Military Review

Booking battleships of the type "Sevastopol"

281

The reservation scheme of Sevastopol at the time of entry into operation seems to be well-known, but, oddly enough, not a single source contains a complete and consistent description.


Stronghold


The basis of the vertical protection was the 225 mm armored belt 116,5 m long, but information about its height varies: either 5,00 or 5,06 m. It is reliably known that the upper edge of the armored belt reached the middle deck. Most sources indicate that, with a ship's normal displacement, the main armored belt towered 3,26 m above the water. Accordingly, it went 1,74 or 1,80 m below the water, depending on how high the armored belt is. But dear S.E. Vinogradov in The Last Giants of the Russian Imperial fleet"Gives a diagram according to which the height of the armored plates of battleships of the" Sevastopol "type was 5,06 m, while in the normal displacement above the water it should be 3,33 m, and below the waterline, respectively, 1,73 m.

In length, the main armored belt completely covered all engine rooms and boiler rooms, as well as the main caliber artillery barbets, there are no discrepancies in the sources. Most of them also indicate that the 225 mm belt closed in the bow and in the stern with 100 mm traverses that formed the citadel. But here A. Vasiliev in his book “The First Battleships of the Red Fleet” for some reason claims that “Special armored traverse transverse bulkheads were not provided.”

End reservation


In the bow and stern, the main armor belt continued with armor plates of the same height, but 125 mm thick. Everything seems to be clear if it were not for the “Sevastopol battleship reservation scheme” compiled based on the materials of the Russian State Autonomous Naval Archive, presented in the monograph by A. Vasiliev.


It can be seen on it that between the 225-mm armor of the citadel and the 125-mm armored belts of the extremities there are some “adapter plates” whose thickness is not indicated. It can be assumed that the thickness of these plates was also “transitional,” that is, it was less than 225 mm, but more than 125 mm.

All sources agree that the bow was fully booked up to the stem, but there are ambiguities about the stern. Presumably, this was the case: behind the barbet of the 4th tower of the main caliber, battleships of the Sevastopol type had a tiller compartment. From the sides of the ship it was protected by a 125-mm armored belt, and from the stern - by an inclined beam 100 mm thick. According to A. Vasiliev, in the hold, this beam had 125 mm of thickness. So, in all likelihood, the 125-mm armored belt continued until this armored beam, leaving the last few meters of the stern without protection. On the other hand, the above “Scheme” seems to hint that the board still had a 50 mm reservation in this area. It is possible and quite likely that this stern area really had no side protection, but the lower armored deck with bevels in this area was thickened to 38 mm.

Upper armor belt


There are also some ambiguities with him. It is known for certain that the upper belt started from the ship’s stem, but its height is incomprehensible - usually 2,72 m, but the author came across a figure of 2,66 m, while S.E. Vinogradov - even 2,73 m. The upper belt protected the space from the upper to the middle deck, while above the citadel it had a thickness of 125 mm, and over 125 mm armored plates of the tip - 75 mm. It didn’t continue to the stern from the citadel, so from the edge of the barbet of the 4th tower to the stern stern of battleships of the Sevastopol type between the upper and middle decks they did not have protection.

But with traverses at the level of the upper belt, everything is not easy. But this issue should be considered in conjunction with the reservation of barbets.

Shatterproof Armored Bulkheads


Everything seems to be simple here. Beyond the upper 125 mm armored belt, between the upper and middle decks, battleships of the Sevastopol type had additional protection in the form of 37,5 mm bulkheads, and behind the main 225 mm armored belt, between the middle and lower decks, bulkheads 50 mm thick. Considering the fact that from the lower edge of the 50 mm bulkheads and 225 mm armored belts were connected by armored bevels, it turned out that the most important parts of the ship had two-layer protection.

Unfortunately, there were some discrepancies in the sources. So, A. Vasiliev indicates that longitudinal anti-shatter bulkheads went along the entire length of the main armor belt. However, the schemes cited by him refute this statement. According to them, only 225 mm bulkheads went along the entire length of the 50 mm armored belt, and 37,5 mm were shorter - they did not adjoin the 100 mm traverses, but only to the barbets of the 1st and 4th GK towers.


Thus, while the 225 mm belt and the 50 mm bulkhead behind it protected the supply pipes of the bow and stern turrets of the main gun, then the 37,5 mm armored bulkhead did not. But this, again, if the scheme is correct, and not the statements of A. Vasiliev.

Barbets and Traverses


Information about booking barbets is also very controversial. It is reliably known that over the upper deck the barbets of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd towers of the Civil Code had 150 mm of armor. At the same time, almost all sources say that the 150 mm section ended precisely on the upper deck, and below, between the upper and middle decks, the thickness of the barbets of the 2nd and 3rd towers of the Civil Code was only 75 mm.

However, if you look at the schemes of battleships, you get the impression that the 150-mm section of the barbet still did not end at the level of the upper deck, but continued a little further down so that a shell that hit the armor of the upper deck at an acute angle and pierced it would fall in 150 mm armor plate.


Whether it is true or not, the author is not known for certain. Similarly, the thickness of the barbet's protection from the middle deck and below is not indicated anywhere.

But, in any case, the defense of the barbets of the 2nd and 3rd towers of the Civil Code is more or less clear: this is a 150-mm “ring” at the tower, further somewhere, but not lower than the upper deck, decreasing to 75 mm and having such thickness down to the middle deck, and possibly further. I must say that the barbets of these GK towers in the space between the upper and middle deck of the barbets were protected quite well. In order to get to the supply pipe at this level, the projectile needed to break through the 125 mm upper belt, then the 37,5 mm fragmentation bulkhead and then another 75 mm barbet, and a total of 237,5 mm spaced armor.

Another thing is the 1st and 2nd towers of the main caliber. As mentioned above, judging by the scheme, the 37,5-mm armored bulkheads were adjacent to the rear side of the barbets: for the 1st GK tower - in the part facing the stern, for the 4th GK tower - respectively, to the bow. Thus, between the upper and middle deck, the supply pipes of the bow and stern turrets of the main guard protected only 125 mm of the upper armored belt and 75 mm of the barbet, and only 200 mm of spaced armor. But further in the nose, the upper armored belt had only 75 mm, and in the stern it did not continue at all! To compensate for this weakness, part of the first tower barbet turned to the nose was thickened to 1 mm, and the part of the fourth tower barbette turned to the stern - up to 125 mm thickness. Thus, from the bow and stern angles, these towers also protected 4 mm of armor, the only difference was that in the nose it was 200 mm armored belt and 200 mm barbet, and in the stern - 75 mm barbet. In fact, it can be said that the barbate of the 125th tower of the Civil Code from aft angles received the best protection - nevertheless, the 200 mm armor plate was more resistant than the spaced reservation of 4 + 200 mm. At the same time, judging by the diagrams, part of the 125th tower barbet, towering above the upper deck and facing the stern, also had a thickness of 75 mm, in contrast to the 4 mm of the other three GK towers.

Here, however, the question arises. The fact is that the aft 100-mm traverse, apparently, protected the supply pipe of the 4th turret of the main missile defense only to the level of the middle deck. And, since the barbet section, which had a thickness of 200 mm, had a very limited area, and the rest of the barbets of the 4th tower of the Civil Code had the same 75 mm, it seemed to be a whole “gate” - the shell could fly under the upper deck and hit 75 mm barbet. Sources do not give a direct answer to this question, but the diagram shows a 125 mm traverse connecting the edge of the upper armored belt and a 200 mm barbet reservation site.


