth of the craters in soft clay soil did not exceed 40-50 cm. The number of fragments was too small, and they themselves were large in size. of illogical caliber had Iugin sensitive tubes and carried 8,83 times more explosive.8 Comments, as they say, are superfluous.

          At the same time, shells equipped with smokeless gunpowder and Baranovsky tubes were tested. The result was completely different - the explosions occurred 0,5-1 m from the first contact with the obstacle, the old boiler used for the experiments was distorted by the first hit.

          Under pressure from Infantry General N.P. Linevich, commander-in-chief of the land and naval forces operating against Japan, Vice-Admiral F.V. Dubasov, Chairman of the Marine Technical Committee, by telegram dated July 9, 1905, authorized the reloading of cruisers' ammunition from pyroxilin to smokeless powder transition to Baranovsky pipes. "


          https://military.wikireading.ru/29246

          "The cruiser" Russia ", anchored at a distance of 3 cab., Fired from 152-mm 45 caliber guns.

          The following tests were tested: 1) high-explosive explosives with explosive charges of wet pyroxylin, equipped with two-capsule Brink fuses, and 2) high-explosive explosives specially prepared with local means, equipped with smokeless powder with Baranovsky bottom fuses, i.e., with a filling and a tube used in 305 mm shells and those used in old (eg, "Rurik") 203 mm 35 cal.

          “Test results,” wrote Jessen, “. . . . fully confirmed all the assumptions about the complete invalidity of high-explosive shells of our fleet, in comparison with the Japanese. "

          Jessen called the Act on the Experiments "directly accusatory and unfolding a terrifying picture of the reasons for our successive failures and defeats at sea throughout this war."
  6. unknown
    unknown 11 July 2020 12: 20
    0
    The quality of the shells is mixed.
    1. Nebogatov’s squad came out later.
    Accordingly, loaded ammunition later.
    The quality of the shells was higher.
    Nebogatov's flagship hit the cruiser Asama with two 12 "rounds.
    The shells hit the aft end, over the carp.
    As a result of the damage received, Asama left the battle for a while.
    Why was the quality of the shells loaded on different units so different?
    2. There is a funny, but only at first glance, point of view that Shimose was a mythical character. As well as his "shimosa". The Japanese did not possess the necessary technologies either for the production of large-caliber shells, or for re-equipping them with the mythical "shimosa".
    The British for the battle in the Tsushima Strait delivered a batch of large-caliber shells equipped with liddite. According to the results of the battle, black powder was left to equip their large-caliber shells. The British, even before the Russo-Japanese War, had cases of barrel destruction. The reason for this was the design of the guns. A square wire was wound on the inner tube in several layers. Then, on this "beauty" the outer casing was pulled.
    This design did not hold well and charge cord, which led to a quick burnout and loss of accuracy, and thin-walled land mines with an excess of excessively sensitive liddita.
    I had to change the formulation of the charging cordite, and save the black powder for the equipment of shells.
    Although, in the future, the outdated design of the guns forced to move on to increasing the caliber of the guns, while maintaining a low projectile speed.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 12 July 2020 13: 28
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      Although, in the future, the outdated design of the guns forced to move on to increasing the caliber of the guns, while maintaining a low projectile speed.

      And if you look from the other side, then the same British admitted that the principle of "light projectile - high speed" was erroneous in comparison with "heavy projectile - low speed". At long distances, a heavy projectile is preferable in its effect than a light one. So in this case, the British, on the contrary, benefited from the quality of the guns described by you ...
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 13 July 2020 01: 53
        +2
        Quote: Rurikovich
        the principle of "light projectile-high speed" turned out to be wrong

        Let me remind you that our 305-mm shells of the 1907 g model had the same weight as the dotsushima ones. And only in 1911 we switched to "heavy" shells, and obviously not Tsushima was the reason, but the appearance of squadrons of dreadnoughts. So the "lightness" of the projectile was not critical.
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 13 July 2020 09: 43
          0
          Quote: rytik32
          Let me remind you that our 305-mm shells of the 1907 g model had the same weight as the dotsushima ones. And only in 1911 we switched to "heavy" shells, and obviously not Tsushima was the reason, but the appearance of squadrons of dreadnoughts. So the "lightness" of the projectile was not critical.

          So these shells were for already existing ships, their entire supply was already sharpened for the dimensions of "light" shells. It was impossible to feed heavy shells there in principle.
          1. rytik32
            rytik32 13 July 2020 23: 36
            +1
            Quote: Trapper7
            It was impossible to deliver heavy shells there in principle.

            On "Eustathia" there were cannons the same as on Borodino and the towers of the dotsushima project, but the shells of the 1911 model could be used by redesigning the cellars and modernizing the feeding mechanisms. So in principle it was possible.
  • Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 11 July 2020 09: 11
    21
    Already the 115th anniversary of the Battle of Tsushima, but during this time not a single expedition to the Korean Channel was organized ...
    The Japanese found their "Yamato", the British investigated the Jutland "drowned men", the Italians found the "Roma", and here the whole fleet is in oblivion.
    "Academician Keldysh" with 2 "Worlds" was at the tombs of "Titanic" and "Bismarck". It was possible to find and inspect "Prince Suvorov", "Imperial Alexander III", "Borodino", "Navarin", "Oslyabya", attach a memorial plaque to the hull of the "Admiral Ushakov" BBO who died in an unequal battle ... Mass graves of thousands of people , which were reconciled by time, the depth of the ocean and the bottom soil, which once saw the rays of the sun and is now doomed to darkness.
    Husbands, sons, fathers found their last resting place near distant islands. Seawater had already dissolved their bones, their clothes were pulled away by currents, and only ships at the bottom continue to serve.
    Maybe the money needed was less than the tank biathlon show, in which blacks maimed T-72B3, and the moral effect would have been greater.
    1. unknown
      unknown 11 July 2020 12: 36
      -2
      Strange as it may seem, sunken ships disappear.
      "Petropavlovsk", from which it was even possible to lift some objects, disappeared after the Second World War. In the literal sense of the word. Allegedly, the Japanese took it apart during the war.
      Now, many researchers are paying attention to the strangeness of that war.
      In China and Japan, the architecture of the so-called "imperial" style has been preserved.
      A single style for the architecture of the time around the planet.
      The Japanese planned to move the capital of their state to Korea.
      The question is ... why?
      Port Arthur was poorly equipped as a naval base.
      And next, in the neighborhood, as in a fairy tale, the largest and well-equipped trading port of Dalniy appeared, to which the railway was pulled.
      The question is ... why? With whom were you going to trade at that time in this region?
      Some researchers directly identify the so-called Spanish-American and Russian-Japanese wars, comparing the outputs of Witgeft and Servers.
      If we add to this the presence of our own, non-synchronized calendar systems, and the calendar forgery of the early twentieth century ..., then ...
      In general, everything is more fun and more fun ... and more confusing.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 16: 58
        +3
        Quote: ignoto
        In general, everything is more fun and more fun ... and more confusing.

        ... and the nuclear war of 1815 ... :)
        1. unknown
          unknown 11 July 2020 19: 12
          0
          Yes, there is such a version.
          But, they are more inclined towards the version of the ecological disaster that occurred at the end of the "traditional" eighteenth century. And then, the death of a single state, as a result of the "great French revolution", eight million gnawed human skeletons in the catacombs of Paris, and other "gaiety".
          It would be funny if it were not so sad.
          The history was written by humanities.
          When the techies started "checking" it, everything fell apart ...
          Sorry, so sorry ...
          To this discipline, I have devoted the best years of my life.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 19: 20
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            The history was written by humanities.
            When the techies started "checking" it, everything fell apart ...
            Sorry, so sorry ...
            To this discipline, I have devoted the best years of my life.

            There are many interesting questions ...
            But the answers, I think, in our lifetime we will not know.
            1. unknown
              unknown 11 July 2020 19: 52
              -2
              Of course, we won’t know the answers to all the questions, but ...
              The critical mass is already accumulating, the traditional version is cracking in all directions.
              In fact, the traditional version of history is not a scientific discipline. and part of fiction. Section unscientific fiction.
              Therefore, when people turn to me for advice on what to read about history, I advise only one book: "Inhabited Island" by the Strugatskys. It may seem strange, but the content of this book may turn out to be more reliable and close to the real history of our planet than the traditional version of history.
              I repeat once again.
              I'm sorry...
      2. Astra wild
        Astra wild 11 July 2020 18: 22
        +3
        In fairness, not only are you perplexed about the Far Port. This was published on the site. And about the calendar, you don't like the Gregorian style?
        1. unknown
          unknown 11 July 2020 19: 18
          -1
          And what about the Gregorian calendar?
          Each developed country had its own calendar account.
          In Germany - his own, in the UK - his own, in Russia - his own. And, for example, 1900 according to the German calendar did not correspond to 1900 according to English. The calendars were reduced to one denominator, German, by the end of the thirties of the twentieth century.
          Therefore, individual events split, or even upset.
          Radmir Kilmatov writes brilliantly on this subject in his live journal.
          There is an abundance of material on this subject.
          The line of lies is much closer than you think ...
          And this is very upsetting ...
          1. unknown
            unknown 11 July 2020 23: 27
            -2
            Probably, for the minuser, the news is that the calendar year did not always include twelve months.
            I'm not talking about "ancient Rome", but about a much closer time.
            For example, in Southern Europe, two crops are harvested during our so familiar "traditional" year.
            Accordingly, a year could consist of six months.
            From harvest to harvest.
            The financial years are even more interesting.
            In the UK, for example, there are still years of varying lengths.
            There is even a fiscal year of three calendar months.
    2. Astra wild
      Astra wild 11 July 2020 12: 43
      +2
      In the Soviet Union, the history of the REV was little studied, and therefore there are no serious historians for that period. There are no historians and no interest, and if there is no interest, the expedition will not be
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 11 July 2020 12: 48
        +7
        Clear. By the way, the remains of the German cruiser Scharnhorst, which was sunk by the British in 1914, were discovered in the Falkland Islands region last year.

        1. Astra wild
          Astra wild 11 July 2020 13: 16
          -2
          Colleague Bashkirhan, I am more familiar with the Falkland War: Argentina and England. At least in the newspapers flashed, and Scharnhorst does not say anything to me.
          1. Bashkirkhan
            Bashkirkhan 11 July 2020 13: 22
            +4
            The flagship of the German East Asian cruising squadron, who died 106 years ago. Here is a link if this story will be interesting:
            https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5475677.html
            1. Astra wild
              Astra wild 11 July 2020 18: 16
              +3
              Thanks, I will try to see. All the same, you need to know the story
      2. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 17: 04
        +2
        Quote: Astra wild
        In the Soviet Union, the history of the REV was little studied, and therefore there are no serious historians for that period. There are no historians and no interest, and if there is no interest, the expedition will not be

        How familiar are you with Soviet work on REE? :)
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 11 July 2020 17: 54
          +2
          In fact, not only she, but others are not very familiar with this topic.
    3. rytik32
      rytik32 13 July 2020 01: 54
      +1
      Our probable adversary in the Tsushima Strait has tracking posts for our submarines, so they do not let anyone in there.
  • Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 11 July 2020 09: 36
    +2
    the shell hit the 10th coal pit on the left side, breaking through the armor.

    So, still struck the GBP?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 July 2020 12: 04
      +3
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      So, still struck the GBP?

      Maybe :)))) Let's wait for "Peresvet" :)))
      1. unknown
        unknown 11 July 2020 19: 22
        +2
        If the shell pierced the main armor belt, then two questions:
        1. Was "Oslyabya" so heavily underloaded, with its huge construction overload?
        2. If he had a full supply of coal at the beginning of the battle, and his main armor belt was below the waterline, then what kind of shell hit him?
        Armor-piercing?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 July 2020 21: 07
          +1
          I am not yet ready to anticipate events - I will express my version in the next publication hi
  • Scaffold
    Scaffold 11 July 2020 09: 45
    +3
    Andrei, with all due respect, but the time is written through the colon. 13:00, 14:20 ... hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 July 2020 12: 05
      +1
      Quote: Scaffold
      Andrei, with all due respect, but the time is written through the colon

      Yes? And I always wrote through a point :)))) repeat
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 12: 30
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yes? And I always wrote through a point :))))

        In general, judging by the primary documents, the dividing mark was "who in what way."
        And periods, and colons, and just four digits in a row.
        Therefore - do not worry. :)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 July 2020 12: 34
          +4
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          Therefore - do not worry. :)

          Yes, in general, I was not going to, but thanks anyway! :)))
          1. Scaffold
            Scaffold 11 July 2020 13: 45
            +1
            http://ktvd.ru/kak-pravilno-napisat-vremja/#:~:text=%D0%A3%20%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%2C%20%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%20%D0%B8,%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%81%2C%20%D0%B0%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%20%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 11 July 2020 18: 48
              0
              In general, in such cases it is better to give the corresponding GOST. And not secondary-tertiary sources. Otherwise, the question arises: who advises this at all?
              1. Scaffold
                Scaffold 11 July 2020 20: 53
                +2
                He cited a link mentioning GOST, but for some reason it was deleted.
                GOST 7.64-90.
                GOST ISO 8601-2001.
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 13 July 2020 03: 09
                  0
                  Thank! So it is correct. I won’t climb wink
              2. Scaffold
                Scaffold 11 July 2020 20: 56
                +1
                But I have a counter question: what's the problem? This is elementary literacy. The fact that the time of day is written with a colon is as obvious to a literate person as the fact that "cow" is written with an "o". Why GOST?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 July 2020 20: 38
                  +2
                  Quote: Scaffold
                  But I have a counter question: what is the problem? This is basic literacy.

                  So I am an extremely illiterate person :)
                  1. Scaffold
                    Scaffold 12 July 2020 23: 25
                    0
                    I specifically did not address this question to you. wassat I just advise you to write through the colon. hi
                2. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 13 July 2020 03: 14
                  0
                  Elementary literacy has a foundation. Even the spelling of the word "cow" has a basis. Literacy comes from it. And even then the norm can change or have a couple of spellings and pronunciations.
                  And the writing of units of measure is such a topic that an outsider certainly may not know. You can always get into such a jungle that someone will be wrong. winked
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 11 July 2020 09: 56
    +1
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    the shell hit the 10th coal pit on the left side, breaking through the armor.

    So, still struck the GBP?

    coal pits were behind the upper armored belt. probably sat low
    1. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 11 July 2020 10: 27
      0
      Judging by the localization proposed by colleague Andrei, it’s still GBP.