Most likely, it really existed, although there is no mention of it in the sources, in this case the 75-mm barbet area of ​​the aft turret GK was protected by the same 200 mm spaced armor.

Let us now consider the protection of the supply pipes of the main caliber towers below, between the middle and lower decks. Here everything is more or less clear only with the 1st and 4th towers of the Civil Code. It turned out that their supply pipes were, as it were, in boxes formed from the bow (stern) by a 100 mm traverse, and along the sides by 50 mm armored bulkheads. Accordingly, even if this section of the supply pipe did not have its own reservation, then from the foreshortenings it was covered with 125 mm armored belt ends and 100 mm traverses, and on the sides - 225 mm main armor belt and 50 mm armored bulkhead, i.e. 225 and 275 mm spaced reservation accordingly. It should be noted that the beam and the 125-mm armor plates protecting the ship’s bow were positioned at an angle close to 90 degrees, so it would be quite difficult to penetrate them even for a 305-mm shell.

But the 3rd and 4th towers of the main missile defense were located closer to the middle of the ship, where the hull of battleships of the "Sevastopol" type, of course, was much wider, and 50 mm armored bulkheads were located at a considerable distance from the supply pipes. If they really did not have armor protection, then an enemy shell had to overcome either the 225 mm belt and the 50 mm bulkhead (bevel) or the 125 mm upper belt, 37,5 mm bulkhead and 25 mm to defeat them deck or 37,5 and 25 mm armored decks, which, in general, also can not be called really bad protection.

Concluding the description of the vertical reservation of the buildings of these Russian battleships, we note that they did not have separate casemates, since they were "combined" with an upper armor belt 125 mm thick. In addition, there were 25- or 25,4 mm armored bulkheads between the guns ... But here, too, not everything is clear. The diagram indicates that each gun was separated by such traverses from each other, but there is information in the sources that there were 2 guns in one fenced casemate. On the whole, looking a little ahead, we can say that the Sevastopol anti-mine caliber was located in casemates with frontal armor of 125 mm, a roof of 37,5 mm, armored bulkheads of 25,4 mm and a 19 mm deck.

Horizontal reservation


Everything is relatively simple here, but at the same time, it is here that, perhaps, contains the “main ambiguity” in the booking of battleships of the Sevastopol type.

The upper deck was the basis of horizontal armor and consisted of 37,5 mm of armor - everything is clear, and there are no discrepancies in the sources. The middle deck was considered anti-fragmentation - it had a thickness of 25 mm (rather still 25,4 mm - that is, an inch) along the entire length between 50 mm armored bulkheads and 19 mm - in areas between 125 mm upper armored belts and 50 mm anti-fragmented bulkheads of the left and right sides . The lower deck in the horizontal part was not booked at all - here it was formed by 12 mm steel flooring. But the lower deck also had bevels, they were armored, but ... the thickness of this armor remains a mystery.

The greatest thickness of these bevels is given by I.F. Tsvetkov and D.A. Bazhanov in his book “The Dreadnoughts of the Baltic. Battleships of the Sevastopol type in the First World War and Revolution (1914-1919). ” They claim that the bevels of the first Russian dreadnoughts were 50 mm armored plates laid on 12 mm steel flooring. Many other historians, for example E.S. Vinogradov and A. Vasiliev indicate that the total thickness of the armor of the bevels of the lower deck at the Sevastopol was 50 mm. But at the same time, in the same monograph by A. Vasiliev, on the “Sevastopol battleship reservation chart”, it was shown that these bevels consisted of 25 mm armored plates laid on 12 mm flooring (rather 25,4 mm armor by 12,7 mm become). The author of this article for a long time tried to find copies of the drawings, which could unequivocally answer the question about the thickness of the bevels of "Sevastopol". Unfortunately, copies available on the Internet do not have sufficient resolution - the numbers we are interested in are there, but they are illegible.


Other armor protection


The conning tower of battleships of the Sevastopol type had the same reservation: walls - 254 mm, roof - 100 mm and floor - 76 mm. The armored tubes protecting the wires had 125 mm thickness in the conning tower and 76 mm outside them (which is somewhat strange). The towers were armored as follows: forehead and sides - 203 mm, roof - 76 mm, aft armor plate - 305 mm. With chimney casings, alas, ambiguity. As far as one can judge, between the upper and middle decks they had armor protection of 22 mm. But, judging by the reservation schemes, above the upper deck and about the height of the barrels of 305 mm guns (direct fire), they had protection of either 38,5 mm or 75 mm.

Between wars


Without a doubt, the armor protection of the first domestic dreadnought-type “Sevastopol” left much to be desired. But still it was not so “cardboard” as it is commonly believed today - Russian ships were better armored than the British “Admiral Fischer’s cats,” but worse than the Moltke-class battle cruisers. In general, the defense of "Sevastopol" against 280-305-mm shells of guns from the First World War can be considered quite acceptable. The problem, however, was that by the time our dreadnoughts entered service, the leading naval powers were already building battleships with much more powerful 343-mm, 356-mm and even 380-381-mm guns.

In principle, the defense of battleships of the Sevastopol type could still stand against semi-armor-piercing 343 mm shells with their almost instant fuse, which many in the Royal Navy revered as the main armament of dreadnought and battle cruisers. But by the end of World War I, the British realized their fallacies and created normal, full-fledged armor-piercing shells. The Germans also had such from the very beginning.

We can say that according to the results of the First World War, practically all the leading fleets of the world finally created first-class armor-piercing shells for 343-410-mm guns of their latest battleships. Against such ammunition, the Sevastopol armor at the main battle distances did not protect at all.


In addition, in the interval between world wars, the possibilities of sea aviationincluding the weight of the bombs that she could bring down on warships, which also required reinforcing the horizontal armor protection of the battleships.

Modernization of the armor protection of battleships in the interwar period


She was minimal. In fact, on the battleships "Marat" and "October Revolution" only the roofs of the main-caliber towers were strengthened - from 76 to 152 mm. The same thing was done for the towers of the Paris Commune, but this battleship also received a significant increase in horizontal reservations: the 25,4 mm armored plates of the middle deck were removed, and in their place they installed 75 mm armor plates designed for the light cruiser Admiral Nakhimov. " This markedly improved the ship's defense against both aircraft and enemy artillery. As the experience of the Great Patriotic War showed, the combination of the 37,5 mm upper and 25,4 mm medium armored decks made it possible to withstand the hits of 250 kg of bombs quite successfully: they pierced the upper deck and exploded in the interdeck space, and the middle deck quite successfully reflected the fragments. Well, the "Paris Commune" had every chance to withstand even 500 kg air bombs.

In addition, the battleship that crossed from the Baltic to the Black Sea received such an important tool as buli. Strictly speaking, battleships of the Sevastopol type did not have any developed anti-torpedo protection, although coal pits of ships located along the sides could play a certain role. But in the interwar period, the battleships were converted to liquid fuel, so their “PTZ” became completely dubious. But the 144-meter “blisters” of the “Paris Commune” were supposed to provide protection from 450-mm air torpedoes, containing 150-170 kg of explosives. Now it is hardly possible to say how correct these calculations were, but nevertheless, a significant strengthening of the technical characteristics of the Black Sea battleship is beyond doubt.