      Although it may be, as above ...
  • Undecim
    Undecim 11 July 2020 13: 05
    +2
    About the causes of the death of the squadron battleship "Oslyabya"
    Let's start with the simplest. Squadron battleship Oslyabya died as a result of loss of stability
    All right. Therefore, in the article the author aims to find out the reasons that caused the loss of this stability itself.
    I want to note right away - I’m not trying in any way and do not want to offend the author, but in order to find out these very reasons, you need to own a section of the theory of the ship that studies stability, know the factors that determine it and the reasons that cause its irreversible violation. Without this, no explanation of the causes is possible. However, judging by the text, (once again voiced - no offense to the author), the author in this matter, to put it mildly, swims.
    The analysis of water releases and water inflows caused by these waterfalls alone does not provide a complete picture.
    A more detailed analysis is needed.
    For example, an analysis of the hydrodynamic loads that act on the deck of the ship in the bow at its flooding shows the transformation of the static stability diagram of the ship during this flooding.
    Just an analysis of hydrodynamic loads can explain why of the two ships of the same type, which at first glance suffered great damage, remained afloat, and received less damage - turned over.
    This is just one example.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 11 July 2020 16: 12
      +2
      V. N, here you are and supplement the author. So it will be useful to both us and the author
    2. alsoclean
      alsoclean 12 July 2020 13: 23
      0
      Or maybe you still listen to EVERYTHING that the respected Author wanted to say! Have you already seen the second part of the article? Not? Well, probably there will be some comparisons ... Or how? Then with pleasure I will read your expert opinion. In the meantime, do not be like ...... it’s not beautiful .....
    3. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 16: 15
      +2
      Good afternoon, dear colleague! Can I get a translator for you?
      simply, if you wanted to say that the article lacks analysis:
      -specific flooding volumes
      -mechanisms and the timing of their education
      - the impact of specific combat damage on the occurrence of specific volumes of flooding,
      -progressive effect of specific flooding volumes on loss of buoyancy and stability
      survivability battles
      so?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 12 July 2020 19: 12
        +2
        Good afternoon, dear colleague! Can I get a translator for you?
        Can. At least this translation is normal.
      2. rytik32
        rytik32 13 July 2020 08: 31
        +2
        Good day, Andrey.
        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
        specific volumes of flooding

        On my knee, I calculated the approximate volume of the possibly flooded premises of the hold and the tender deck, which the author circled with a blue line.
        I will make a reservation that the accuracy of the calculations is very low, but it turned out that even with the complete flooding of all the compartments inside the blue line - only 200 tons. It weighs less than coal burned in 2 days cruising.
        And now the question is: could these 200 tons lead to such a roll and trim?
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 09: 47
          +1
          Good afternoon, Alexey.

          but it turned out that even with the complete flooding of all the compartments inside the blue line, only 200 tons


          with the hydrodynamic equation we’re waiting for Undecim, I don’t know him, but I’m ready to google this week,

          however, the common sense of the school curriculum suggests that I should put the axis on the midship and consistently tilt the nose until the nasal half gives volume, taking into account the advantage,
          1.without bothering with complex calculations, I wang that the trim from 200 tons will not exceed a meter
          2. the struggle for survivability has not been taken into account - pumping 100 tons of boiler water in the bow overboard, to flood some compartment in the stern
          1. rytik32
            rytik32 13 July 2020 09: 49
            0
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            with the hydrodynamic equation we are waiting for Undecim, I don’t know him, but I'm ready to google this week

            Yes, it will be very valuable data.
            Without them, one can only assume the mechanism of the Oslyabi's death.
  • BAI
    BAI 11 July 2020 15: 02
    -1
    Why did one battleship die and the second survive?

    Yes, because there is such a concept - "Unlucky". Like a Hoodoo that exploded and sank after the first or second hit from the Bismarck. With the same success, one can consider the question: "Why was one ship blown up by a mine and sank, while the second passed nearby and survived?"
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 16: 38
      0
      Quote: BAI
      Yes, because there is such a concept - "Unlucky".

      The funniest thing (if such a word is appropriate) is what the British themselves thought.
      From circular intelligence from 1238B / 24:
      HOOD blown up by unlucky hit.
  • vladcub
    vladcub 11 July 2020 16: 01
    +5
    Andrew, without you, the site is monotonous: there are no works on the history of the fleet.
    With the exception of 1 or 2 quibbles, everyone missed your work.
    I hope that in addition to Peresvet, you have brought other materials
    PS. In addition to the Varangian and Korean, from the dead in the REV, nuclear submarines are being built: Emperor Alexander 3, Alexander Suvorov and everything seems to be. At least I haven’t eaten others now; I don’t remember surface ships. I remembered there is anti-submarine Peresvet.
    In your opinion, which of the ships are worthy to have their names revived?
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 16: 53
      0
      Quote: vladcub
      In your opinion, which of the ships are worthy to have their names revived?

      And here everything will depend not on the author of the article, but on the degree of "immersion in the topic" and the wishes of higher comrades.
      An example from history is the naming of the Baltic "noviks". At the time of their construction, the Tsar-Father was keenly interested in the Russian-Swedish war and wished that some of the "noviks" would receive names in honor of the ships and commanders of that war. This is how "Winner", "Izaslav", "Pryamislav", "Captain Crown" appeared ...
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 11 July 2020 18: 09
        +1
        My friend Macsen, I'm not saying that it depends on Andrey. I just asked: "which of the ships are worthy to be revived"? All the same, Andrey knows the history of the Russian fleet better than most of us.
        PS. What is wrong with the fact that Nicholas 2 remembered the Russian-Swedish war? At least some good
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 18: 16
          +1
          Quote: vladcub
          PS. What is wrong with the fact that Nicholas 2 remembered the Russian-Swedish war? At least some good

          There is absolutely nothing bad ...
          I just gave an example of how ship names can be born.
          But here at least the logic can be traced.
          But in the names of the Soviet post-war ships, logic walks as it wants.
      2. unknown
        unknown 11 July 2020 19: 28
        0
        If you use the names of the ships of the Russo-Japanese war, then only the names of the ships that did not die in this war.
        "Askold", "Oleg", "Bogatyr".
        "Varyag" is completely out of topic.
        Absolutely no heroic death at the very beginning of the war.
        Unfortunately, the navy lost the right to choose the names of the ships.
        Now the land Glavpur is steering.
        Completely incompetent in this thread.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 19: 43
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          If you use the names of the ships of the Russo-Japanese war, then only the names of the ships that did not die in this war.

          Well ... The continuity of names is not limited to one REV.
          After all, ships with such names were before the REV and after it.
          Of course, you need to think about "controversial" names like "Varyag", but if you "forget" the ships that died in the RYA, a whole layer of history will be deleted.
          How did Navarin, Dmitry Donskoy, Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol "stain" themselves? ..
          1. unknown
            unknown 11 July 2020 19: 57
            +3
            These names have bad energy.
            Unfortunately, our last civilization has lost a lot of knowledge.
            Including those related to subtle matters.
            Often, this was done deliberately.
            A striking example: the introduction of the so-called "theory of relativity", the main task of which was to exclude ether from the scientific circulation.
          2. Ivanchester
            Ivanchester 11 July 2020 21: 32
            0
            So after all, even now in the fleet there is Varyag and Dmitry Donskoy. The Suvorov is under construction. So with continuity everything is in order wink
          3. mmaxx
            mmaxx 13 July 2020 19: 14
            0
            The most interesting thing, for me at least, is that "Varyag" is a rather unlucky name. The only exception is the missile cruiser. He lived an ordinary, quiet life. In other cases, this is some kind of stain that does not lead to anything good.
  • Harry cuper
    Harry cuper 11 July 2020 16: 29
    +1
    Thank you very much, dear Andrei Nikolaevich, for interesting and informative material!
  • Mooh
    Mooh 11 July 2020 17: 01
    +1
    I haven’t read the article yet, I went in from the phone. It seems that a respected author in his Tsushima cycle himself answered the question posed in this article. Allegedly, they shot at Peresvet not at all the shimoza that was under Tsushima. As far as I remember, there was an assertion that during the war the Japanese switched to a thinner shell with a high content of explosives. I then asked the question where such data came from, but I did not receive an answer.
    1. unknown
      unknown 11 July 2020 19: 31
      -2
      And the answer will be incorrect.
      After all, he will destroy the whole theory of defeat.
      The answer is technological: did Japan have the technological capabilities for the production of large-caliber shells, and their equipment or reloading with the "mythical" "shimoza".
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 19: 50
        +1
        Quote: ignoto
        The answer is technological: did Japan have the technological capabilities for the production of large-caliber shells, and their equipment or reloading with the "mythical" "shimoza".

        Why possess, if you can buy ...
        I met two versions of the appearance of "new shells", in general, close:
        - the Japanese through the Americans bought from Bofors a large batch of 12 "and 6" shells filled with melinite;
        - the Japanese, through the mediation of "Bofors", bought shells from the British ...
        Moreover, the first version often floats in American works "near RYAV".
        1. unknown
          unknown 11 July 2020 20: 48
          -1
          Bravo. At last.
          Great answer.
          Japan did not have the technological capabilities to produce large-caliber shells.
          And there was no Shimose with his "shimosa".
          This is a literary version of the winners.
          I agree with the second version voiced by you.
          This is most likely an English delivery.
          They set up an experiment.
          Tried in combat.
          Alien hands.
          That is, they insured themselves against a possible negative result.
          Got a negative result.
          Everyone understood for themselves.
          Well done.
          1. Mooh
            Mooh 16 July 2020 01: 47
            0
            Japan did not have the technological capabilities to produce large-caliber shells.
            And there was no Shimose with his "shimosa".

            Production and reloading is one thing, and development is another. The Japanese could well acquire a large-caliber shell production line and documentation on their equipment. But the development and production of a new projectile, significantly superior to world analogues, clearly required a theoretical base and an engineering school, hardly available in Japan in 1904.
  • VIP
    VIP 11 July 2020 17: 37
    0
    Quote: 27091965i
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Comrade
    Last but not least, such an extensive distribution of water is associated with the poor quality of the construction of the battleship, design flaws and omissions during the operation of the ship.

    I absolutely agree, dear colleague!


    You can make a small addition to this, indicated in the scan from a report in my 1898


    For this it was necessary to clean: the engineers of the Izhora plant and
    receivers
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 11 July 2020 18: 10
      0
      If the face, then I'm only FOR
    2. unknown
      unknown 11 July 2020 19: 35
      0
      As if this was not the case in other countries.
      For example, in "enlightened" Great Britain.
      The first pair of "underdogs", the so-called Asama-class armored cruisers, of these "high-speed slugs" carried a "plasticine" harvey. Armor of absolutely disgusting quality.
      For which, in fact, "Asama" herself shook in Tsushima.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 20: 20
        +2
        Quote: ignoto
        For which, in fact, "Asama" herself shook in Tsushima.

        I am plagued by vague doubts that even an 89-mm Krupp could withstand a 12 "shell hit from a distance of 3500-4000 m ...
        1. unknown
          unknown 11 July 2020 20: 41
          -2
          Therefore, I remind once again that the harvey on the first pair of "underdogs" was "plasticine".
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 11 July 2020 20: 48
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            Therefore, I remind once again that the harvey on the first pair of "underdogs" was "plasticine".

            Will you show the numbers?
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 11 July 2020 18: 27
    +1
    Quote: Sea Cat
    Am I arguing? The revolution is always to blame. smile

    Colleague Olgovich will be glad: immediately 2 anti-revolutionaries. Just kidding
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 11 July 2020 18: 35
    +8
    Dear minusculers, do you all know the history of the fleet well? I admitted that I did not know the history of the fleet.
    And the question of harm: do your women all know the history of the fleet? In my opinion I am the only woman who goes into the weapons section
    1. unknown
      unknown 11 July 2020 19: 36
      +1
      You are wonderful.
    2. Phil77
      Phil77 12 July 2020 07: 57
      +1
      Quote: Astra wild
      Do your women all know the history of the fleet?

      * Our gun wives are charged,
      that's who our wives are! *
      Good morning Faith! So their minusculers are cursed! laughing
      1. Astra wild
        Astra wild 12 July 2020 11: 21
        +2
        Thanks for the support .
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 11 July 2020 22: 34
    +3
    everything would be ok, only in the flows of its mind-building, the respected A&Ch, as usual, is not able to answer where exactly the rest of the Japanese shells
    but if you remove one single completely worthless hypothesis about the equal accuracy of the Japanese on July 28.07 and May 14.05, then all these mind-sets collapse like a house of cards
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 11 July 2020 22: 43
    +4
    How lovely! Our mutual friend Andrei from Chelyabinsk, suddenly found time for his next fantastic article on the Russian-Japanese war. :) Could it be that the sudden outbreak of the coronovirus epidemic in Israel was the reason? I hope you are not fired, our dear friend? belay

    Alas, for the nth eleventh time, I am compelled to comment on the next fit of fantasy of our unconditionally respected writer.

    Judging by the information available to the author, the decisive damage to the Oslyaba was inflicted by the Japanese battleship Fuji. His gunners believed that they had achieved three hits of 305-mm shells in the left side of the Russian ship - and they all fell into the waterline area.

    With deep fatigue, for the twentieth time, I remind our friend Andrei that, according to OFFICIAL Japanese and Russian sources, NO ONE of Togolese’s battleships from the first detachment shot at Oslyab. wassat

    A couple of volleys were given by Nissin and Kasuga on a U-turn and that was all. Oslyabyu was shot by the second detachment of six BrKR Kamimura.

    Of the three hits of 305-mm shells in the port waterline area, Russian sailors from Oslyaby confirm exactly two — in the unarmored side in the bow and in the coal pit No. 10.

    None of the Japanese sources writes about 12 "shells hitting Oslyabya, all this is pure imagination of the author. Taking into account that the EBR was not fired at Oslyab at all, the sailors have nothing to confirm ..

    So, offer by offer, you can go through the whole article, but frankly already tired of doing it. Andrei has his own unwavering fans who steadfastly ignore any discrepancies between our friend’s articles and common sense. Convincing them no longer makes sense. A normal reader can only recommend rereading at least the official descriptions of these battles.

    As for the immediate cause of Oslyaby’s death, it has long been exhaustively described by our extremely unloved friend, Andrei from Chelyabinsk, an engineer Kostenko.

    1. Huge overload - an armored belt under water. All the described holes were OVER the main armor belt.
    2. Unarmored ventilation shafts and coamings. This means that the explosions of high-explosive shells on the cranked armored deck tore these pipes and opened huge holes pouring down the deck water.

    PS Well, the mysterious penetration in the region of the 10th coal pit has already been described a hundred times no less. This is not a hole, but a fallen off plate of the TOP armor belt, which led to additional flooding of the armor deck. I’m even afraid to imagine that our favorite dreamer from Chelyabinsk will write about Peresvet in the next article .. wassat
    1. unknown
      unknown 11 July 2020 23: 16
      0
      This version looks logical.
      Huge construction overload.
      Operational overload: full coal reserves plus boatswain reserves.
      Protection on the waterline in fact: the upper thin (102 mm harvey) short belt that did not even cover the nasal casemates of medium-caliber artillery.
    2. Comrade
      Comrade 12 July 2020 05: 48
      +5
      Quote: Saxahorse
      So, offer by offer, you can go through the whole article, but frankly already tired of doing it.

      So do not do it!
      Quote: Saxahorse
      with deep fatigue, for the twentieth time

      I ask you, stop running after Andrei in the forum, well, sit down and write an article about Tsushima, for example. Explain write.
      And we will appreciate it.
      Quote: Saxahorse
      As for the immediate cause of Oslyaby’s death, it has long been exhaustively described by our extremely unloved friend, Andrei from Chelyabinsk, an engineer Kostenko.

      By the way, since you are such a fan of Kostenko. You can tell why Vladimir Polievktovich lied, stating the following:
      With the help of our team, I was able to complete a full description of all the damage to the battleship “Orel” with the establishment of the size of holes in the outer side and hits in the armor plates of the side protection, in the armor and the conning tower, and also approximately determine the moments of all hits.
      During all stages of the daytime artillery battle "Eagle" received 42 shell hits 12 inch caliber and up to 100 shells of 8– and 6-inch calibers, not counting large fragments and small shells of mine artillery.

      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 12 July 2020 22: 30
        0
        Quote: Comrade
        since you are such a fan of Kostenko. You can tell why Vladimir Polievktovich lied, stating the following:

        Does this emotional passage of yours mean that in your opinion the mines and coamings of armadillos were armored? But this is an obvious reason for the flooding of the lower rooms ..
      2. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 23: 51
        0
        You can tell why Vladimir Polievktovich lied, stating the following:


        He took a simple technique:
        The 3/8 inch thick skin holes were: from a 12-inch shell - 8X8 feet, from an 8-inch shell - 5X6 feet, from a 6-inch 3X3 feet.

        this technique failed him, that's all

        1. Comrade
          Comrade 13 July 2020 04: 53
          +3
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          this technique failed him, that's all

          Would you like to say that the "Eagle" had one hundred and forty two holes with the parameters you listed?
          If the answer Yes, then do not consider it a work, colleague, to indicate the source of such information.

          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          He took a simple technique. The 3/8 inch thick skin holes were: from a 12-inch shell - 8X8 feet, from an 8-inch shell - 5X6 feet, from a 6-inch 3X3 feet. this technique let him down

          Apparently, your technique is different from the Kostenko technique.
          So what size holes in this case had to identify the caliber of the hit shells, let me curiosity?
        2. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 09: 59
          +1
          here is, for example, a fragment of the Japanese drawing of the "Eagle" tower, which reflects four hits that were not counted by the Japanese
          take JAPANESE drawings, but do a better job of calculating how many holes can be categorized as 3 x 3 feet (considering that this is not necessarily the size "in the light")

          1. Comrade
            Comrade 13 July 2020 17: 32
            +1
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            here is, for example, a fragment of the Japanese drawing of the "Eagle" tower, which reflects four hits that were not counted by the Japanese
            take the JAPANESE drawings, but count better how many holes can be categorized as 3x3 feet

            Dear colleague, why are you showing me the nasal the tower "Eagle", if you were talking about one hundred and forty holes in casing An Eagle 3/8 "thick with the following dimensions: 12" shell - 8X8 feet, 8 "shell - 5X6 feet, 6" 3X3 feet?
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 17: 34
              0
              then, that there are only 4 unaccounted hits in your Japanese statistics, open your eyes - look at the drawings, how many there are and what marks are not counted :)
              1. Comrade
                Comrade 13 July 2020 17: 48
                +1
                Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                only here 4 unaccounted hits

                Let it be for you :-)
                We look at Kostenko’s drawing, there is only one hit.

                Other marks are scratches from fragments, presumably.
                So what about Kostenko’s technique, which failed him? Finally, give the right technique?
                Along the way
                Quote: Andrei Shmelev
                open your eyes

                the "hit" on the far left from the diagram that you posted here cannot be seen in the photograph.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 20: 29
                  0
                  look at the picture below:
                  blue checkmarks - splinter hits
                  red - traces of the burst of large shells on the armor
                  yellow - maybe xs than
                  and green as a three-inch hit, and a large fragment from a close gap of 12 inches

                  Threat. if THIS drawing crashes, then what will remain with us except 42 + 100? :)

                  1. Comrade
                    Comrade 14 July 2020 00: 26
                    0
                    So what's up with the photo of the bow tower of the Eagle, colleague? How is it that there is a hit in the picture, but in the photo we obviously do not observe it?
                    And according to the methodology, you called Kostenko’s technique wrong, but you don’t give the right one.
                    1. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 00: 35
                      0
                      Want to say that Japanese data is incorrect? - Tady take Kostenko and believe each of his numbers,
                      well, or accept the above drawing
                      :)
                2. rytik32
                  rytik32 14 July 2020 23: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: Comrade
                  the leftmost "hit" from the scheme that you posted here cannot be seen in the photo

                  Valentine, and what should we see here in black and white photography?
                  For a better understanding of the issue, I will quote Lutonin:
                  "I am not talking about 6-inch shells that hit the armor, the hit could only be noticed by the lights, no cracks or potholes were received."
              2. Comrade
                Comrade 13 July 2020 18: 26
                +1
                And here is another drawing made by Kostenko (opens by clicking). As you can see, there is no "four hits", there is not even one single hit from Kostenko's memoir.
                Apparently, the Japanese in the image you presented depicted not shell а shrapnel hits.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 20: 32
                  0
                  but shrapnel hits.


                  1.then you will have to build a center for projectile rupture to get such fragmentation drawings :)

                  2.and is it possible to lay out a complete drawing? comparable to the Japanese
  • Comrade
    Comrade 12 July 2020 05: 06
    +2
    Quote: ignoto
    There is a funny, but only at first glance, point of view that Shimose was a mythical character. As well as his "shimosa". The Japanese did not possess the necessary technologies either for the production of large-caliber shells, or for re-equipping them with the mythical "shimosa".

    One of the reports of British observers, dedicated to the ammunition load of the Japanese battleships, directly states that part of the 12 '' shells was equipped with a shimoza. So it is written shi-mo-za.
    And the Japanese fired 12 '' shells even before the Russian-Japanese war, this is a historical fact.
    The Englishman writes that the Japanese, when testing, released many of these shells.
    1. unknown
      unknown 12 July 2020 07: 50
      -4
      If a historical fact, then this is one thing.
      But, and the existence of Lenin, the same seems to be a historical fact.
      Even in the mausoleum of someone's body lies.
      But on the surviving photographs and films about "Lenin", researchers single out EIGHT different "Lenins".
      It was possible to identify FOUR.
      This is Nikolai Karpov. Photo "Lenin in Razliv". Most dissimilar. Apparently the real one, killed in 1918.
      This is a worker Nikiforov. With him a lot of photos.
      This is Vladimir Ulyanov. Photo and film materials.
      This is Dmitry Ulyanov. Photo and film materials.
      Moreover, Nikolai Karpov arrived with Trotsky on a ship from the United States.
      And Vladimir Ulyanov, in a sealed wagon from Germany.
      That is, "Lenin" arrived in Russia in two different ways, from different directions.
      Almost at the same time.
      Just an evil wizard from the tale of Aladdin and the magic lamp.
      If it was possible to falsify even such a textbook personality as "the leader of the world revolution", then falsification of the Russian-Japanese war is an everyday matter.
      For example, the biography of the "Queen of England", now alive, is rewritten almost every year.
      PS Never held on to false information from the principle. I am always ready to admit if I was mistaken. But, in this case, my opinion has not changed. Japan, even according to the official version, began its ascent into civilization since the Meiji revolution. And this is 1867. The entire earlier history of Japan is unreliable. There are researchers who have come to the conclusion that the earlier history of this island nation is a literary hoax completely written off from English history.
      PPS Japanese, according to official history, came to the islands from the territory of modern China.
      But, in the territory of modern China, all burials older than 150 years are the burials of white people.
      And that is a fact. Very uncomfortable, but true.
      1. VIP
        VIP 13 July 2020 20: 36
        +1
        I didn’t meet such nonsense
      2. Mooh
        Mooh 16 July 2020 02: 01
        +1
        researchers identify EIGHT different "Lenins".

        Not so long ago I came across material in which the "researchers" identified 8 different Putin's and now what?
        You seem to be an intelligent person, and sometimes you begin to carry such savagery, at least stand, even fall.
  • Tutashkhia date
    Tutashkhia date 12 July 2020 09: 10
    0
    In short, he drowned.
  • Sergey Suliga
    Sergey Suliga 12 July 2020 20: 21
    +8
    In 1990 I wrote an article for the magazine "Naval" No. 3 on this topic: "Why did Oslyabya die?" But the magazine survived only 2 issues, and the article was not published. Then in 2002 on one of the sites there was a discussion on the same topic, also with pictures and documents. My opinion, then and now, is an overload. Due to the known construction overload and calculated (based on the last loading of coal and its consumption before the battle, as well as the fact that every 52 tons of additional loads at Oslyabi caused an increase in draft by 1 inch), it was shown in the article that the main the belt at the beginning of the battle was under water. And the upper belt is thin and short, plus other design features. So then "Oslyabyu" could be drowned and medium-caliber shells. It was no longer a battleship. Also, the overloaded Borodino-class ships still had a 102 ... 152-mm upper belt with cofferdams behind it over the water along the entire length of the hull, and their position was much better. And by the evening the main belt of “Eagle” even came out of the water. The full version of the article "walks" somewhere on the Internet.
    1. Comrade
      Comrade 13 July 2020 05: 13
      +2
      Quote: Sergey Suliga
      And at the “Eagle” in the evening the main belt even came out of the water.

      Sergey, it’s an honor for me to talk with you, but still let me disagree with you.
      If we look at this photo of the bow of the "Eagle", taken on the morning of May 15, 1905,

      then the draft of the battleship will give us reason to believe that on the morning of May 14, 1905, the upper edge of the main armor belt of the battleship "Eagle" rose above the waterline by at least ten centimeters.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 July 2020 08: 13
      +3
      Hello, dear Sergey!
      Extremely flattered by your comment. Taking this opportunity, let me express my sincere admiration for your work on the history of the fleet.
      Quote: Sergey Suliga
      In 1990 I wrote an article for the magazine "Naval" No. 3 on this topic: "Why did Oslyabya die?"

      Of course, I read "Why did" Oslyabya "die on the site" Tsushima ". Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your arguments. For example, you indicated in your article:
      It appears that Oslyabya had more than 14 tons of coal before the battle on May 2.000

      While from the signal book of "Almaz" it follows that the coal on the "Oslyab" in the morning of May 13 was only 1415 tons, and by the beginning of the battle, of course, even less.
      And it is very difficult for me to accept your hypothesis about overload as the main cause of the Oslyabi's death. Of course, if the ship is overloaded so that its armor belt is submerged, it can sink from damage to its unarmored hull. I don’t argue with that. But for this it is necessary that he took large masses of water through these damages. We know from Sablin's words that, for example, the living deck was not completely flooded even when water was already pouring in through the gun ports of the battery deck. In other words, the volume of water that entered Oslyabya over the armored deck does not explain the strong roll and trim on the bow, but the flooding of the bow compartments below the level of the armored deck explains those very well.
    3. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 10: 26
      0
      Good day, Sergey,
      you need to calculate the progressive trim, which is considered with sufficient accuracy in AutoCAD or another similar engineering program as follows: the body is drawn and the angle under the volume is calculated, this week I’ll do it, lay out
  • Ivanchester
    Ivanchester 12 July 2020 22: 30
    +2
    Quote: Comrade
    So do not do it!

    Dear Valentine!
    I think you will agree that in this situation, the doubts of the Saxahorse have the right to life. Because the version of Oslyabya’s death set forth in the article, at least, conflicts with what is written in the work of the Historical Commission (namely, the battleships of the 1st Japanese fighting detachment fired at Suvorov, and fired at Oslyabya fire BrKr).
    In this situation, it would be good to refer to the source of the author’s hypothesis, but Andrei limited himself to a non-specific indication of some “data the author has”.
    In this regard, I would be grateful if you or Andrei himself explained, on the basis of which, nevertheless, it can reasonably be assumed that 12-dm shells fell into Oslyabyu, moreover, more than once.
    1. Comrade
      Comrade 13 July 2020 05: 22
      +3
      Quote: Ivanchester
      I would be grateful if you or Andrei himself explained, on the basis of which, nevertheless, it can reasonably be assumed that 12-dm shells also fell into Oslyabyu

      The report of the commander "Fuji" gives the time and number of hits with 12 '' shells.
      Quote: Ivanchester
      the version of Oslyabya’s death set forth in the article, at least, conflicts with what is written in the work of the Historical Commission (namely, that the battleships of the 1st Japanese fighting detachment fired at Suvorov, and fired at Oslyabya fire BrKr).

      The version of the Historical Commission, in turn, contradicts the Japanese data, which can be seen on Sidorenko's chart, for example. And there is information from "Top Secret History", and not from Kostenko's memoirs.
      "Shikishima" fired at "Oslyaba" until the last moment, until he went under water. "Fuji" transferred fire to "Suvorov" a little earlier.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 July 2020 07: 41
      +3
      Quote: Ivanchester
      I think you will agree that in this situation, the doubts of the Saxahorse have the right to life.

      Dont Have.
      Quote: Ivanchester
      Because the version of Oslyabya’s death set forth in the article, at least, conflicts with what is written in the work of the Historical Commission (namely, that the battleships of the 1st Japanese fighting detachment fired at Suvorov, and fired at Oslyabya fire BrKr).

      You see, dear Ivan, the Historical Commission, when describing the shooting of Japanese ships, directly refers to the Japanese official Meiji. That is, there are no other sources (which is not surprising). And Meiji does not at all claim that the Japanese EBRs fired exclusively at Suvorov. Meiji only says that Japanese EBRDs opened fire on Suvorov. This, of course, is not the same thing, since in battle the Japanese ships periodically endured fire, which was also noted at Meiji. Here is a fragment of the description of the 1st phase of the battle:
      "Our 1st combat detachment ... focused its fire mainly on the lead ships of its two columns" Suvorov "and" Oslyabya ", shooting at the rest as well."

      In general, Saksakhors's assertion that the Japanese EBRs did not shoot at Oslyaba is based solely on his own free interpretation of Meiji. It is written that "EBR opened fire on Suvorov" and at Saksakhors it turned into "only shot at Suvorov."
      Well, the top-secret Meiji has a report from Commander Fuji. Presumably, he knew where his ship was shooting slightly better than Saxahorse. laughing
      1. Ivanchester
        Ivanchester 13 July 2020 08: 48
        +2
        Andrey, thanks for your reply.
        Is it known in what book Sov. Does the secret story describe this episode (and, possibly, its more accurate “coordinates”: chapter and page)?
        I think that in this situation, a quote from the source could be an excellent argument in favor of your version.
        Or against if something else is written there smile
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 July 2020 09: 39
          +2
          Good afternoon!
          For this, you should still contact a respected Comrade, although he, as I understand it, will not be able to present the source, as he lost the downloaded files due to damage to the hard drive. But maybe he will remember the coordinates that you write about?
          A quote from the source ... It's in Japanese :))) There are no official translations.
          I can only refer to the topic of Tsushima, "the peculiarities of Japanese cuisine or how the donkey was fried." There, in the discussion, it sounded like a refrain that it was extremely difficult to track exactly which Japanese ship at whom it was shooting at the first stage of the battle, since the Japanese constantly endured fire. And this was said by people who worked with the top-secret Meiji. By the way, there is a schedule there, who when shot at Oslyabya, although the author wrote that he, too, might be wrong about something ...
          And the commander’s report ... Somewhere he seemed to have been translated, but the quote from the live journal is still not proof
          1. Ivanchester
            Ivanchester 13 July 2020 11: 58
            0
            A secret secret story is publicly available, so losing files is not a big problem.
            A much bigger problem is the document itself:
            1. It’s directly very voluminous, so finding the right places takes a lot of time.
            2. The quality of scans is poor. for a precise understanding of Japanese characters, each fragment is important.
            3. The modern spelling of many hieroglyphs has been greatly simplified compared to the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore, even people who speak Japanese are very difficult to read. Confirmed by my Japanese colleague)))

            Due to the above, it took me, for example, several days to find the figures for the balance of the “Eagle” ammunition referred to by the respected Comrade in the discussion of my article about Nebogatov, although these are only 4 numbers in one of the tables .
      2. VIP
        VIP 13 July 2020 20: 52
        +1
        Andrei, I do not agree: Saxacore may know better if PERSONALLY followed the flight of each shell.
        We also know how to joke
  • rytik32
    rytik32 13 July 2020 01: 29
    +1
    Andrei, good afternoon!
    I allow myself to criticize your article, but constructively.
    Evidence from the Japanese could not be accurate due to poor visibility.
    Let me quote quotes from British observers who were on Japanese ships during the battle.
    Packham:
    The Russian fleet was never fully visible, and sometimes it was completely lost sight of. The combination of fog and smoke made the outlines fuzzy. So, there was no certainty in the sequence of even the most important Russian ships when they entered the battle

    Jackson:
    ... the hulls were barely distinguishable by dim gray contours, whose light yellow pipes with black tops sometimes protruded, contrasting strikingly with them. Three consecutive recounting of ships could not give a satisfactory result due to the constant disappearance of one or two of them behind an impenetrable curtain of spray and smoke


    Therefore, when you write that the second projectile from "Fuji" hit 10 coal pit - this is incorrect. The Japanese recorded a hit in the middle of the ship. According to the testimony of the Russians, there is no time to get into the coal pit 10. In addition, "Fuji" fired only high-explosive 305-mm shells, so it could not penetrate the belt in any way (but there remains an option with a sequential hit of several shells and destruction of the armor plate). So the second projectile from "Fuji" and hitting 10 coal pits are not the same thing. This is just one version.