In addition, the appearance of boules on the Paris Commune made it possible to solve the issue of ship stability, which was significantly worsened due to the mass of additional weights installed above the waterline during the course of the battleship modernization. Also slightly improved vertical armor protection. The fact is that part of the blister was located opposite the 225 mm armored belt over its entire height and had a steel wall 50 mm thick. Of course, 50 mm steel (although it is possible that it was armored) could not significantly increase the protection of the battleship, but nevertheless, a slight increase took place.

There was another innovation related to the armor of these ships. Since battleships of the "Sevastopol" type did not strike the imagination with their seaworthiness, it was decided to install special nasal claddings on them, which would reduce the flooding of the bow tower of the GK at high speed, or in fresh weather. To compensate for the weight of the attachment, several 75 mm upper armor plates were removed from the noses of all three Soviet battleships (on the Marat, for example, over 0-13 frames). The defense hole was compensated by installing a traverse, which had a thickness of 100 mm for Marat and 50 mm for the October Revolution, but no data were found on the Paris Commune. But all this, of course, had nothing to do with strengthening the defense.


conclusions


Without a doubt, the most important reason for the limited modernization of the armor protection of Soviet battleships was the general lack of funds that the young Land of Soviets could afford to spend on their navy. But you need to understand that, even if the Soviet leadership was bathed in money, no technical tricks could protect the ships that were originally designed for normal (not even standard!) Displacement of less than 23 tons from modern armor-piercing shells of 000-356 caliber mm From the point of view of price and quality, the modernization of the “Paris Commune” looks optimal: the increase in horizontal booking and boules looked really useful innovations. One can only regret that the USSR did not find the means for a similar defense of Marat and the October Revolution. Of course, the Baltic battleships did not have the opportunity to manifest themselves in the Great Patriotic War, but if Marat got a 410-mm armored deck, perhaps he would have survived during the fateful German air raid on September 75 23
Author:
281 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Jura 27
    Jura 27 12 July 2020 06: 19 New
    +8
    According to the last drawing in the post: GP height - 4.98m (its vert. Projection, true height, due to the inclination of the side is slightly larger); Deck bevels: 25mm steel of armored deck of ordinary mechanical qualities, lining - 12mm of steel of ordinary shipbuilding.
    Opposite the extreme towers, the bevels were armored with 75mm armor plates.
    Between the lower and middle decks, barbets had no armor.
    In general, the reservation was below the level of the baseboard for PMV and corresponded to the level of the REV.
    1. Graz
      Graz 12 July 2020 07: 26 New
      -10
      in fact, the king’s useless spending of money on all these LCs, it would be better if this money was spent on the ground forces
      1. unknown
        unknown 12 July 2020 08: 39 New
        16
        And how can you protect minefields in the Baltic?
        Destroyers and gunboats?
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 12: 17 New
          +4
          And how can you protect minefields in the Baltic?


          tell, psta, the details of the specific battles "Sevastopol" against the Germans in the defense of minefields
          1. doubovitski
            doubovitski 13 July 2020 00: 40 New
            +5
            Quote: Andrei Shmelev
            And how can you protect minefields in the Baltic?


            tell, psta, the details of the specific battles "Sevastopol" against the Germans in the defense of minefields

            And you run after the hammer to the store only when your wife demanded to hang the carpet in another place? If you can do this by slightly delaying the execution and getting along with only one slap in the face, then with a battleship the case is more stationary. Here you can’t dodge a lot of blows.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 09: 27 New
              -2
              And you run after the hammer to the store only when your wife demanded to hang the carpet in another place?


              1. I have no carpet at home
              2. And you, as I understand it, are ready, in conditions of extreme constraint in the means, to buy such necessary things as a welding machine, for example, in reserve?
          2. Rakovor
            Rakovor 13 July 2020 19: 18 New
            +1
            So maybe these fights were not due to the presence of Sevastopol?
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 11: 58 New
              -1
              and "Glory, who drowned?
              1. Rakovor
                Rakovor 14 July 2020 13: 21 New
                0
                Well, when they drowned Glory, Sevastopol wasn’t there. And the Germans, the campaign, knew that they would not be, and therefore acted so aggressively.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 17: 05 New
                  0
                  So these battles were not due to the presence of "Sevastopol",
                  or were they still due to the lack of "Sevastopol"?
                  You already decide)
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 13 July 2020 11: 03 New
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          And how can you protect minefields in the Baltic?
          Destroyers and gunboats?

          Minefields against ... whom?
          What, the HZF with the outbreak of war instead of confronting RN will certainly rush to St. Petersburg - to put part of the ships in a shallow Marquise pool under the fire of coastal artillery? Well this is not Irbene arr. 1917 - the personnel of the batteries drags the service according to the charter. And the wake column of the LC, going along the fairway - here and the mortar can get.
          Moreover, in case of refusal to build "North", the coastal defense will be increased by 146%. Maybe the CMAP batteries will have time to build by 1914. smile
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 13 July 2020 11: 28 New
            +4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Minefields against ... whom?

            Against Hochseeflotte, in which, suddenly, in addition to the newest ships, there are outdated battleships of the Deutschland and Vitelsbach types, which individually may be weaker than Andrew the First-Called (and are approximately equal to the Tsarevich), but there are ten of them (not counting another ten earlier) against four, and they are not as pathetic as the new dreadnoughts.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And the wake column of the LC, going along the fairway - here and the mortar can get.

            Yeah. If you get it.
            In general, without "Sev" the Germans, completely without distracting the main forces of the FOM, do whatever they want in the Baltic, including a breakthrough into the Marquis's puddle and the destruction of St. Petersburg's industry.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 13 July 2020 11: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              In general, without "Sev" the Germans, completely without distracting the main forces of the FOM, do whatever they want in the Baltic, including a breakthrough into the Marquis's puddle and the destruction of St. Petersburg's industry.

              In the best case for themselves, this armada will reach Tolbukhin lighthouse. At worst, it gets bogged down by the CMAP (which, alternatively, without "North" should strengthen).
              Poking between Kronstadt and Izhora along the Southern fairway is suicide. There, between the banks of 10-15 km, so that even 11 "mortars with their 8 km range will reach the fairway (it would be strange if the batteries put to cover the fairway did not reach it smile ) And you can only maneuver the ships with a move, which is not the best thing to do when following the convoy.
              1. Senior seaman
                Senior seaman 13 July 2020 12: 09 New
                +5
                Quote: Alexey RA
                even 11 "mortars will reach the fairway

                Excuse me, but did these mortars in their history, in general, get somewhere?

                In general, these are all solvable problems. tactical troops land, the battery is silenced, and so on. If the sea is behind the Germans, they do what they want. By the way, until the "Sevas" were commissioned, the Germans went to the Gulf of Riga with old battleships. As soon as they entered, they did not allow themselves this.
                1. Pane Kohanku
                  Pane Kohanku 13 July 2020 16: 45 New
                  +4
                  In general, all these are solvable problems. a tactical landing is landed, the battery is silenced, and so on.

                  Ivan, I'm sorry to get into your informative conversation ... drinks
                  I just wanted to add (and you already know) that the approaches to St. Petersburg and Kronstadt should have been blocked on both sides of the bay. From the south - the forts "Krasnaya Gorka" and "Gray Horse", from the north - the fort "Ino". The question is that the tsarist strategists foresaw the landing of the tactical landings you indicated, and both of these directions were seriously fortified from land. There were huge fortified areas with all the infrastructure. It is clear that there are no impregnable fortresses, but it would take a very long time to transport these forts (provided they were provided with weapons, supplies, and manning)! With respect, Nicholai hi
                  1. Senior seaman
                    Senior seaman 13 July 2020 17: 01 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Pane Kohanku
                    I'm sorry to get in

                    Welcome:)
                    Quote: Pane Kohanku
                    that the approaches to St. Petersburg and Kronstadt were supposed to overlap on both sides of the bay

                    It is, yes. But the Baltic theater of operations is not limited to the approaches to St. Petersburg. And if the Gulf of Finland and Riga are blocked with batteries that will cover the forts, which, in turn, will be covered by fortified areas, which will also have batteries to cover which forts will be needed ... then very soon the cost of these fortifications will exceed not only four battleships, but perhaps the galactic fleet from Star Destroyers.
                    But the trouble is, you can’t send these fortifications into battle, or interrupt ore supplies from Sweden, or support the army on the coast with artillery fire ...
                    In general, coastal fortifications are obviously needed. But it is also obvious that they cannot replace ships.
                    1. Pane Kohanku
                      Pane Kohanku 13 July 2020 17: 11 New
                      +4
                      And if you block the Gulf of Finland and Riga with batteries that will cover the forts, which in turn will be covered with fortified areas, which will also have batteries, for which you will need forts to cover ...

                      in Revel, the Sea Fortress of Peter the Great was built for this purpose. And here is an interesting point. drinks The approaches to the forts were to be covered with smaller fortifications. But then the sailors decided not to pour money into concrete boxes, but, rightly judging that the defense should be active, ordered a batch of 18 "Garford" armored cars designed by General Nikolai Filatov! good In battle, the armored car was supposed to move along the highway to the attacked area. Taking into account the power of the "Garford" weapons (and Filatov proposed the very system that will live in our tank forces for another twenty years - the 76-mm "short" gun) - this was the right choice. yes

                      In general, coastal fortifications are obviously needed. But it is also obvious that they cannot replace ships.

                      I agree! yes
                    2. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 14 July 2020 14: 10 New
                      0
                      Quote: Senior Sailor
                      But the trouble is, you can’t send these fortifications into battle, or interrupt ore supplies from Sweden, or support the army on the coast with artillery fire ...

                      And what, in real-life LC, did this? wink
                      Light forces - KR and EM fought in the Republic of Ingushetia in the Baltic. In AI "without LK" they have not gone anywhere - and will fight in the same way.
                      1. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 14 July 2020 16: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        In AI "without LK" they have not gone anywhere - and will fight in the same way.

                        And here you are wrong. It does not matter at all whether the Baltic battleships were doing this or not. It is important that they could come out to cover their light forces and the German command had to take this into account. And it took into account. When the Germans pushed into the Gulf of Riga for the first time, they made do with old battleships. When the Sevas entered service, no less than eight dreadnoughts were allocated for such operations, exposing the FOM in the North Sea (remember, a coalition war).
                        This is called "Fleet in being". The very presence of the fleet affects the situation.
                        In general, this is a common mistake of novice alternatives: "We act differently, and the enemy is like in real life - we won." It doesn't work that way.
                        By the way, the fact that the four Baltic battleships could not be used more efficiently does not mean that they are unnecessary. This indicates the incompetence of the leadership, no more.
                        In the same way, the loss of the huge tank armada of the USSR in 1941 does not mean the uselessness of tank troops in general. repeat
                      2. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 14 July 2020 17: 17 New
                        0
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        When the Germans first popped into the Gulf of Riga, they cost the old battleships.

                        In 1915? Then the Germans had another 8 LK (1st LK squadron) and 3 LKR (1st reconnaissance group) under cover. And the LK had to be used to drive away the Slava, which was interfering with trawling.
                        In addition, crushing Zerel is best in the LC.
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        In general, this is a common mistake of novice alternatives: "We act differently, and the enemy is like in real life - we won." It doesn't work that way.

                        I am in the know - this is my favorite argument when parsing AI. smile
                        Just in the presence of BOs and old EDBs, Germans will still have to drag LCs.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 14 July 2020 12: 37 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Pane Kohanku
                  The question is that the tsarist strategists provided for the landing of the tactical assaults you indicated, and both of these directions were seriously fortified from land.

                  Absolutely. Here is the defense diagram of Fort Ino:

                  The "Krasnaya Gorka" defense system was similar. The composition of the fortifications and the size of the garrison:
                  - 15 artillery positions with for withdrawable 3-dm / 20 anti-storm guns arr. 1903 with shelters and cellars of ammunition for guns and 50 people. l / s;
                  - 4 machine gun nests for two machine guns with shelters and ammunition cellars for machine guns and 30 people. l / s;
                  - 1 four-machine caponier with shelter for personnel.
                  The sections between the artillery and machine-gun positions are partially covered by concrete trenches with concrete and armor parapets, and partially by full-profile trenches with ramparts. The space in front of the line of defense was protected by a moat with an escarp and 4-6 rows of barbed wire on iron pegs. The swamp in front of the fort could, if necessary, be flooded to a height of approx. 3 m, for which there is a flood gateway.
                  In the rear there are 5 barracks-shelters for 120 people. with parapet for shooters.
                  1. Pane Kohanku
                    Pane Kohanku 14 July 2020 12: 44 New
                    +2
                    The "Krasnaya Gorka" defense system was similar

                    Moreover, during the war, batteries of field artillery - the usual "three-inch" guns, were moved to the places of potential landing (near various villages). hi Razdolgin and Skorikov listed such preparations in the book "The Kronstadt Fortress".
    2. lucul
      lucul 12 July 2020 12: 04 New
      0
      in fact, the king’s useless spending of money on all these LCs, it would be better if this money was spent on the ground forces

      In fact, at the time of design - type Sevastopol, one of the most breakthrough ships of its time. It’s not his problem that it took so long to build, and by the time it was launched, it would lose all its advantages if it were put into operation as quickly as the English (from design to bookmark) would have one of the strongest ships at that time.
    3. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki 12 July 2020 17: 28 New
      -6
      ... do you think they spent a little money on the land explorers ??? .. at ~ 20 tanks (the deutsche had them on 000/22.06.41/4000 ~ XNUMX ... by the way) .. but the fact that I didn’t use the fleet in the Second World War they could (both LK and Kr with EM ..) so it’s not because the fleet was bad but .. but that's why the fleet actually merged .. (well, escort operations of the Northern Fleet do not count) historians gave an answer .. (though Heads of Coma Kuznetsov all amicably praise)
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 17: 41 New
        +1
        Before WWII, they spent money incorrectly on land pilots :)
        and if we speak for WWI just read how many machine guns with cartridges could be bought at the price of one battleship
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 July 2020 21: 14 New
          10
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          and if we speak for WWI just read

          that there were enough unspent budget money accumulated among the land explorers, while, for example, the production of rifles was curtailed and the factories put on a simple one.
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 21: 18 New
            -2
            according to mobilization norms, the army was provided with rifles (another thing is that everyone was mistaken with these norms)
            but, for example, they decided to purchase heavy artillery by 1922 due to lack of funds
            but I'm more and more about machine guns :) here, however, too, everyone was mistaken
            although the Germans, for example, had a lot more of them (12 thousand machine guns), but more and more in the fortresses, which ours turned out due to lack of funds
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 July 2020 21: 21 New
              +5
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              according to mobilization norms, the army was provided with rifles (another thing is that everyone was mistaken with these norms)