    You write "if the Japanese hits did not cause extensive flooding of the hold compartments in the nose of the Oslyabi, then the water that entered the hull through the hole from the 305-mm" suitcase "and any other shells." However, there is no evidence to support the flooding of the bilge compartments in the bow. Again, this is only a version.

    Next
    if there were a lot of Japanese landmines on a residential deck, then it would be drowned primarily through holes from gaps, meanwhile MP Sablin doesn’t mention anything like this - neither about holes, nor about flooding
    ... If Sablin does not mention it, it does not prove that there were no such holes. Here Ozerov from "Sisoy" saw
    I believe that on the Oslyabya the armor plates on the left side fell off against the command bridge, as I clearly saw the burning side, and the roll to the right quickly formed

    Only with the amendment that in that place the upper belt had not yet begun and the Japanese shells simply tore the unarmored side.
    And another question on the flooding of a residential deck. The battery was only in the central part of the ship, so Sablin was not in the nose and did not know the state of affairs there. And the nose from the middle is separated by an armored beam, which limited the spread of water. Therefore, we can only conclude that water got into the citadel: 1) through a hole in a 10 coal pit, 2) through the portico of the guns and then the leaks of the armored deck.

    Andrey, you give evidence that the penetration of water from getting into the living deck about 1 bow bulkhead was limited, but then completely ignore these data in further conclusions.

    Why do not you give evidence of Midshipman Markov?
    At 12 o’clock. 10 min. the battleship "Oslyabya" was so damaged that he was very tilted and there was a fire. After 5 minutes, he was already out of order, trying to straighten the roll. At first, apparently, he succeeded, but again the rapid Japanese fire made him finally go out. The roll increased greatly, water began to pour into the port 75 mm. guns and surface holes in the board


    Why do you ignore the fact that the ship crashes as a factor in the roll increase and the reason for the ingress of water through the gun ports?

    In my opinion, the version of the Oslyabi's death from two large shells has no right to life for the reason that the volume of the compartments flooded (even potentially) as a result of their hits is too small to cause a roll of 12-15 degrees and a sinking of the nose to the level of the haws. Let me remind you that the hull at the bow of the ship is narrow and divided into many compartments.

    My version. The cause of flooding was numerous holes in the unarmored bow at the level of the living deck. Their presence is confirmed by eyewitnesses from other ships (Shwe, Shcherbachev, Ozerov, Markov). What caliber of shells could make them? Yes, any of those used by the Japanese (152-305 mm). Here, quantity could well replace quality.
    1. Comrade
      Comrade 13 July 2020 06: 22
      0
      Sorry, Alex, that I’m getting up, I read your comment and could not pass by.
      Quote: rytik32
      Evidence from the Japanese could not be accurate due to poor visibility.

      Firstly, the captain of the 2nd rank V. I. Semyonov described the visibility from the board of "Prince Suvorov" in this way.

      It is logical to assume that if Semenov saw the Japanese so well, then the Japanese saw everything just as well.
      Secondly, if Pekingham was poorly visible, this does not automatically mean that the Japanese were poorly visible.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 13 July 2020 08: 00
        +1
        Good morning, Valentine!
        Quote: Comrade
        It is logical to assume that if Semenov saw the Japanese so well, then the Japanese saw everything just as well.

        No, it’s not logical. It may well be a situation when one enemy sees the other and fires at him, while the other does not see anything and cannot respond. I ask you to remember Jutland, where "Invincible" beat Lyuttsov with impunity for some time.

        Quote: Comrade
        Secondly, if Pekingham was poorly visible, this does not automatically mean that the Japanese were poorly visible.

        Here is a quote from the report of the commander of the ship Yakumo:
        The same hour 20 minutes. Distance to the enemy battleship 6000 [m] opened measured fire from 6 "guns.
        The battle formation of the enemy from our port side in the opposite direction in the same wake column is the first 4 ships of the Borodino type, then headed by Oslyabya - Sisoy Veliky, Navarin, and other numerous ships following long distance, except because of the fog, the names of the ships could not be determined.
        In this daytime battle, it was difficult to clearly see enemy ships because of thick fog at a distance of over 6000 m, [a] from time to time [and] 6000 m lacked clarity [visibility].
        1. Comrade
          Comrade 13 July 2020 16: 56
          0
          Hello, Alexey!

          Quote: rytik32
          No, not logical.
          We think out loud.
          1) You wrote that
          Quote: rytik32
          Evidence from the Japanese could not be accurate due to poor visibility

          2) As evidence brought
          Quote: rytik32
          Quote by British observer Packham:
          ....... there was no certainty in the sequence of even the most important Russian ships when they entered the battle

          3) And now bring a fragment of the report of the captain of the 1st rank Kazu Matsumoto.
          Quote: rytik32
          the enemy’s battle formation from our port side in the opposite direction in one wake column, the first 4 ships of the Borodino type, then headed by Oslyabya - Sisa the Great, Navarin

          See, Englishman could not identify Russian ships, but for the Japanese it not made up the problem. The commander of "Fuji" listed the Russian ships with complete confidence.
          And Semenov saw everything perfectly.
          Speaking of Fuji.
          Not so long ago, you asked for a scheme to hit a Russian shell in a feed barbet. Due to the workload, I saw your comment with a request with a considerable delay. Therefore, he did not spread it.
          But over the past time, I compared the aforementioned scheme with another document, and finally established myself in the opinion that the one who invented the version was not right (most likely, this is V. Kofman, who freely interpreted Campbell), stating that "Fuji" was on the verge of death.

          Here is the source (article by N.J.M. Campbell's "The battle of Tsu-Shima" from Warship International magazine, 1978 Part 3), where is here about the barbet turned to its original position?
          12 "shell, hitting the shield of the stern barbet at 14.40. The shell pierced 6" armor at the right gun port, went along the gun and exploded on the upper traverse just before the upper position of the charger. 4 "the rear plate was knocked out by the explosion and flew overboard, and most of the roof was ripped off. The half-charge in the gun burst into flames, 8 quarter-rounds in the upper charger also caught fire, but the fire did not affect six high-explosive shells. 8 people died, 9 people were injured The pressure pipe of the hydraulic drive of the upper right rammer was broken, and, as they say, the water that gushed out of it under high pressure helped to extinguish the fire. The right gun was hit by shrapnel, and on this basis they did not shoot from it anymore, although later the arsenal in Kure was considered At the time of the hit, the right gun was almost ready for shot 13. 40 minutes later, the left gun was reactivated and fired 23 more shells by the end of the battle.

          When there is time, I will extract some details from the "Medical Description" and write an illustrated note about this very hit.
          1. rytik32
            rytik32 13 July 2020 23: 32
            +1
            Quote: Comrade
            the one who invented the version (most likely, this is V. Kofman, freely interpreting Campbell), stating that "Fuji" was on the verge of death

            No, this is not Kofman. To quote Campbell (translated by Feinberg):
            "Russian 12" armor-piercing (AR) shells contained a small explosive charge of wet pyroxylin and in the course of battle pierced 6 "armor in 6 cases. It seems that in all these cases the shells exploded with the maximum possible expected effect, but only hitting the shield of the stern barbet" Fuji "could be potentially disastrous." This is from the same article that you quoted.

            Quote: Comrade
            where is here about the initial barbet?

            Here is a clumsy translation from Japanese into English and then into Russian. Therefore, it turned out incomprehensibly.
            Here's how to interpret "burst on the upper traverse just before the top position of the charger"?
            If we are talking about the upper traverse, then this is a manual projectile feed mechanism located in the rear of the tower. But what then is the top position of the charger? And in general, what is a "charger"? I will assume that this is a punch (hammer, rammer, rammer). Then what kind of charger do you mean? The top one, the one in the turret, is intended for loading the "operational" stock of shells? But he has no top position! It is strictly horizontal (0 degrees). But the lower (main) works at an angle of 13 degrees and it has an upper position!

            But Krestyaninov translated it clearly:
            "exploded at the top of the charging compartment." The charging compartment is located in the barbette - a fixed part and the projectile could fly there only when the gun was loaded and was turned along the side.

            And a direct indication that the gun was charged at the time of the hit:
            "At the time of the hit, the right gun was almost ready for the 13th shot" at Campbell.
            "At the moment of impact, the guns were loaded for shot 13" by Krestyaninov.
            1. Comrade
              Comrade 14 July 2020 06: 19
              0
              Quote: rytik32
              But Krestyaninov translated it clearly: "exploded in the upper part of the charging compartment."

              I do not think, in this case, Krestyaninov’s translation conflicts with Campbell’s article, which says:
              4 "back plate was knocked out by an explosion and flew overboard

              Now look at the diagram, where is the back plate and where is the charging compartment.

              Also pay attention to a fragment of the armadillo model.

              Whether the installation of the main caliber in the diametrical plane at the time of the Russian shell hit, how could the back plate fly out overboard?
              I assure you with good reason, the installation was deployed, I managed to find even how many degrees.
              So much has been said about this hit that a description of it is a worthy separate post.
              You just gave the argument that the version that "Fuji" was on the verge of death is believed by many thousands of history buffs, and I dare to object.
              I will answer this way: tens of thousands believed Kostenko's data on 42 "suitcases" and 185 shells of the main caliber fired by "Eagle".
              The time has come, the Japanese archive has opened, and Kostenko’s data flew into the furnace.
              1. rytik32
                rytik32 14 July 2020 09: 08
                0
                Quote: Comrade
                I do not think, in this case, the translation of Krestyaninov conflicts

                I do not see any contradiction. When the tower is turned for loading, the charging compartment is open from above and communicates with the tower, forming virtually a single space. Those. the explosion at the top of the charging compartment could well knock out the back plate.

                Quote: Comrade
                how could the back plate fly overboard?

                Obviously with damage to the aft bridge. And here the photo would help us a lot ...
                Quote: Comrade
                The time has come, the Japanese archive has opened, and Kostenko’s data flew into the furnace.

                A common thing in history is when data is out of date. I'm not even surprised. There is even a special section of historical science: historiography, which studies the change in the views of historians over time. At one time, I was related to history and even began to write my Ph.D.

                Continuing the theme of assessing the caliber of the hit Japanese shells. Skews are visible to the naked eye even when assessed under calm conditions and the availability of time (I am shooting in an LMM 10 inch shells). And then what to ask with Kostenko? And the article of respected Andrei about the role of medium caliber, I already read late. And I have an opinion that when evaluating the caliber was recorded just from the severity of the damage. Those. if the damage is heavy, then the caliber automatically becomes large)))
                1. Comrade
                  Comrade 14 July 2020 17: 48
                  0
                  Quote: rytik32
                  the explosion at the top of the charging compartment could well knock out the back plate.

                  In the diagram, I depicted the trajectory of the projectile, and then measured at what angle the projectile had to fly in order to explode in the charging compartment.

                  It turned sixteen degrees. If you believe the table from the Naval Weapons website, the angle of incidence 17,53 degrees corresponds to the firing distance 10 970 meters.
                  And then vague doubts began to torment me, and whether at 15:00 in Japanese, or at 14:42 in Russian, the distance between the opponents was equal fifty nine cable?
                  What do you think ?
                  1. rytik32
                    rytik32 14 July 2020 18: 37
                    0
                    You can't guess the angle here. After the passage of the armor plate, the projectile could change its trajectory, for example, as a result of the so-called. "normalization".
                    1. Comrade
                      Comrade 14 July 2020 18: 47
                      0
                      Quote: rytik32
                      After the passage of the armor plate

                      The projectile did not pass the stove; it hit the joint of the roof and the windshield.

                      Then the flight path changed, and he hit almost in the center of the rear plate, behind the left gun.
                      1. rytik32
                        rytik32 14 July 2020 22: 59
                        0
                        I added a trajectory to your upper beam (blue) to your drawing. It turned out somehow unrealistic)))

                        In addition, there is the following argument. The tower housed no more than 16 shells, and in the battle had already been made 12 volleys. That is, most likely the tower stock was already used up and had to be charged directly from the cellars with the rotation of the tower.
                      2. Comrade
                        Comrade 14 July 2020 23: 57
                        0
                        Quote: rytik32
                        I added a trajectory to your upper beam (blue) to your drawing.

                        Sorry, I do not understand why?
                        It is better to try to find out at what distance the Japanese were from the Russians, then estimate the angle of incidence of the projectile, and only then draw the trajectory.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        In addition, there is the following argument. The tower housed no more than 16 shells, and in the battle had already been made 12 volleys.

                        Is logical. There is reason to think.
                      3. rytik32
                        rytik32 14 July 2020 23: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: Comrade
                        It’s better to try to find out at what distance the Japanese were from the Russians, then estimate the angle of incidence of the projectile, and only then draw the trajectory

                        Ah, if we knew exactly which ship the projectile flew from ...
          2. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor 14 July 2020 13: 36
            +1
            Dear colleague, I risk making a mistake, but the EMNIP on "Fuji" loading before the war was modernized so that the tower could fire the N number of shots without turning in the center plane. For this, in particular, a part of the ammunition station was placed in the tower itself, and made it possible to send shells and charges without the main rammer. You have it right in the quote with the comment above
            The half-charge in the gun flashed, and those in top charger 8 quarter charges, but the fire did not affect six HE shells. 8 people were killed, 9 people were injured. The hydraulic drive discharge pipe was interrupted. right upper rammer, and, as they say, the water that came from it under high pressure greatly helped extinguish the fire

            That is, the upper chargers and rammers were affected by the explosion. Consequently, the explosion did occur in the space of the tower, not the barbet.
            1. rytik32
              rytik32 14 July 2020 18: 45
              0
              Quote: arturpraetor
              Dear colleague, I risk making a mistake

              You are not mistaken, it was.
              Quote: arturpraetor
              That is, the upper chargers and rammers were affected by the explosion. Consequently, the explosion did occur in the space of the tower, not the barbet.