              And the money could not be corrected. So, regardless of the cost of the fleet, shell hunger and other pleasures, we were provided
              1. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 21: 22 New
                -3
                but there would be more machine guns and heavy artillery would also appear
                1. Senior seaman
                  Senior seaman 13 July 2020 11: 31 New
                  +3
                  but there would be more machine guns

                  There wouldn’t be. The men were quite sure that they had everything in abundance.
                  1. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 13: 12 New
                    -2
                    well, this is a conclusion from Sukhomlinov's article in "Birzhevye Vedomosti", perhaps? :)
                    1. Senior seaman
                      Senior seaman 13 July 2020 13: 28 New
                      +2
                      Sukhomlinov, as it were, Minister of War ... but not only. This is found (in passing) by Fedorov and other authors.
                      In addition, the Russian army before the war already had more state machine guns than other armies. We have 64 per case. The Franks have 56. The Germans have 48. (although we have more people)
                      http://militera.lib.ru/h/ww1/02.html
                      In general, without an afterthought, they would not make machine guns instead of battleships.
                    2. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 13: 33 New
                      -2
                      Germans had about 12 thousand machine guns (three times as many), but mainly in fortresses
                      without an afterthought, instead of each of the battleships, an additional army corps would be formed, for example
                    3. Senior seaman
                      Senior seaman 13 July 2020 13: 44 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      without an afterthought, instead of each of the battleships, an additional army corps would be formed, for example

                      Why would you?
                      Listen to you, Sakharov and Sukhomlinov were crawling on their knees behind Nikolai, begging for the opportunity to form new buildings or to buy machine guns :))
                      The land investigators wouldn’t do anything, it’s just that on the accounts of the military department they would lay not dead goods, but 150 million, but 300
                    4. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 14: 20 New
                      -1
                      just on the accounts of the military department would be dead weight


                      there is no such term "dead weight", there are other terms, 150 million is what:
                      - "the remainder of the uncontracted budget estimates" or
                      - "the balance of funds not disbursed in a timely manner, but contracted funds" or
                      - "the balance of the contracted funds to be disbursed in the second half of the year"?

                      I've never seen a GRBS that has enough money (Except for Rusnano, which, however, is not a GRBS in the literal sense of the word)
                    5. Senior seaman
                      Senior seaman 13 July 2020 14: 31 New
                      0
                      I have never met such formulations in documents of that era :))
                      I understand what you are talking about, but unfortunately I do not remember where exactly I read about the recommended "unspent 150 million". I just remember the amount request
                    6. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 14: 55 New
                      0
                      I understand,
                      just if 150 million = "the balance of the contracted funds to be spent in the second half of the year", then Sumolinov and Sakharov finished the last horseradish without salt,

                      and if 150 million = "the balance of uncontracted funds to be spent in the second half of the year", then it is necessary to work out which code of budget classification this money was:
                      -if new weapons, they are enemies of the people,
                      -if a salary or forage, then everything is according to plan

                      the terms were similar then, only the one who read the archival documents and collected them in a book did not understand what he was writing about (
  • Alf
    Alf 12 July 2020 21: 33 New
    +2
    Quote: WapentakeLokki
    but the fact that they could not use the fleet in the Second World War

    In the Black Sea, the enemy was mainly the Romanian fleet of 2,5 patrol and ancient destroyers. Chasing the battleship for watchtowers?
    Pacific Fleet did not fight.
    There were no battleships on the SF.
    On the BF, again, with whom to fight? Was there a serious fleet of Germany?
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 21: 48 New
      0
      the Germans had a very serious fleet, they built more than 300 minesweepers, for example,
      landing barges fired over 700
      I’m not joking, it’s a fig and very seriously considering their characteristics,
      That's just battleships against them would not be very useful)
      1. Alf
        Alf 12 July 2020 22: 18 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrei Shmelev
        the Germans had a very serious fleet, they built more than 300 minesweepers, for example,
        landing barges fired over 700
        I’m not joking, it’s a fig and very seriously considering their characteristics,
        That's just battleships against them would not be very useful)

        So I’m talking about this and that there were no real goals for the Soviet battleships, and chasing battleships for paratroopers and minesweepers was not at the rank.
        1. WapentakeLokki
          WapentakeLokki 13 July 2020 19: 03 New
          -1
          ... the evacuation of the Crimea (.. no, no .. not ours, but already Deutsche ...) .. the Deutsch will evacuate everything that can go (from the BDB to the feluccas) .. the Luftwaffe is not like 41-42 .. but ... the fleet (..again the Red Banner Black Sea Fleet ..) stands at the bases .. (.. OLS + PL does not count .. yes, there was no sense in them ...) and then .. withdraw LK Sevastopol. .to the battle .. (.. the first in the history and ... the last decisive ..) and who and what could have opposed it 12x305 mm ... but ... LK and stood .. until the cutting ... with Nekita ... sadness ... and ineptly spent metal and rubles ... or is it all wrong ???
          1. Rakovor
            Rakovor 13 July 2020 19: 26 New
            0
            The Luftwaffe may already be wrong, but ours did not even have complete air supremacy even in the sky above Berlin, and there is nothing to say about the spring of the 44th.
      2. Alf
        Alf 13 July 2020 22: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
        the Germans had a very serious fleet, they built more than 300 minesweepers, for example,
        landing barges fired over 700

        And everything in the Baltic?
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 22: 48 New
          -1
          what was built on the Mediterranean is not taken into account here
          1. Alf
            Alf 13 July 2020 22: 50 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrei Shmelev
            what was built on the Mediterranean is not taken into account here

            Please provide evidence that 300 minesweepers and 700 BDB were in the Baltic or the Black Sea.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 22: 56 New
              0
              You're kidding, I guess.
              BDB can be disassembled and transported to any theater by rail. And to sweep the minesweeper from Narvik to Koenigsberg and back in general like two fingers. The exact composition of the fleets for small ships was not preserved, eu-no. But even a third of this amount, taking into account their characteristics, is very much. And, excuse me, why do you need this oftop here?
              Here we are discussing that in the presence of sufficient data about 25-mm bevels and the absence of armor on the lower deck of the "Sevstapol" AiCh tells us fairy tales, isn't it?
              1. Alf
                Alf 13 July 2020 23: 08 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                You're kidding, I guess.

                What kind of jokes are there. This YOU brought a huge minesweepers and BDB. I’m not going to insult you or poke your nose, but very often they say the formula that the Germans had a thousand of that, they say, is a huge force. And when the counting begins, it turns out that a hundred were there, two hundred over there, three hundred hanging out in the Atlantic, and the rest were under repair. As in Royal Navi, there are more battleships than all, and there is nothing to cover the convoys with, Bismarck went hunting, and not a single battleship is at hand. So a huge amount does not mean at all that they are all here and all are ready to go to sea on a green rocket at once.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 23: 19 New
                  0
                  it’s clear the stump that you write is true for any fleet, to one degree or another, but, in my humble opinion, the percentage of Germans ready is more than anything that could scratch through mosquitoes of the USSR, however, again,
                  Here we are discussing that in the presence of sufficient data about 25-mm bevels and the absence of armor on the lower deck of the "Sevstapol" AiCh tells us fairy tales, isn't it?