              Yes, from the translation of Campbell's article, one can draw such a conclusion, but I repeat again, the translation is lame there. And at Krestyaninov it is written clearly and unambiguously. Despite the fact that both authors scooped up information from one source - a medical description.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    13 July 2020 08: 33
    +3
    Quote: rytik32
    Therefore, when you write that the second projectile from "Fuji" hit 10 coal pit - this is incorrect.

    I wrote about the area of ​​the coal pit :))) Which is quite consistent with the "middle of the body"
    Quote: rytik32
    In addition, "Fuji" fired only high-explosive 305-mm shells, so it could not pierce the belt.

    And I didn’t write anywhere that he struck it :))) I just quoted Sablin, who thought so. You will see my version later
    Quote: rytik32
    You write "if the Japanese hits did not cause extensive flooding of the hold compartments in the nose of the Oslyabi, then the water that entered the hull through the hole from the 305-mm" suitcase "and any other shells." However, there is no evidence to support the flooding of the bilge compartments in the bow. Again, this is only a version.

    Yes, this is the version. But a version that explains the appearance of a strong trim on the nose and an equally strong roll. Other hypotheses (including yours) do not, alas, explain this.
    Quote: rytik32
    I believe that on the Oslyabya the armor plates on the left side fell off against the command bridge, as I clearly saw the burning side, and the roll to the right quickly formed

    That is, Ozerov did not see the fallen off armor plates. He saw only a roll and a burning board.
    Quote: rytik32
    And another question on the flooding of a residential deck. The battery was only in the central part of the ship, so Sablin was not in the nose and did not know the state of affairs there

    Just Sablin was in the nose, on a residential deck, which follows from his testimony.
    Quote: rytik32
    And the nose from the middle is separated by an armored beam, which limited the spread of water.

    Sablin directly writes that the living deck was flooded with battery water.
    Quote: rytik32
    Why do not you give evidence of Midshipman Markov?

    What for? They do not add anything.
    Quote: rytik32
    At 12 o’clock. 10 min. the battleship "Oslyabya" was so damaged that he was very tilted and there was a fire. After 5 minutes, he was already out of order, trying to straighten the roll.

    And what's new in comparison with the testimony of the same Shcherbachev? What is there that contradicts what I wrote? Nothing.
    Quote: rytik32
    Why do you ignore the fact that the ship crashes as a factor in the roll increase and the reason for the ingress of water through the gun ports?

    Because in order for water to go through the gun ports, first a roll and trim on the nose had to arise :)))) And without them, water could not be reached to the porticoes :)))
    Quote: rytik32
    My version. The cause of flooding was numerous holes in the unarmored bow at the level of the living deck

    Alas, your version is not supported by the very same
    Quote: rytik32
    Swedish, Scherbachev, Lakes, Markov

    and is completely disproved by Sablin's data. The living deck was not flooded until water with a battery flowed into it. This means that the flooding of a residential deck could not cause water to enter gun ports.
    Quote: rytik32
    the volume of the flooded compartments (even potentially) as a result of their hits is too small to cause a roll of 12-15 degrees and plunging the nose to the level of clams. Let me remind you that the hull in the bow of the ship is narrow and divided into many compartments.

    You contradict yourself. That is, the not completely flooded (really - flooded) living deck caused a roll and trim, and the flooding of the compartments under it could not do this. Sorry, but it doesn’t. And the senior officer Oslyaby agrees with me on this - despite the fact that water could not be prevented from entering the living deck (the nose hole could not be plugged in), he did not consider it critical.
    I have another argument, but for now I will keep it to myself (until the next article) hi
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 13 July 2020 09: 47
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Yes, this is the version. But a version that explains the appearance of a strong trim on the nose and an equally strong roll.

      Before claiming that your version is explaining something, please take the trouble to calculate the volume of flooded rooms.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Just Sablin was in the nose, on a residential deck, which follows from his testimony.

      Alas, in Sablin’s testimony it’s not clear where he was. And the fact that at the beginning of flooding he went into the battery, says that above the place where there was a leak, there was a battery, and this is the central part of the ship.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Alas, your version is not supported by the very same

      We have:
      1. The fact that the flow of water from the holes in the living deck at the 1st bow bulkhead was stopped.
      2. The fact that there were numerous holes in the unarmored side of the nose.
      3. The fact of a strong roll to the left side and trim on the nose.
      Thus, we can conclude that the roll and trim were the result of numerous holes in the unarmored side of the bead in the nose (to the place where the upper belt begins).

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      completely disproved by Sablin's data. The living deck was not flooded until water with a battery flowed into it.

      Once again: this is not in Sablin’s testimony. He did not go around all the premises of the living deck and did not check where there is water and where there is none.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      You contradict yourself. That is, the not completely flooded (really - flooded) living deck caused a roll and trim, and the flooding of the compartments under it could not do this. Sorry, but it doesn’t.


      It happens.
      The fact is that at the level of the living deck opposite the bridge there is a large coal pit. Just where Ozerov saw fire from the side. Water could fill this hole and go lower to the lower deck and into the hold. Sablin does not write that he was in this pit. Surely no one climbed into it at all, so the flow of water was not noticed in a timely manner. And then the water could flood the boiler room ...

      I estimated the approximate volume of flooding. 200 tons is the lower deck and a hold in the bow. 50-80 tons - this is a 10 coal pit and a spare hook camera under it. This is minuscule !!!
      Relight took 320 tons.
      Retwisan went into battle with 500 tons of water in his nose.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        13 July 2020 10: 12
        +3
        I will leave this post unanswered. This is not rudeness, not neglect, and not a lack of argumentation, however I am not going to post the second article as comments on the first :)))
    2. Comrade
      Comrade 13 July 2020 17: 03
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I wrote about the coal pit area

      Dear Andrey, one of the surviving members of the Oslyabi crew named the number of the coal pit in his book. In Russia, there were many little-known today books of memoirs written by participants in the Tsushima battle.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        13 July 2020 17: 18
        0
        Quote: Comrade
        Dear Andrey, the number of the coal pit was named by one of the surviving members of the Oslyabi crew in his book.

        Dear colleague, everything is simpler there - the fact is that, according to the testimony, the water from the coal pit flowed into the backup kruyt camera for 10 dm shells, and it’s exactly behind the 3rd pipe :)
  • rytik32
    rytik32 14 July 2020 01: 16
    0
    For clarity, I spread the scheme of the living deck with explanations

    The 10th coal pit is circled in red. Not the biggest pit.
    Orange indicates the section of the side where he saw damage to the Lakes. The pit is much larger than the 10th. Below it are also coal pits, cartridge chambers of 152-mm guns and a stoker. In the case of water going down, large flooding results.
    The armored bow traverse is highlighted in purple. This is to understand the volumes that could be flooded in the event of damage to the unarmored bow of the living deck (and according to the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses from neighboring ships, they were). This traverse stopped the spread of water along the living deck into the citadel. According to Sablin's testimony, water entered the living deck inside the citadel from above: "When the heel was very great and water began to pour into the living deck through hatches and a fan from the battery, I went up to the battery deck and saw that water was pouring into the gun ports of the battery."
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 15 July 2020 01: 09
    0
    Quote: rytik32
    I suppose that the minister mutilated some scheme for the sake of new orders)))


    As you can see on the high-explosive steel did not dare. For neither in 1904, nor for the pre-war high-explosive shells of the Maritime Department, a pyroxylin charge in a brass nickel-plated case was adopted, and as a fuse, the Brink bottom shock tube (in the case of a pyroxylin burst charge), or the bottom shock tube of the 1896 sample ( in the case of a bursting charge of smokeless gunpowder).

    For armor-piercing shells ... "Prior to the development of the equipment of steel armor-piercing bombs with pyroxylin, it is allowed, according to the journal of the Commission of 1904 No. 316 on the use of explosives to equip projectiles, to equip armor-piercing bombs with smokeless gunpowder when supplying the bottom screws of these bombs with the bottom tube of the drawing of the order for artillery 1896 No. 209. [140] "

    As you know, they did not manage to develop a pyroxylin explosive charge even for a 12 "steel high-explosive shell of the Naval Department. What can we say about armor-piercing.

    The fact that Russian steel armor-piercing shells in 1904-1905. had pyroxylin explosive charges - this is an "urban legend" rewritten by one author from another, without verification according to the documents of that time.

    It is especially funny when a 50 gram pyroxylin explosive charge is attributed to a 75 mm steel armor-piercing projectile for the Kane cannon (the main artillery caliber of the counter-destroyers and the main caliber of the rapid-fire "anti-mine" artillery of cruisers and battleships). 75 mm shells of the 1902 model with an explosive charge before the end of the war, not so many were produced, and of course they had a powder explosive charge. Much more massive by the beginning of the war, the 75 mm steel armor-piercing projectile of the 1898 model had no explosive charge.
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 15 July 2020 19: 15
      0
      Quote: AlexanderA
      As you know, they did not manage to develop a pyroxylin explosive charge even for a 12 "steel high-explosive shell of the Naval Department. What can we say about armor-piercing.

      The fact that Russian steel armor-piercing shells in 1904-1905. had pyroxylin explosive charges - this is an "urban legend" rewritten by one author from another, without verification according to the documents of that time.

      But are Rdultovsky and Polomoshnov not authorities for you?
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 16 July 2020 01: 45
        0
        Rdultovsky: "The steel pyroxylin shells of the Naval Department, to which this fuse was adopted, did not have high armor-piercing qualities and were intended for firing at decks and superstructures; they did not have armor-piercing tips and were not hardened." - i.e. speech about "high-explosive".
        "Heavy guns of the fleet (12-, 10- / 8- and 6-inch. Caliber) had shells of two samples: 1) steel (deck-piercing) and 2) armor-piercing shells with tips. Both types of shells were loaded with wet pyroxylin, whose curved bombs were placed in neatly crafted brass nickel-plated cases. The explosive charges were very small and had about 18% moisture. " - firstly, "with a tip", this is not the norm, but only the "exotic" being introduced. Secondly, you will not deny that the 12 "high-explosive" projectile had an explosive charge of smokeless gunpowder? We observe inaccuracies from the authoritative Rdultovsky.
        "It should be noted, however, that in the Main Artillery Directorate and the Naval Department since 1900, the development of armor-piercing shells with substances that could withstand the passage of a shell through modern armor without an explosion. One of these substances was an alloy of picric acid. with naphthalene, and the other is an alloy of picric acid with dinitrobenzene.
        For the explosion of an armor-piercing projectile after passing through the armor, A.A. Dzerzhkovich (GAU) began the development of a tube with an automatic slowdown setting. These works were not completed by the beginning of the war, and they will be discussed below. "

        “By the time of this war, the difficult task of developing good armor-piercing projectiles was far from being solved everywhere. Not only were the research in the field of explosives capable of withstanding a blow to the armor without an explosion, but even the shells themselves often did not meet the conditions for firing at armor, although were very expensive ... Russian naval shells contained a relatively small amount of moist pyroxylin (about 3%) and were equipped with: insensitive fuses. As a result, their effect on Japanese ships was completely insufficient. " - there was not about 3% pyroxylin in the Russian "high-explosive" shells of the Naval Department. The authoritative Rdultovsky has imprecision after imprecision on this issue. in 6 "- 2,4% of the total weight of the projectile, in 8" - 2,7%, and only in 10 "close to 3% - 2,9%. In 12" - 1,8%, and it was smokeless powder.

        Polomoshnov?

        http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=305649
        > In the book uv. E. Polomoshnova about Shantung EMNIP mentioned two types of equipment for Russian shells - pyroxylin and smokeless powder. I would like to understand how these explosives differed and what caused the use of two types of explosives?

        Shells equipped with pyroxylin from 120mm to 254mm .. only 305mm gunpowder. It is difficult to judge why 305mm b / gunpowder, most likely with a large mass of pyroxylin, feared premature detonation

        > And what is the most effective explosives for heavy naval artillery shells (armor-piercing and high-explosive) in the "pre-trotyl epoch" in terms of the fastest possible disabling of armored ships?

        For the period of RVN, the capabilities of the existing explosives were quite enough, even smoky powder ... the problem is more in the quality and reliability of the shock tubes - this is for armor-piercing shells. For high explosives and melinite, and pyroxylin .. compacted pyroxylin m. and will be best

        Sincerely, Evgeny Polomoshnov


        After all, are you aware of how you managed to equip the shells of the 1907 model before TNT? Poloshomnov’s answers to the questions were not openly impressed. If Rdultovsky’s simply inaccuracies, although serious, then Poloshomnov’s frank misunderstanding of the effect of Russian shells in the battles of Russian-Japanese "was completely insufficient".
        1. rytik32
          rytik32 16 July 2020 09: 55
          0
          Quote: AlexanderA
          Poloshomnov has a frank misunderstanding that the effect of Russian shells in the battles of the Russian-Japanese "was completely inadequate."

          Polomoshnov has a large book on the battle in ZhM and in it his position is very well argued., Incl. on shells.
          The situation is as follows for shells.
          The Russians had a good (for their time) armor, but a terrible landmine - in its action, which is not a landmine at all, but rather a comm.
          The Japanese didn’t have a very good land mine (it worked as it should on the enemy, but due to the fact that it broke the trunks it wasn’t very good), and it wasn’t worthless armor (because of the instant fuse and the tendency to detonate when hit by a shimosa and yes , he also tore the trunks).
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra 16 July 2020 23: 02
            0
            Quote: rytik32
            The Russians had a good (for their time) armor, but a terrible landmine - in its action, which is not a landmine at all, but rather a comm.


            The distances of the artillery battles in the LM and under Tsushima were higher than those 20 cables or less, at which shooting with 12 "armor-piercing shells was considered effective. So the question of what kind of explosive was in Russian armor-piercing shells does not really matter much.

            The high-explosive projectile was not similar to the British "common" Russian 12, because the British "common" had a rather powerful explosive charge of liddite, and not a charge of 1,8% smokeless gunpowder from the total mass of the projectile. Although the warhead of this shell was not hardened, and the steel of the hull with "a decrease in the elastic limit of the metal to 2700 atm., with an elongation of 8%" left much to be desired, due to the massiveness of its warhead, to pierce even the "Krupp" armor of Japanese ships (by the way, also not shining in quality) with a thickness of up to half the caliber ( and even more) that one could. But this projectile exploded in the process of penetrating the armor plate, since the "ordinary" shock tube with which the projectile was equipped did not belong to the category of delayed action fuses. The projectile exploded, unlike the projectiles with the Brink delayed action tube, regularly but with a very weak effect What else could be expected from an explosion of about 6 kg of smokeless powder in a 325 kg steel case?

            Russian 12 "armor-piercing with an even smaller explosive charge and a Brink tube as a fuse (the shortcomings of the tube are described in sufficient detail by Rdultovsky) - to call it good, you need to sin very much against the truth. A good armor-piercing projectile first appeared in the Americans, after they took for their armor-piercing shells ammonium picrate as explosives:
            https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1907/08/18/104992996.pdf

            Russian 12 "armor-piercing in the years of the RYAV in its armor-piercing effect differed little from a blank without an explosive charge. But it does not matter. This was the case for almost everyone (of those who, like the same Japanese and French, did not equip armor-piercing explosive shells based on picric acid ).

            The main trouble of the Russian Navy was the lack of normal high-explosive shells that were in service with all other large fleets. Because the most important 12 "high-explosive" projectile was with an explosive charge of 1,8% of the projectile mass. In projectiles with a caliber from 6 "to 10", apart from small masses of explosive charges (2,4-2,9% of the projectile mass ) there was also a Brink fuse, and in the Tsushima case, there was also a waterlogged main charge of lecal pyroxylin.

            This "shell" set of technical factors alone was enough to lose all the RYAV naval artillery battles. Without taking into account other technical, tactical and operational factors, it is not in favor of the Russian Navy.
            1. rytik32
              rytik32 17 July 2020 01: 02
              +1
              Quote: AlexanderA
              to be called good, you need to sin very much against the truth

              At least it exploded behind the armor and was not filled with black powder, which is already quite good for that time!
              Quote: AlexanderA
              A good armor-piercing projectile first appeared in the Americans

              I remind you that we are talking about Tsushima, and not shells from the future.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Russian 12 "armor-piercing in the years of the RYAV in its armor action did not differ much from a blank without a bursting charge

              Can you confirm these words with something?
              Quote: AlexanderA
              The main trouble of the Russian Navy was the lack of normal high-explosive shells that were in service with all the other large fleets

              Did the Japanese have a normal high-explosive shell? Such that his own guns do not regularly burst, and in all calibers from 76 mm to 305 mm?
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Because the most important 12 "high-explosive" projectile was with an explosive charge of 1,8% of gunpowder from the mass of the projectile.

              And why do you consider a high-explosive shell the most important? A high-explosive shell is not intended to destroy armadillos at all. The Japanese did not shoot high-explosive shells at our armadillos because of a good life, but because their armor-piercing shells were very bad.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              This "shell" set of technical factors alone was enough to lose all the RYAV naval artillery battles.

              You better think about how the Japanese, not having normal armor-piercing shells, were able to sink armadillos in Tsushima?
              Why did Oslyabya drown and Peresvet survived the blow?
              Why "Sisoy" sour, and "Poltava" with the same booking scheme withstood?
              The Japanese shells were the same. Maybe the issue is overloading ships?
              Why did our ships burn like candles in Tsushima, but not in LM?
              Maybe because in Tsushima the wooden lining for protection against heat was not thrown overboard?
              And why is no one complaining about the black-powder British commons in the Falkland battle? Why weren’t the technical factors enough for the Germans to win the Falklands? Maybe because when you hit the enemy well, it’s not so important what and how much the projectile is fired at?
  • Sergey Oberemko
    Sergey Oberemko 15 July 2020 13: 28
    0
    The article is good, it looks like the author is quite right and "Oslyabya" died from two hits, how sad it is to realize this. I'm looking forward to the second part.
    I would like the author, comparing the paths of Peresvet and Oslyabi, not to forget about the course angles from which both battleships flew in, and, accordingly, the "cone" of the scattering of the fragments and the propagation of the explosion energy and the corresponding damage. In the case of the Oslyabey, the projectile flew in from the bow heading angles and damage from fragments spread to the stern, there were essentially no barriers to the barbette and armored bulkheads and, in fact, with a certain degree of assumption, of course, one can assume that all this space can be considered "prone" to sequential (extended in time) flooding, with an emphasis on the port side. Considering the significant filtration into the lower rooms, which is also stretched out in time, one won’t be surprised that what happened. In the case of Peresvet, (I don’t presume to assert, but it is possible) the projectile could fly from the stern or traverse with a corresponding spread of damage to the bow or moderately to the stern.
    1. Sergey Oberemko
      Sergey Oberemko 15 July 2020 14: 33
      0

      For clarity
    2. rytik32
      rytik32 15 July 2020 18: 47
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Oberemko
      In the case of the Oslyabey, the projectile flew in from the bow heading angles and the damage from the fragments spread to the stern, there were essentially no barriers to the barbet and armored bulkheads and, in fact, with a certain degree of assumption, of course, one can assume that all this space, can be considered "prone" to sequential (extended in time) flooding, with an emphasis on the port side.

      You are not right. Japanese shells did not do such damage inside the ship with fragments.
      Lutonin:
      "A characteristic fact when Japanese 12-inch bombs exploded in unarmored units was
      that the outer skin escaped with a huge gate, the shell exploded when it hit
      skin, turned it around, and then small fragments did not do us any harm.
      For example, four 12-inch bombs, exploding in the officer's cabins, completely opened the side, destroyed the furniture, then the fragments weakly broke in places a one-sixteenth-inch bulkhead separating the cabins from the officer's compartment, and then, striking from the immovable ten-inch armor, tore off only the paint. Most of the fragments went up, and very few of them pierced the deck. "
      Evgeny Polomoshnov clearly depicted the fragmentation effect of Japanese shells.

      So one shell could not ridicule the whole nose to the beam.
      By the way, in the diagram you have a shell flew into the stern)))
      1. Sergey Oberemko
        Sergey Oberemko 15 July 2020 19: 31
        0

        So one shell could not ridicule the whole nose to the beam.
        By the way, in the scheme you have a shell flew into the stern))) [/ quote]
        It turned out funny with the scheme.
        And it’s not a fact with a projectile, it depends on what kind of projectile was fired with both land mines and armor-piercing. Alternatively, someone "ehnul" that Fuji had done a lot of business, maybe they fired armor-piercing from him, and the shells could "fix" everything in the plane of assumptions ...
        1. rytik32
          rytik32 15 July 2020 23: 11
          +1
          Quote: Sergey Oberemko
          And with the projectile is not a fact, it depends on which projectile was fired by both land mines and armor-piercing shells

          "Fuji" in Tsushima fired from the main battery only land mines.
          The scatter of fragments that you depicted is more likely characteristic of Russian shells. They got fewer fragments than Japanese ones, but the fragments were larger and, accordingly, flew further and pierced more.
          1. Sergey Oberemko
            Sergey Oberemko 16 July 2020 09: 09
            0
            Documents it is, but breaking through even the upper Oslyaby belt and the explosion of the tower on Borodino is very doubtful as a land mine. And the armor-piercing Japanese (I do not say, but rather from memory) is an ordinary bb equipped with black powder.
            1. rytik32
              rytik32 16 July 2020 09: 33
              +1
              Breaking through the upper belt of Oslyaby is either a 203-mm armor piercing (most likely), or the destruction or displacement of the plate as a result of several successive hits (second version). Unfortunately, only divers can install it accurately)))
              Fuji hit Borodino with a land mine. I doubt that there is a mistake in the report of the ship commander.
              And Semyon Yushchin (the only one saved) does not confirm the detonation of cellars. And the fire that the Japanese and ours saw was probably the 76 mm rounds in the battery that were burning.
              1. Sergey Oberemko
                Sergey Oberemko 16 July 2020 12: 22
                0
                Fuji attributed the hit to Oslyabya to himself, 203 bb pierced 102 (kruppa) from cables 25 strictly normal, Surf wrote about the falling off sheets, is it true or human evidence after a serious psychological trauma, we will not know
                we can talk about poor assembly, but the plant built a lot of ships, and only Oslyab "fell off". I agree that it is necessary to dive, but given that it has been lying for more than a hundred years, and in the near future, diving is not particularly torn, everything will remain in the plane of forum disputes
                1. rytik32
                  rytik32 16 July 2020 23: 16
                  0
                  Quote: Sergey Oberemko
                  pierced 102 (kruppa) from cables 25 strictly normal

                  "Oslyabi" does not have Krupps, so it is quite possible.
                  1. Sergey Oberemko
                    Sergey Oberemko 17 July 2020 15: 13
                    0
                    Perhaps, but not a fact.
  • Victor Garmaschov
    Victor Garmaschov 17 July 2020 11: 27
    0
    Good day gentlemen!
    About booking "Oslyab" - The main armor belt along the waterline consisted of plates of Harvey steel with a height of 2,35 m, with a normal draft going under the water by 1,44 m. The plates that protected the engine-boiler rooms had a thickness of 229 mm, gradually thinning under water up to 127 mm.
    In the area of ​​the towers there were thinner plates with a thickness of 178 mm in the surface part, which was reduced to 102 mm under water. The main belt was locked on the 18th and 96th frames with armored traverses from 178 mm plates; its length was about 95 m.
    About the cause of death - as far as I read: When 305 mm hit the armor belt in the bow of the ship, the armor plate was torn off. The plate shifted and rotated from the oncoming wave (by the way, for this reason, when designing the first dreadnoughts, we used the fastening of armored plates of the dovetail type, which prevented the rotation of the plates during separation). Close the hole with a band-aid, as I understand it, did not work for the same reason. I do not pretend to be true, but I read about this version in the description on the design of dreadnought most likely.
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 18 July 2020 01: 31
    +1
    Quote: rytik32
    At least it exploded behind the armor and was not filled with black powder, which is already quite good for that time!


    Not always exploded."... By the time of the war, aluminum began to be made much cleaner, the strikers became softer and therefore did not give a sufficient piercing of explosive mercury and did not always provide the action of the fuses. After the war, this part was made of steel ... When hitting thicker plates, the front part the fuse could break off due to the low strength of the connection with the body. This created an unsecured fuse action. "

    And the issue of incomplete detonation of explosive charges of waterlogged pyroxylin in Russian "Tsushima" shells is still waiting for its researchers. As well as the issue of incomplete detonation of explosive charges of picric acid in British / Japanese shells of that time:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)
    Proper detonation of a lyddite shell would show black to gray smoke, or white from the steam of a water detonation. Yellow smoke indicated simple explosion rather than detonation, and failure to reliably detonate was a problem with lyddite, especially in its earlier usage. To improve the detonation "exploders" with a small quantity of picric powder or even of TNT (in smaller shells, 3 pdr, 12 pdr - 4.7 inch) was loaded between the fuze and the main lyddite filling or in a thin tube running through most of the shell's length.
    I remind you that we are talking about Tsushima, and not shells from the future.

    That is why I am writing that no one had good armor-piercing shells at the time of Tsushima. Those appeared only in 1906 among the Americans.
    Can you confirm these words with something?

    https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/70594.html
    By reference there is not a single hit in the armor that could be clearly attributed to the category of hits of the Russian armor-piercing projectile. As the author noted:
    "... On our side, the armor was most often (possibly always) pierced by high-explosive shells, while the Japanese, apparently, only by armor-piercing shells ..."

    But you can, for example, compare the consequences of hit No. 1.1 of the Russian 12 "exploded shell and hit No. 3.5 of the Japanese 8" not exploding armor-piercing projectile.
    Did the Japanese have a normal high-explosive shell? Such that his own guns do not regularly burst, and in all calibers from 76 mm to 305 mm?

    Normal in terms of action when hit by the target, was. And generally speaking: "If under Shantung 305-mm armor-piercing shells accounted for almost half of those released (279 out of 603), then under Tsushima - less than a tenth (32 out of 452), and armor-piercing shells were used only by Mikasa (28) and Shikishima (4 This was due to what was done after the battle at Shantung and turned out to be erroneous the conclusion that it was armor-piercing 305-mm shells that caused the guns to burst." Same source
    And why do you consider a high-explosive shell the most important? A high-explosive shell is not intended to destroy armadillos at all.

    Because the same Rozhestvensky ordered armor-piercing shells to shoot at distances of 20 cables or less. The characteristic distances of the battles of the squadrons turned out to be higher. And because, as cited above, under Tsushima (unlike Shantung), the Japanese fired mainly with HE shells. The result is obvious - four squadrons of Russian battleships sunk in an artillery battle, while at Shantung, not a single one.
    The Japanese did not shoot high-explosive shells at our armadillos from a good life, but from the fact that their armor-piercing shells were very bad.

    The results of the action of the Russian and Japanese shells that pierced the armor are described in the link above. There is no striking difference between the Russian shell that pierced the waist armor with 12 "(exploded) and the Japanese that pierced the waist armor with the 8" shell (that did not explode) - the coal pits behind the pierced armor plate were flooded. All.
    You better think about how the Japanese, not having normal armor-piercing shells, were able to sink armadillos in Tsushima?

    As you can see, the Japanese had shells that pierced Russian armor. Of greater importance is the fact that "Prince Suvorov" fired back from the Japanese destroyers who had sunk it from the only surviving 75 mm cannon, and only a small part of its artillery survived on the "Orel" - and all this without Japanese shells penetrating the vertical armor of the Russian battleship towers.
    Why did Oslyabya drown and Peresvet survived the blow?
    Why "Sisoy" sour, and "Poltava" with the same booking scheme withstood?
    The Japanese shells were the same. Maybe the issue is overloading ships?
    Why did our ships burn like candles in Tsushima, but not in LM?

    Because "Oslyabya" was overloaded. But if it had not been overloaded, then it would not have resisted under the hail of high-explosive shells. In contrast to the battle at Shantung at Tsushima, the Japanese fired mainly high-explosive and reduced the distance, multiplying the number of medium-caliber hits. And then there was a transition from quantity to quality ... If the Russian ships were not overloaded, they would still lose artillery, pipes, masts under a hail of Japanese shells (mainly 6 "-8"), and would burn in exactly the same way ...
    And why is no one complaining about the black-powder British commons in the Falkland battle? Why were the technical factors alone not enough for the Germans to win the Falklands?

    Excuse me, but what technical factors were the Germans behind in the Falklands? Here is the fact that the Germans were shot at the Falklands for so long - this is precisely because of the imperfection of British shells ("Despite a fairly high percentage of hits (6-8%), the consumption of shells required to sink two armored cruisers was enormous."). If Invincible and Inflexible had fired 305 mm German-made shells in the Falklands, everything would have ended much faster. Actually, this is how it happened with the Invincible in the Battle of Jutland after being hit by several shells from the Derflinger - quickly.
    1. unknown
      unknown 18 July 2020 08: 35
      +2
      1. Regarding the hail of medium-caliber shells.
      When you write this, you get the impression that the Russian ships were completely devoid of medium-caliber artillery. If we count the number of medium-caliber artillery barrels in an onboard salvo on both sides, we will see that the superiority of medium-caliber barrels with a noticeable superiority is observed only in Kamimura's cruisers against the Nebogatov detachment. And this superiority was realized? How many battleships of the coastal defense did the "underdogs" sink in the daytime battle?
      2. Regarding the fact that the battleships of the second squadron burned more than the battleships of the first.
      Do you know what the construction overload of the Borodino-type battleships arose from?
      A significant part of this overload is materials for thermal insulation of residential premises, in order to improve the living conditions of the crew when traveling in the tropics. The materials are mostly flammable.
      And what you could get rid of before the fight.
      And you know that the Japanese, when carrying out repair work on the Orel, encountered a huge amount of accumulated coal dust, which was a consequence of the constant overloading of ships with coal.
      And from this, at least partially, it was possible to get rid of.
      3. It was precisely the lack of proper preparation for battle (cardinal unloading of ships) and the incorrectly chosen tactics (catastrophic underestimation of the speed factor) that allowed the Japanese to knock out Russian ships one by one with concentrated fire from several ships. The shell factor in this case is of secondary importance. Moreover, there is no clarity in it. From the word at all.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 19 July 2020 10: 17
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        When you write this, you get the impression that the Russian ships were completely devoid of medium-caliber artillery. If you count the number of medium-caliber artillery barrels in a side salvo on either side

        Have you calculated and are ready to name the numbers? "According to V. Yu. Gribovsky [10], for the entire day's battle on May 14, the 1st and 2nd detachments fired 11 shells of large and medium caliber ... Estimation of the 159st, 1nd and 2rd Russian ships fired -th detachments in the battle on May 3, shells of large and medium calibers are found very different: about 14 (M.V. Kotov), ​​5200 (V. Yu. Gribovsky) and others ... All participants in the battle were amazed by the difference in damage between the Russians and the Japanese ships: the consequences of the explosions of Russian shells were small, about a third of the shells did not explode [approx. 8195] and left only holes equal to their diameter. When the Japanese shells burst, a cloud of small fragments was formed, often delayed even by cloth obstacles. When Russian shells burst, several large fragments, but their strength was very weak. In other words, there was a low blasting effect of Russian shells. "

        the superiority of medium-caliber barrels with a noticeable superiority is observed only in the cruisers of Kamimura against the Nebogatov detachment.