                  Sorry, I started off-top myself. which I will gladly discuss with you as part of the relevant article
  • Potter
    Potter 13 July 2020 19: 39 New
    0
    Yeah. As now, we don’t need a morphlot; we, infantrymen and airborne troops, will defeat the sea component of the US strategic triad with ptars and Kalash. And even cooler - in hand-to-hand fighting, with bottles of beer. On the battleship with a bottle of carting - the end of the battleship. Directly Ukrainian tank admirals.
  • Civil
    Civil 12 July 2020 12: 05 New
    0
    Say the money is still tight, even among young capitalist Russia)
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 12: 24 New
    +6
    3 essential points are missing in the description of protection:
    1. location of coal pits and their filling
    2.valuation of the quality of the armor itself
    3. Evaluation of the quality of mounting armor
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 23: 51 New
    0
    I apologize for the repetition, but once again I will write to you too:



    everything fits with the Chesme report drinks
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 00: 51 New
    -1


    here is a copy from the drawing, everything is visible here:

    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 July 2020 07: 26 New
      +2
      All would be fine, only the blue eye shows a 25 mm middle armor deck between the side armor and the bulkhead. Than contradicting all other drawings showing 19mm
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 07: 29 New
        -1
        everything would be fine, but this is an extract from TsNII-45 from the original:


        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 July 2020 17: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          everything would be fine, but this is an extract from TsNII-45 from the original:

          and the rest of the drawings with 19 mm - they are according to the Russian State Archive of Motor Vehicles
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 17: 21 New
            0
            they are by the Russian State Archive of Naval Aviation


            Weakly understand the difference between expressions:
            "Copy of TsGVMA ..."
            and "based on the materials of the Russian State Academy of AMF"?

            in the first case, this is a copy of the original,
            and in the second - an essay on the topic "what I read yesterday, and how I understood it"
  • Octopus
    Octopus 12 July 2020 06: 40 New
    +9
    )))
    I look, Andrey, your work is becoming more and more academic. Actually a source study.

    It is clear that no matter how Seva is fed, as they say in one vulgar proverb, Nagato is thicker. But what about such a topic (it seems you haven’t had this yet):

    "Soviet guy Seva di Kovur: Large modernization of the Sevastopol-type aircraft vs pr. 69 as a small battleship of the" big fleet "?
    )))
    1. unknown
      unknown 12 July 2020 08: 30 New
      +6
      In fact, historiographic.
      Historiography is the most difficult part of historical discipline.
      "A terrible dream" of students of history faculties.
      Sinful, I myself love to delve into the sources.
    2. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 13: 07 New
      +3
      "In fact, source study."


      eccentric, SOURCE - the primary document (for example, the text of the "Cathedral Code")
      but to say that the picture is blurry on the Internet - because the flight of my imagination will be unlimited, this is a deduction from the history department

      look:
      1. The thickness of the barbet's protection from the middle deck and below is not indicated anywhere.
      2. on the drawings this is not
      We conclude:
      "150-mm" ring "at the tower, then somewhere, but not below the upper deck, decreasing to 75 mm and having such a thickness down to the middle deck, and it is POSSIBLE that further."
      for this, again, deduction from history faculty
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 12 July 2020 18: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
        for this, again, deduction from history faculty

        )))
        I'm not a real source I found a mask at a construction site. Like the author.
        1. Snail N9
          Snail N9 12 July 2020 19: 28 New
          +1
          I read that in Leningrad the ships of the Baltic Fleet suffered greatly from the hinged fire of German artillery and raids by dive bombers. Therefore, their decks were "reinforced" with surrogate "armor" - granite slabs removed from the embankments.
    3. Looking for
      Looking for 12 July 2020 21: 23 New
      -1
      but where there.Osobenno.kogda shoves into an article about Russian battleships photos of the British "Nelson".
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 12 July 2020 21: 41 New
        0
        Quote: Seeker
        photo of British "Nelson".

        )))
        almost all the leading fleets of the world finally created first-class armor-piercing shells for 343-410-mm guns of their latest battleships


        We assume that the photograph illustrates this phrase)))
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 July 2020 11: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Octopus
      "Soviet guy Seva di Kovur: Large modernization of the Sevastopol-type aircraft vs pr. 69 as a small battleship of the" big fleet "?

      Small LK of the type of failed modernization "Frunze" (27 kt, 3 towers, Italian power plant from "Evgeny Savoysky", 27 knots)?
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 13 July 2020 13: 24 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Small LC on the type of failed modernization "Frunze"

        Yes, something like that. But in a situation of the late 30s, not the beginning.
  • VicktorVR
    VicktorVR 12 July 2020 06: 40 New
    +1
    Technological questions are of interest - how was the "armor" made? Did you roll it back then (the thickness is not small)?
    And how was the whole thing going? Welding? Gas / electro? Well, did they not "rivet" the armor, and even such a thickness?

    Again, the question of production - and where did so much steel come from, and not simple? Although in Russia / the USA it is still possible to understand, at least there is where to dig it out (including coal for cooking), but where did these tens of thousands of tons come from, for example, Italy or Gremania?

    A separate bow to those who designed this - without any PCs and CADs, counted on strength and rigidity, and for maritime affairs, also without computers. And there were those who made drawings from the project / sketches that were understandable for production, and so that everything was assembled, again "by hand" and "from the head".
    And the price of the error would be very high ...
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 12 July 2020 08: 54 New
      +2
      It’s not clear how, indeed, but it seems like the sheets were gathered in a spike, a dovetail and riveted to frames. Welding has become more used since the 20s. they did not hope for her. Maybe someone knows. In fact, it is somehow hard to imagine. In Germany and Italy there were no problems with steel, Germany is rich in coal. Italy bought. Nearby Turkey, Spain.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 11: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: Free Wind
        Welding has become more used since the 20s. they did not hope for her.

        Welding was used to connect thin homogeneous armor.
        Armor type KS is not cooked.
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 11: 43 New
      +7
      Quote: VicktorVR
      Technological questions are of interest - how was the "armor" made? Did you roll it back then (the thickness is not small)?

      Rolled armor ...
      Rolling mills began to be mass-produced in the 1870s.

      Quote: VicktorVR
      And how was the whole thing going? Welding? Gas / electro? Well, did they not "rivet" the armor, and even such a thickness?

      The design was assembled on armored bolts, fitting plates butt.
      For example, the rear part of the armor plate LKR "Izmail"


      Quote: VicktorVR
      and where did these tens of thousands of tons come from, for example, Italy or Gremania?

      Like everyone else - they built mines ... What was not (for example, alloying additives) was bought up.
    3. Potter
      Potter 13 July 2020 19: 54 New
      0
      The armor was rolling. This is Krupp armor with good hardening of steel. Armor welding came to shipbuilding 30 years later. Sevastopol had armor on bolts and guzhon.
  • Comrade
    Comrade 12 July 2020 06: 47 New
    +3
    Dear Andrew,
    no technical tricks could protect the ships originally designed for normal (not even standard!) displacement of less than 23 tons from modern armor-piercing shells of 000-356 mm caliber at that time.

    Or maybe it made sense to think about removing one or even two main-caliber turrets and using the "released" weight to enhance the armor?
    It could have turned out to be a Soviet analogue of the English battle cruiser "Glorious", carrying four 381 mm guns in two turrets, only better armored.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 12 July 2020 07: 06 New
      +8
      Quote: Comrade
      to remove one or even two turrets of the main caliber and use the "released" weight to enhance the armor?

      What for?