        How long do you think the cruisers Kamimura fought with the battleships of Nebogatov and what percentage of their ammunition was shot at them? Give the numbers, let us estimate the disgusting accuracy of the fire of Kamimura's cruisers against the battleships of Nebogatov.
        1. rytik32
          rytik32 21 July 2020 00: 42
          0
          Quote: AlexanderA
          How long do you think the cruisers Kamimura fought with the battleships of Nebogatov and what percentage of their ammunition was shot at them? Give the numbers, let us estimate the disgusting accuracy of the fire of Kamimura's cruisers against the battleships of Nebogatov.

          Well ... it's not easy to count.
          But, for example, at the very beginning of the battle, 2 cruisers were hitting the "Nikolai" and none of them hit! And "Nikolay", in turn, disabled "Asama"
    2. unknown
      unknown 18 July 2020 08: 38
      0
      By the way, besides the Russian fleet, only the German fleet was equipping its shells with pyroxylin.
      There was also information that part of the second squadron's ammunition was German-made shells.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 19 July 2020 11: 04
        +1
        As noted by Rdultovsky from 1888 to 1902, German artillery rearmament from pyroxylin shells to shells with picric acid (BB Granatfullung 88). I'm not ready to cite sources, but I think that the artillery of the German fleet in this matter did not lag far behind the land one. In fact, by 1904-1905. the only large military fleet that did not have HE shells with picric acid was the Russian Imperial Fleet.
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 19 July 2020 20: 07
          0
          In the tense political situation of the 80s, information about the French melinite shells of the 1886 model was received from Germany as early as 1887.
          ...
          In 1888, pure picric acid was introduced to equip German shells and for the needs of engineering troops under the name Granatfullung 88.
          ...
          Thus, by 1888, two first-class armies took picric acid equipment for artillery shells and supplied them with detonators consisting of a shock tube with an igniter capsule, a strong explosive mercury capsule and a detonator pressed from picric acid
          ...
          As an explosive, trinitrotoluene began to be shown in Germany in 1887. Since 1900, its production has been established on a small scale in private factories. This substance was originally intended to be incorporated into explosives for mining operations. In 1902 it was adopted by the army as a replacement for picric acid in explosive charges under the name 'Fp. 02 '(Fullpulver 02).
          ...
          From 1911-1912 TNT production was delivered to French state-owned factories, and it was commissioned on a par with cresilite.

          look for marine German
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra 19 July 2020 22: 37
            +1
            For the French, it is worth noting that:
            http://militera.lib.ru/science/ropp/13.html
            “Along with new cannons and gunpowder, new projectiles also came. The relatively thin-walled projectiles loaded with a powerful explosive - melinite - made a real sensation at the first tests in the late 1880s, but it took a series of long tests to make them usable by the fleet. because of the danger of a shell explosion in the barrel, the heavy thin-walled landmines used by the army for bombing could not be used in naval guns with their high initial velocity and high pressure in the barrel bore {536}. Only in 1895 did the French fleet - the first in Europe - adopted armed with such powerful high-explosive shells, which could be fired using a full charge. "

            While in the Russian Empire, they did not "master" the others at the end of the XNUMXth century for the shells of naval artillery, they played the fool with smokeless gunpowder and pyroxylin, overseas:

            http://booksonchemistry.com/index.php?id1=3&category=promproizv&author=gorst-ag&book=1972&page=57
            "Ammonium picrate, an ammonium salt of picric acid, is less sensitive to impact than even TNT, as a result of which it has been used in the United States since 1900 to equip armor-piercing projectiles with a caliber of 10 inches or more."
    3. rytik32
      rytik32 19 July 2020 00: 47
      +1
      Quote: AlexanderA
      That is why I am writing that no one had good armor-piercing shells at the time of Tsushima. Those appeared only in 1906 among the Americans.

      Well, I specifically made a reservation that for my time ...
      And then a good armadillo appeared, whose name became a household name)))
      Quote: AlexanderA
      According to the link, there is not a single hit in the armor that could be unequivocally attributed to the category of hits of a Russian armor-piercing shell.

      This is due to the fact that the action of armor-piercing and land mines was very similar. Although Campbell counted 6 penetrations with armor-piercing ... but I consider the data of Arseniy Danilov more relevant.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      But you can, for example, compare the consequences of hit No. 1.1 of the Russian 12 "exploded shell and hit No. 3.5 of the Japanese 8" not exploding armor-piercing projectile.

      Well .. these are different hits. Hit No. 3.5 is better compared with our 6-inch in "Sikishima" in Tsushima at 14-30: hit, pierced 102-mm armor, did not explode, but caused flooding.
      Quote: AlexanderA
      The result is obvious - four squadrons of Russian battleships sunk in an artillery battle, while at Shantung, not a single one.

      But there were differences not only in the ratio of the shells used by the Japanese, right? My opinion is that if the Japanese used armor-piercing more widely, they would have achieved even greater success.
      The British made experiments, fired at the old battleship, but with a fully armored waterline.
      https://alex-cat-1975.livejournal.com/8746.html
      https://alex-cat-1975.livejournal.com/9328.html
      Conclusion: land mines are able to smash all unarmored areas to pieces, but the armor perfectly protects against land mines. And the battleship does not sink from land mines. Why did the battleships 2 TOE sink? We must look for the answer in the battleships themselves: this is an overload, these are the consequences of fires caused by the presence of "food" for fire, these are structural and (or) building defects, etc.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      The results of the action of the Russian and Japanese shells that pierced the armor are described in the link above. There is no striking difference between the Russian shell that pierced the waist armor with 12 "(exploded) and the Japanese that pierced the waist armor with the 8" shell (that did not explode) - the coal pits behind the pierced armor plate were flooded. All.

      Hit # 1.1 is more correct to compare with # 3.2 - about the same effect.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      Of greater importance is the fact that "Prince Suvorov" fired back from the Japanese destroyers who sunk it from the only surviving 75 mm cannon

      "Suvorov" was finished off at about 16:00 by battleships from a very small distance (up to 11 cables). Until that moment, he still retained the artillery, and even "Mikase" then closed up from the GC.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      Because "Oslyabya" was overloaded. But if it had not been overloaded, then it would not have resisted under the hail of high-explosive shells. In contrast to the battle at Shantung at Tsushima, the Japanese fired mainly high-explosive and reduced the distance, multiplying the number of medium-caliber hits. And then there was a transition from quantity to quality ... If the Russian ships were not overloaded, they would still lose artillery, pipes, masts under a hail of Japanese shells (mainly 6 "-8"), and would burn in exactly the same way ...

      I agree with the beginning of the paragraph, but not with the conclusion.
      Even if the head battleship is completely incapacitated, by its very existence it will collect enemy fire on itself, making it possible to shoot the rest of its ships. And we had very dangerous hits:
      Fire in the casemate "Ivate" at Ulsan.
      Damage to Asama in Tsushima.
      Fire in the tower of the Fuji Group of Companies in Tsushima.
      So our shells had potential!
      There were just very few dangerous hits. in general, there were few hits. And those that were, were "smeared" over the enemy ships. But these are already questions about maneuvering and squadron speed ...

      Quote: AlexanderA
      Excuse me, but what technical factors were the Germans behind in the Falklands?

      That’s what I’m talking about, that in WWI the German shells were much better than the English shells, which had commons with black powder, and armor piercing prematurely exploded on the armor.
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 19 July 2020 19: 32
        +1
        I warmly support a lot of your comment, BUT
        armor-piercing prematurely burst on the armor.

        there is such a chip: the almost instant installation of an armor-piercing projectile fuse sharply increases its armor penetration
        there is such a second trick: the almost instant installation of an armor-piercing projectile fuse dramatically reduces the likelihood of a rebound without consequences
        there is such a third trick: the almost instant installation of an armor-piercing projectile fuse allows it to bang at the entrance to the tower and bring in a bunch of fragments throughout the room, rather than stuck in the back wall (yet, God forbid, it will crack, which, incidentally, easily)
        in general, an overly large slowdown is targeted against KTU and PB, and almost instantly against towers, because the Germans were obviously protected by KTU, but were doomed to suffer along the towers
      2. Alexandra
        Alexandra 19 July 2020 21: 31
        +1
        Well, I specifically made a reservation that for my time ...
        And then a good armadillo appeared, whose name became a household name)))


        This was the time before the appearance of good armor-piercing shells and battle distances that allowed betting only on all big guns. This was the time when the main role was played by medium-caliber quick-firing cannons with thin-walled high-explosive shells containing a large amount of melenite / liddite / shimoza / perthite / picrinite / ecrazite / Granatfullung 88. High-explosive high-explosive explosive shells ... completely absent on the ships of the Russian Imperial Navy ..

        http://militera.lib.ru/science/ropp/16.html
        German armored carriers of the Kaiser Friedrich III type, the construction of which began in 1895, were close to the ultimate expression of this idea - their main armament consisted of four 9.4-inch cannons, auxiliary - of eighteen 5.9-inch speed guns, covered armor. In fact, an armadillo of this type was armed only with quick-firing cannons, and could release twenty-two tons of metal from the side within five minutes, and sixteen tons into the bow or stern. The British Majestic, which had a displacement of more than 4000 tons, could release seventeen tons of metal from the side at the same time, and only seven {812} in the bow or stern. Having designed these ships, the Germans practically abandoned the idea of ​​penetrating enemy armor, believing that a hail of relatively light shells completely demoralizes enemy crews and destroys unarmored parts of their ships.

        This is due to the fact that the effect of armor-piercing and landmines was very similar.

        The effect of the explosion of a 12 "armor-piercing projectile with a delayed-action fuse (Brink) and the explosion of a 12" high-explosive projectile with an ordinary fuse (the explosion took place in the process of breaking through the armor plate) could not be similar. A 12 "armor-piercing shell most likely hit the dome of the Fuji tower. A high-explosive one would have exploded in the process of penetrating the armor plate, or immediately after it was penetrated.
        But there were differences not only in the ratio of the shells used by the Japanese, right? My opinion is that if the Japanese used armor-piercing more widely, they would have achieved even greater success.


        Do not want to agree with Rdultovsky that: By the time of this war, the difficult task of developing good armor-piercing shells was everywhere far from being resolved. The Japanese to Tsushima had neither an analog of a shellite, nor a fuse of a delayed action. The delayed-action fuse was then with the British (large bottom tube No. 11 mod. V). But the shellite (60% liddit + 40% dinitrophenol - initially a 50/50 mixture was used, but this gave insufficient fragmentation of the shell of the shell) then the British did not. So when shooting under Tsushima mainly high-explosive shells, the Japanese involuntarily acted in the most effective way.

        The British did experiments, fired at an old battleship, but with a fully armored waterline .... Conclusion: a landmine is able to smash all unarmored areas into chips, but the armor perfectly protects it from a landmine. And the battleship does not sink from the landmines.


        In the first 1700 yards, a completely non-typical distance for the REV (armor penetration depends on the distance, high-explosive action, no). Secondly, even ... several liddite shells hit a sheet of armor belt near the waterline and thrashed it so that a dangerous leak was formed. "

        Now let's remember the damage to the Eagle: "... the projectile hit the first armor plate of the upper belt on the starboard side, attached with threaded through bolts to the stem body, the plate came off, but did not fall off. The outer cover of the bow mine apparatus flew off, water went into the apparatus, but it was delayed by the inner cover."
        Hit # 1.1 is more correct to compare with # 3.2 - about the same effect.


        The effect of # 3.2 was significantly greater. First, the bulkhead of the side corridor was pierced. Secondly, five frames are bent, the rivets on them are cut off or flowed. In the third, the armor plate was moved from its place and two half-ports of 6 "guns in the lower casemate were bent. Compared to No. 1.1, where 7 rivets were damaged connecting the sheets of unarmored plating below the point of impact and no consequences for artillery - a very different effect.

        I agree with the beginning of the paragraph, but not with the conclusion.
        Even if the head battleship is completely incapacitated, by its very existence it will collect enemy fire on itself, making it possible to shoot the rest of its ships.


        Not overloaded but beaten by high-explosive shells "Oslyabya" would simply have lost its place in the ranks, as "Prince Suvorov" lost it. And they would have hit others. It is believed that "Oslyabya" in the initial phase of the battle received about 40 hits from large and medium-caliber shells. In any case, he would have enough to lose combat capability and place in the ranks.

        So our shells had potential!
        There were very few dangerous hits, because in general there were few hits.


        About the same number of shells hit "Mikasa" as "Oslyabyu" - 40. "Alexander III" - well, maybe not more than a dozen, 50. Consequences for the combat capability of "Mikasa" the minimum... If "Oslyabya" was not overloaded, it would have lost its combat effectiveness from 40 hits in any case. "Alexander III" by 14:50 had lost its combat capability and place in the ranks (it was finally finished off 4 hours later by the fire of the cruisers of the Kamimura detachment). Russian shells were ineffective, there's nothing you can do about it.

        That’s what I’m talking about, that in WWI the German shells were much better than the English shells, which had commons with black powder, and armor piercing prematurely exploded on the armor.


        And with a similar caliber, German hits gave a strikingly greater effect. If under the Falklands at the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau there were not 210 mm cannons in the towers, but at least 280 mm, it is still unknown how it would have ended. In any case, having received twelve German 280 mm projectiles, the Invincible would most likely have lost its combat capability, or even be sunk. After all, there were very dangerous but not penetrating hits, into the "A" tower, into the armored bulkhead opposite the cellar of the "P" tower.
        1. rytik32
          rytik32 19 July 2020 23: 07
          +1
          Quote: AlexanderA
          The effect of the explosion of a 12 "armor-piercing projectile with a delayed action fuse (Brink) and the explosion of a 12" high-explosive projectile with a conventional fuse

          But didn’t Brink’s fuse stand with us, too, on high explosives?
          Quote: AlexanderA
          Do you want to agree with Rdultovsky that: By the time of this war, the difficult task of developing good armor-piercing shells was everywhere far from being resolved

          Totally agree
          Quote: AlexanderA
          About the same number of shells hit "Mikasa" as "Oslyabya" - 40

          Well, firstly, if you leave only the caliber of 152 mm and higher, you get 32 ​​(according to Campbell).
          Secondly, the caliber of the shells hit is important, which is why Mikasa suffered more damage in the ZhM than in Tsushima, although it received fewer shells.
          Thirdly, booking "Oslyabi" is not like booking "Mikasa".
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 20 July 2020 00: 51
    +1
    Quote: rytik32
    But didn’t Brink’s fuse stand with us, too, on high explosives?