      VI for armor for old LCs was taken mainly due to boules. Less often - due to the relief of the GEM. Italians threw out the middle tower, who needed a place for a power plant - they remade the LC in LCR. But the Italians at the extremities had two linearly elevated towers. And your two-tower Seva is some kind of Soviet Deutschland.))))
      1. unknown
        unknown 12 July 2020 08: 35 New
        0
        Due to the new KTU - much more efficient.
        But where to get it?
        The Italians were on the path of relief, put on the cruiser KTU with the destroyers.
        The breakthrough was only among the French and Americans.
        Although, the Swedes were noted.
        The Germans do not count.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Octopus
          Octopus 12 July 2020 09: 39 New
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          But where to get her

          The USSR has few options, Kharkov TV-7 from 26 and 68 projects.
          Quote: ignoto
          much more efficient.

          Not. Seva are far from 35K, and the Washington Treaty does not apply to the USSR either. So the growth of VI is an obvious solution, especially taking into account the missing PTZ.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 13: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            Seva are far from 35K, and the Washington Treaty does not apply to the USSR either.

            Since 1937 (after the signing of the Anglo-Soviet naval agreement) it is fully concerned ...
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 12 July 2020 18: 08 New
              -1
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              quite concerned ...

              Do you understand that with the tsv VI Seva it does not matter?

              By the way, the USSR, not departing from the cash register, began to search in countries where to buy the rope battleships, and the ideas of the USSR were far from 35K / 14. "The Bolsheviks had such a Bolshevik attitude to treaties.
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 18: 15 New
                +1
                Quote: Octopus
                Do you understand that with the tsv VI Seva it does not matter?

                Is Sevastopol not a battleship?

                Quote: Octopus
                The attitude of the Bolsheviks towards treaties was such a Bolshevik one.

                Did you read the contract?
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 12 July 2020 19: 46 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  Is Sevastopol not a battleship?

                  On the old LC in the contracts there was a separate conversation. It is unlikely that Seva will be able to modernize to such a state that this will begin to raise questions from this side.
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  Did you read the contract?

                  Yes. What’s the question?
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 19: 56 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Octopus
                    On the old LC in the contracts there was a separate conversation.

                    Yeah ... They have been classified as "obsolete" since 1940 ...
                    And up to this point, it’s quite a first-line ship. :)

                    Quote: Octopus
                    Yes. What’s the question?

                    If you read it, then the passage
                    By the way, the USSR, without leaving the cashier, began to look in the capitalist countries from whom to buy the battleship rope, and the ideas from the USSR were far from 35K / 14. "The Bolsheviks had such a Bolshevik attitude to treaties.

                    would hardly have written ....;)
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 12 July 2020 20: 00 New
                      0
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      would hardly have written

                      Well, well, that is, LK 23pr and by the way the KR 68pr is normal? Well, OK.
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 20: 06 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Well, well, that is, LK 23pr and by the way the KR 68pr is normal? Well, OK.

                        Read paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 2 of part II - Restrictions.

                        Z.Y. You probably about krt pr 69.
                      2. Octopus
                        Octopus 12 July 2020 20: 16 New
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        about CRT pr 69.

                        Just the 69th fits into the contract. But August 3 Chapaev - no.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Read paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 2 of part II

                        Do you want to report that the USSR was one of all in the 39th year about Yamato? And didn’t tell anyone? Oh well.
                      3. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 20: 39 New
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        But August 3 Chapaev - no.

                        Given the fact that the Germans on December 31.12.38, XNUMX officially announced that the cruisers K and L would be completed as heavy, the question of the execution of contracts is somewhat suspended in the air ...

                        Quote: Octopus
                        Do you want to report that the USSR was one of all in the 39th year about Yamato?

                        Everyone knew that ... Question of the measure of knowledge.

                        Quote: Octopus
                        And didn’t tell anyone? Oh well.

                        Excuse me, but to whom should the USSR report something about the affairs of a third party, moreover, with a high degree of probability, obtained by undercover intelligence?
                      4. Octopus
                        Octopus 12 July 2020 20: 54 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Sorry, but to whom should the USSR report something about the affairs of a third party

                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Did you read the contract?

                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        cruisers K and L will be completed as heavy

                        Did the Soviet government coordinate the construction of 10K KRL in accordance with Article 25 of the Treaty? Oh well.
                      5. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 21: 47 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Did the Soviet government coordinate the construction of 10K KRL in accordance with Article 25 of the Treaty?

                        Article 11, paragraph b ... Formalities met. :)

                        Quote: Octopus
                        Well, well.

                        Do not "nuke" - do not harness ...
                      6. Octopus
                        Octopus 13 July 2020 06: 50 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Article 11, paragraph b ... Formalities met. :)

                        Yes Yes. I recognize the Soviet school of international law.

                        Sign an agreement to limit the limit parameters of ships, not at all not to change shipbuilding programs in connection with it, and then to tell that the contract was originally a meaningless piece of paper, because you can always say that everything for the Far East was built in Leningrad and Nikolaev.

                        However, you are right in your own way. The British of those years signed many strange treaties, and the Anglo-Soviet is far from the strangest of them.
  • Denimax
    Denimax 12 July 2020 09: 35 New
    +2
    The role that the Baltic battleships had to fulfill, and this was land-based shooting, we can say that everything was in order with the weapons. It is more important than a larger caliber, and the number of guns, the caliber can even be reduced to 10 dm. It could be facilitated by removing add-ons and installing diesel engines, 10 knots would be enough to move in the coastal zone. IMHO
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 17: 17 New
      0
      The role that the Baltic battleships had to fulfill, and this is shooting on land,


      better ground guns :)
    2. Alf
      Alf 12 July 2020 21: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: Denimax
      It could be facilitated by removing add-ons and installing diesel engines, 10 knots would be enough to move in the coastal zone. IMHO

      And get a monitor with the size and cost of the battleship? Isn't it bold? Change cars on a ship? Cheaper to build new.
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 10: 39 New
    +2
    But how are you going to group the main caliber volleys?

    the probability of hitting depends on other things being equal to the frequency of the volleys and the number of shells in each, this dependence is mathematically non-linear, since each volley allows you to adjust the next deviation according to the average or the type of deviation (scartometry), so the probability of hitting increases exponentially
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 11: 47 New
      +3
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      But how are you going to group the main caliber volleys?

      Actually, there is a thick volume of Goncharov's "Artillery and Armor", written just around the "Sevastopol". :)
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 12: 12 New
        -1
        Actually, there is a thick volume of Goncharov's "Artillery and Armor", written just around the "Sevastopol". :)


        I read it and found a huge bunch of problems in it, down to the grossest errors: from the materiel to the calculation method, but as a general theory for the initial level it’ll work

        and the question was to Comrade, who decided to arm him 2 by 2 by 381 mm :)
        1. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 12 July 2020 14: 11 New
          +5
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          the question was to the Comrade who decided to arm him 2 by 2 by 381 mm :)

          Colleague, take a closer look. Valentin did not propose changing guns (the USSR simply does not have them), he cited as an example a real-life ship with two towers.
          As far as I understood, he suggested leaving only two main battery towers on one of the Sevs, and using the released weight for rebooking. Six 12 "guns for sighting during WWII are quite enough, but, to be honest, there is no particular sense in such" modernization ". hi
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 14: 24 New
            +1
            Six 12 "guns for sighting during WWII are enough


            partially disagree - for actively maneuvering targets, 6 trunks may not give an acceptable density of fire

            The point of modernization is only if you clear a place for universal artillery in the center of the corps, but the large-scale modernization of the Sevastopol will never pay off for money, IMHO hi
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 12 July 2020 18: 18 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              partially disagree - for actively maneuvering targets, 6 trunks may not give an acceptable density of fire