    Fuses were different:

    For 120 mm, 6 ", 8" and 10 "projectiles with a bursting charge of wet pyroxylin, a" double impact pyroxylin tube "(ie Brink tube) was used. For 12" high-explosive "conventional shock tube".
    Totally agree

    Actually, Rdultovsky was mistaken. By the time of the REV, the Americans had already succeeded. See pages 384-385:
    https://ingenierosnavales.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scientific-American-Vol.-85-No.-24-December-14-1901-Development-of-the-U.S.-Navy-since-the-Spanish-War.pdf

    BB "maximit" and "dunnit". Having finally abandoned the "maximite" in 1906, the "Dunnit", aka Explosive D, aka ammonium picrate, the Americans used in naval artillery shells for several decades.
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php
    The HC Mark 13 ... Explosive D.

    Well, firstly, if you leave only the caliber of 152 mm and higher, you get 32 ​​(according to Campbell).
    Secondly, the caliber of the hit shells is important


    So, under Tsushima, 12 Russian shells hit "Mikasa" clearly more than Japanese 12 shells hit "Oslyabya". Apparently many times more.
    Thirdly, booking "Oslyabi" is not like booking "Mikasa".

    But similar to booking "Peresvet". About 40 shells (more than other ships of the Russian squadron) got into "Peresvet" in the ZhM, including 12 large and 15 shells of medium (8 "/ 6") caliber. Since a significant part of these shells were armor-piercing, not high-explosive, the "Peresvet" got off with moderate damage - the holes in the sides are relatively small, there were no fires, most of the artillery remained operational, the flooding was moderate. And although one of the vehicles was disabled for half an hour, the ship did not leave the formation.
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 20 July 2020 12: 43
      +1
      Quote: AlexanderA
      Actually, Rdultovsky was wrong. By the time of the RYAV, the Americans had already succeeded.

      12-inch shells with "Dunnit" and armor-piercing tip did not go until 1906.
      https://alex-cat-1975.livejournal.com/6735.html
      Quote: AlexanderA
      So, under Tsushima, 12 Russian shells hit "Mikasa" clearly more than Japanese 12 shells hit "Oslyabya". Apparently many times more.

      "Oslyabyu" got 3 12 "from" Fuji "and another large shell in the bow tower, possibly 10" (the tower was displaced, there is clearly not 6-8 "). In" Mikasa "10 according to Campbell, 6-7 according to Arseniy And an important fact: hits to Mikasa were spread over time for several hours, and all these buns were brought to Oslyaby within 18 minutes.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 20 July 2020 14: 47
        +1
        Quote: rytik32
        12-inch shells with "Dunnit" and armor-piercing tip did not go until 1906.


        You are following the link https://ingenierosnavales.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scientific-American-Vol.-85-No.-24-December-14-1901-Development-of-the-US-Navy -since-the-Spanish-War.pdf on pages 384-385 do go. Read in the December 1901 issue of Scientific American an article (with photographs) about the tests of 12 "armor-piercing shells with maximite and dunnite.

        In the blog alex-cat-1975, a story about testing small-caliber (and not large-caliber) shells with the same explosives in 1906.

        I will repeat a quote from the third edition of the book: A.G. Gorst. "Gunpowder and Explosives"
        http://booksonchemistry.com/index.php?id1=3&category=promproizv&author=gorst-ag&book=1972&page=57
        "Ammonium picrate - the ammonium salt of picric acid, is less sensitive to shock than even TNT, which is why it was used in the USA from 1900 for equipping armor-piercing shells of caliber 10 inches or more..."

        Oslyabya got 3 12 "from Fuji and another large shell in the bow tower, possibly 10"


        In any case, the "Peresvet" in the ZhM got at times more than 10-12 "Japanese shells than in the" Oslyabyu "at Tsushima. But probably for the most part these were armor-piercing shells with a much lower (in comparison with the Tsushima high-explosive" suitcases ") content of explosives There were no holes in the unarmored side into which the carriage could enter, no strong fires, no towers completely disabled and broken casemates were observed on it.
        1. rytik32
          rytik32 21 July 2020 00: 20
          +1
          Quote: AlexanderA
          about testing 12 "armor-piercing shells with maximit and dunnit

          So testing is not acceptance into service!
          Quote: AlexanderA
          "Ammonium picrate, an ammonium salt of picric acid, is less sensitive to impact than even TNT, as a result of which it has been used in the United States since 1900 to equip armor-piercing projectiles with a caliber of 10 inches or more ..."

          This book is not specialized, so inaccuracies are possible ...

          Here I chose a little hit of our 152-mm shells in Tsushima with a good effect.
          1. Shikishima. I already wrote that a hole of 1 x 1,7 inches in 102-mm armor from an unexploded shell! And flooding.
          2. Kasagi. Two 152 mm rounds. The first one flew along the bow without an explosion (three ricochets). The second made a hole below the waterline, as a result flooding began and the ship left the battle. Let me remind you that “Aurora” and “Oleg”, despite numerous hits, kept at least 18 knots and did not even think about sinking. So much for the effect of landmines!
          3. Naniwa. Out of action for 2,5 hours due to two 152mm holes at the waterline. Again, a clear comparison of the effectiveness of 152-mm shells.
          4. Asama. The 152-mm projectile pierced the tube and the speed dropped to 10 knots. The ship again left the system and then on May 15 did not have time for a single battle.

          You can say that my selection has more than a dozen 152-mm hits from our shells with virtually no effect! And you will be right.
          But! The Japanese have even more 152mm hits without effect: almost everything that hit the armor.
          And the second but! Those shells that did not cause damage simply hit badly. And luck is a matter of probability. The more hits, the higher the likelihood of damaging something serious. Thus, the question again primarily comes down to the number of hits, and not the quality of the shells.

          Conclusion: our 152-mm shells could cause serious damage to enemy ships.
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra 21 July 2020 13: 37
            0
            Quote: rytik32
            So testing is not acceptance into service!

            Annual Report of the Secretary of War - United States. War Dept - 1902

            Pp. 631

            CONTINUATION OF REPORTS OF JANUARY 31 AND MARCH 30, 1901, ON
            HIGH EXPLOSIVES FOR BURSTING CHARGES FOR SHELL,

            THE ORDNANCE BOARD, USA,

            NEW YORK ARSENAL,
            GOVERNORS ISLAND), NEW YORK HARBOR,

            New York City, May 25, 1901. Sir: In continuation of reports of January 31 and March 30, 1901, relating to high-explosive projectiles, and under the program of February 1, 1901, accompanying second indorsement (OO letter 23100, enc. 262), the board has the honor to report that the continued trials of maximite and explosive D in conjunction with the Frankford Arsenal detonating fuze have demonstrated that both of these explosives possess the desired qualities for charges for high-explosive armorpiercing and siege shell, and are suitable for adoption in service.

            Here I chose a little hit of our 152-mm shells in Tsushima with a good effect.
            1. Shikishima. I already wrote that a hole of 1 x 1,7 inches in 102-mm armor from an unexploded shell! And flooding.


            If the destructive effect of unexploded and exploded armor-piercing shells were about the same, then no one would bother placing explosives in such shells. We would continue to shoot shells without explosives.

            Russian steel armor-piercing and "high-explosive" shells were essentially two versions of armor-piercing shells. The fact that the striking effect of penetrating armor and NOT exploding Russian shells was close to the effect of penetrating armor and exploding Russian shells is not at all in favor of the "normality" of these shells.

            12 "armor-piercing, explosive" maximit ", about 7000 fragments

            5 "armor-piercing, explosive" maximit ", more than 800 fragments

            And the Americans even abandoned the "maximit" in 1906 in favor of the "dunnite".

            Conclusion: our 152-mm shells could cause serious damage to enemy ships.


            Could, and not only 152-mm caliber. But the striking effect of the Russian shells of all calibers used during the ROE was considered extremely low. The errors in the shells of the 1907 model and the 1911 model were fixed.
            1. rytik32
              rytik32 21 July 2020 21: 30
              0
              Quote: AlexanderA
              are suitable for adoption in service

              "Suitable for adoption for armament." Is there a difference with "adopted"?
              And I don’t understand what you are trying to prove to me?
              After all, a good projectile is not only explosives, but also a detonator, body metal, armor-piercing cap.
              1. Alexandra
                Alexandra 22 July 2020 03: 04
                0
                Quote: rytik32
                "Suitable for adoption for armament." Is there a difference with "adopted"? And I don’t understand what you are trying to prove to me? After all, a good projectile is not only explosives, but also a detonator, body metal, armor-piercing cap.


                You can prove to me that armor-piercing shells with "maximit" and "dunnit" piercing the armor plate of Krupp steel and regularly exploding after it were NOT adopted by the US Navy at the beginning of the XNUMXth century.

                I am trying to inform you that the "task of developing good armor-piercing shells" was solved in the world before the start of the RYA in the USA, and, yes, Rdultovsky did not know about this.

                The rest ... watch Rdultovsky. He knew almost everything else. Russia entered the RYA with armor-piercing shells with a low filling factor with obsolete explosives - smokeless powder or curved pyroxylin that explodes when passing through a thick armor plate, as well as completely without explosives (in coastal artillery and for Kane's 75 millimeters).

                Russia entered the RYaV with armor-piercing shells equipped with Brink delayed-action fuses that were unsuccessful in design and production, or without delay fuses, i.e. with armor-piercing shells that are NOT capable of hitting vital parts (cellars, boilers, vehicles) of enemy armored ships.

                The problem of the lack of "good armor-piercing shells" was aggravated to a catastrophic one due to the complete absence of modern high-explosive shells with a high filling ratio of such powerful blasting explosives as picric acid in service with Russian naval and coastal artillery.

                The enemy also entered the war without "good armor-piercing shells." But in the armament of the enemy, (as in the armament of all the other largest fleets of that time, except for the Russian Imperial Navy), there were good high-explosive shells with a high coefficient of filling with blasting explosives. There was also a sensitive detonator for them, which ensured a low failure rate and a high frequency of full detonations of explosive explosive charge in these shells under Tsushima.

                Having chosen an artillery battle distance at Tsushima, which made it possible to fully use their superiority in medium-caliber artillery and relying on good high-explosive shells, the enemy achieved an unexpectedly devastating victory for the Russian Imperial Navy in the war at sea.
        2. rytik32
          rytik32 21 July 2020 08: 33
          0
          Quote: AlexanderA
          In any case, the "Peresvet" in the ZhM got at times more than 10-12 "Japanese shells than in the" Oslyabyu "at Tsushima. But probably for the most part these were armor-piercing shells with a much lower (in comparison with the Tsushima high-explosive" suitcases ") content of explosives There were no holes in the unarmored side into which the carriage could enter, no strong fires, no towers completely disabled and broken casemates were observed on it.


          Well, how can I say ... of course, the damage to the Oslyabi was stronger, but the damaged bow turret and large breaks in the side were also on the Peresvet.
          In my opinion, "Oslyabya" received more shells than "Peresvet" and in less time.
  • Kayuk
    Kayuk 20 July 2020 17: 59
    0
    Hello Andrey Nikolaevich!
    For a long time and with pleasure I have been reading your materials about the fleet. Very strong articles. And the comments to them sometimes make you think about a lot. But this article about my and your namesake (Rodion-Andrey Oslyabya) made me leave a small comment here. As far as I know, during the entire period of the Russo-Japanese war, Japanese shells never pierced the armor of our ships !!! Therefore, in reality there was no penetration of armor with a hit in coal pit # 10. Most likely, there was a separation of the armor from the hull plating, due to loosening of its fastening from several hits, or insufficient or incorrect fastening at the building plant. The same applies to the flooding (water ingress) of rooms below the armored deck. Who built this ship? State plant New Admiralty in St. Petersburg! I immediately recall the repair of the Brave canboat in Toulon at the Lagan factory in 1899 (Who cares - the article "Repairs under the highest supervision"). What is there only the French did not find! They even sent a whole album of photos. "Brave" is also the brainchild of the New Admiralty of the same period. And before that, the "Gangut", which sank from the filtration of water throughout the hull from a hole right in the Gulf of Finland, the "Sisoy Velikiy" - disabled from numerous water filtration after a torpedo hit. "Admiral Senyavin", "General-Admiral Apraksin" and "Emperor Nicholas 1" are from the same period of the late 19th century, but they did not have a chance to experience the firepower of the Japanese fleet. The culture of the state (national), not to be confused with the private, shipbuilding of that period in the Russian Empire was very, so to speak, special. Hence, "Pobeda" and "Peresvet", built at the private Baltic plant, they at least were able to withstand the battle in the Yellow Sea. But that's my personal opinion. And we look forward to continuing.
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 20 July 2020 22: 54
      +2
      Quote: Kayuk
      Japanese shells for the entire time of the Russian-Japanese war did not penetrate the armor of our ships even once

      There were penetrations, read https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/70594.html
      Quote: Kayuk
      Sisoy the Great "- incapacitated from numerous water filtrations after a torpedo hit

      He drowned from holes in the nose, and the torpedo even slightly leveled the driver)))
      1. Kayuk
        Kayuk 21 July 2020 11: 18
        0
        Honestly, I haven't read the first quote. Thanks. Although on "Oslyaba" there is a controversial statement. And the second. This does not change the essence. It was completely incapacitated due to the spread of water inside the ship's hull.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 July 2020 08: 00
      +3
      Quote: Kayuk
      Hello Andrey Nikolaevich!

      Good day!
      Quote: Kayuk
      As far as I know, during the entire time of the Russo-Japanese War, Japanese shells never pierced the armor of our ships !!!

      Why not? They punched. But weak and small. From the reliable one, the breakdown of 102 mm armor plate and knocking out the plug from the 229 mm plate of the "Victory" is known, in addition, a large-caliber shell broke a large piece of 229 mm armor "Peresvet", but in the last two cases the shell did not pass inside. But I would not recommend https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/70594.html, the author is too loose with the data. Damage to the 229 mm Pobeda plate appears as a through penetration, although the projectile did not pass inside, and it is not, and the breakdown of 102 mm of armor on Oslyab, obviously, could not be confirmed by subsequent inspection.
      Quote: Kayuk
      Therefore, the penetration of the armor with hitting the coal pit # 10 was not in reality.

      Most likely, there was something similar to Peresvet - the shell did not go inside but broke a piece of armor, but it could have been different, for example, a close underwater rupture, or, as in the case of the Tsesarevich, the shell slipped off the plate and exploded in the water. In general, there are a lot of options
      Quote: Kayuk
      Who built this ship?

      I invite you to discuss the second part of the article, it is just on the main one :)
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 21 July 2020 13: 59
    0
    Quote: rytik32
    In my opinion, "Oslyabya" received more shells than "Peresvet" and in less time


    Do you think thereby that "Oslyabya" quickly received more than 40 hits while receiving several times fewer hits of 10-12 "shells than" Peresvet ", i.e. that the overwhelming majority of those that hit" Oslyabya "and deprived it of their combat effectiveness (it is that one of the shells flew into the gun embrasure of the bow 10 "turret) was of medium caliber?
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 21 July 2020 21: 25
      0
      I believe that 8 and 6 inch shells played a key role in the sinking of the Oslyabi, making numerous holes in the bow.
      In "flew into the embrasure" I do not believe. Most likely there was a gap in the barrel near the embrasure. Otherwise, everyone in the tower would have died.
  • Looking for
    Looking for 20 August 2020 14: 53
    0
    interesting. at least one of dozens of "experts" and "professor" has at least an elementary education of a shipbuilding engineer. ????
  • Yuri Shalnov
    Yuri Shalnov 5 October 2020 19: 04
    0
    What ships were, on those, Russian sailors fought and died heroically! The dead have no shame ...