              )))
              Spee's experience confirms this, as it were. On the other hand, most late LKs have 8–9 trunks, so the difference is not so great. On the third hand, according to the same British, sighting half-salvos should be four-armed, not three-armed, so with this approach, yes, 8 trunks are much larger than 6.
              1. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 19: 47 New
                0
                so the difference is not that big


                they could not digitize this difference, "floor - finger - ceiling" for myself I consider as 1,25 in the degree of the number of trunks (this is such an assumption, nothing more), I cannot insist
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 12 July 2020 19: 59 New
                  0
                  Here is the opinion of the British, but the Germans make 6 guns on the ShiG and do not take a steam bath. So everything is complicated.
                  1. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 20: 13 New
                    +1
                    6 guns on "Repeyr and Rebuild" - an impromptu, which did not receive further distribution,
                    6 guns on "battleship-trimmed" - forced measure - pinned
                    6 guns on "Charles and Hans" - nothing else could be thrust into these towers
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 12 July 2020 20: 24 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      6 guns on "Repeyr and Rebuild"

                      By the way, yes, I forgot about them. And about Yorkie. So the general consensus is that less is better.

                      But this is not about Seva anyway.
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      6 guns on "Charles and Hans" - nothing else could be thrust into these towers

                      What about the towers? The Germans seem to be the same at all.
                    2. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 20: 26 New
                      0
                      I meant the replacement of 9 to 280 by 6 to 380 during WWII at the second "Charles and Hans"
                      the first "Charles and Hans" generally had a different concept of fire control :)
                    3. Octopus
                      Octopus 12 July 2020 20: 27 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      I meant replacing 9 for 280 with 6 for 380

                      So do I. It’s kind of like Bismarck towers.
      2. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 13 July 2020 10: 52 New
        +1
        In the early thirties, as part of the search for the modernization of "Mikhail Frunze", this option was considered. Failed because of the impossibility of reaching 27 knots at 88 hp. It's about the contours. If you can still do with the bows as on "Conte di Cavour", then the stern just had to be changed. The flowing streams simply broke away from the steep convergence of the contours, and the screws really choked. But even a complete stern change would give a maximum of 000 knots at 30 hp. - you can't get away from "Renown" and "Hood".
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 10: 41 New
    +2
    What about discussing QUALITY armor?
  • Vlad Malkin
    Vlad Malkin 12 July 2020 12: 01 New
    +1
    Thank! Interesting article!
  • Constanty
    Constanty 12 July 2020 12: 04 New
    +4
    In general, the defense of "Sevastopol" against 280-305-mm shells of guns of the First World War can be considered quite acceptable.


    Tests to assess the strength of the decks and combat ships "Gangut" in combination with tests of new 305-mm and 203-mm shells were carried out only in August and September 1913 in the Black Sea. The old battleship of the Black Sea Fleet "Chesma" was used as a target ship. Tests showed that the armor of the Gangut dreadlocks was insufficient, as the 305 mm shells penetrated the main armor 225 mm thick from 65 cables (about 12 km). The experiment also revealed incorrect distribution of armored decks. Placing the thickest armor on the upper deck did not prevent the thinner steel middle and lower decks from collapsing. The report indicated that the upper deck should be made of thinner steel to cause only a bullet explosion, while the lower deck should have the thickest armor to stop the splinter. The field test report sparked a scandal at the Department of the Navy. The scandal was drowned out by the new head of the maritime department, Adm. Ivan Grigorovich, who personally reported this to the tsar. Although the threat of hitting even one 305-mm projectile was a serious risk for the battleship Gangut, the Russian admiralty decided not to modernize any of the four Baltic dreadnoughts, believing that this would lead to long delays in entering service.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 13 July 2020 12: 48 New
      +1
      Dear Konstantin. Of course, everyone who is more or less interested in the history of the Russian fleet is familiar with these tests. And I think that the author of the article is also familiar with them. But the fact is that the conclusion about the sufficiency of this armor against 280-305 mm. shells were taken not just from the ceiling, but based on a real battle - the Jutland battle, during which it turned out that 229 mm. the armor of the "cats" resists German shells well.
      And then there’s such a moment - Chesma was fired with Russian guns with our heaviest projectile for this caliber, ballistics and armor penetration were very good. But this does not mean at all that German shells should show exactly the same indicators. And practice has shown that the armor penetration of the Germans is lower. Hence the conclusion.
  • Sether
    Sether 12 July 2020 12: 36 New
    +1
    As they say a big ship needs a big torpedo. Take the Japanese Yamato so he wasn’t even close enough to get close to the American squadron and bombed by aircraft. Therefore, how many hang armor planes will bomb everything and it was necessary to strengthen not the armor but the air defense as on American battleships
  • Taoist
    Taoist 12 July 2020 12: 36 New
    +1
    The Russian 12 inch guns had excellent ballistics. IMHO but for its time and for those theaters where they were supposed to perform "Sevastopoli" more than decent cars. And it is not their fault that they had to enter into a real battle at completely different times and under different conditions. Of the first generation of dreadnoughts, Sevastopoli, if not the strongest in terms of speed / armor / fire ratio, is definitely in the forefront ... Another question is that the industrial potential of the Republic of Ingushetia simply could not keep up with the pace of development in this area of ​​weapons ...
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 13: 01 New
      +3
      1.How much time has passed between 03.06.1909/29.11.1909/1909 - Seva tab and XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX - Orion tab? The Kaiser, by the way, was laid down in December XNUMX.
      2. The speed of "Seva", etc. was determined "by the frequency of rotation of the turbines" - is nothing alarming?
      and other
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 13: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
        2. The speed of "Seva", etc. was determined "by the frequency of rotation of the turbines" - is nothing alarming?

        What's the problem?
        Measuring travel speed by machine speed is standard practice ...
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 13: 47 New
          +1
          and the problem is that tests are needed to verify the calculations:
          when designing, for example, it was established that at a rotation speed of 250 revolutions the speed of a ship with a displacement of 25,200 tons will be 21,0 knots, if in nature the speed along the log, measured points, etc. will be 21,0 under the same conditions = ok, if will not, then the calculations are rubbish and "after drink yadu" + the plant pay a fine + bosses update your resume
          So, determining the speed of the turbine rotation speed means that there were no full-scale tests to verify the correctness of calculations on any ship out of four, will there be versions in this regard?
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 13: 59 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            So, determining the speed of the turbine rotation speed means that there were no full-scale tests to verify the correctness of calculations on any ship out of four, will there be versions in this regard?

            Taking into account the acceptance tests of serial "noviks" they could well "hide" behind the need to "not strain the turbines" in wartime and similar reasons.
            Well, you need to see where measured miles were in front of the WWII in the Baltic.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 14: 12 New
              +1
              well, how to say, a measured mile can be improvised in any area where you can see distinct landmarks on the shore (any) and deeper than 50 meters
              but what kind of turbine quality is that you shouldn't "strain" them :)
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 14: 29 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrei Shmelev
                well, how to say, a measured mile can be improvised in any area where you can see distinct landmarks on the shore (any) and deeper than 50 meters

                Probably, if it were all so simple, the Germans would not have driven ships from Kiel to the Pillau region to undergo sea trials. :)

                Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                but what kind of turbine quality is that you shouldn't "strain" them :)

                There the question was in an 8-hour test at full speed ...
      2. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 12 July 2020 14: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
        The Kaiser, by the way, was laid down in December 1909.

        "Ostfriesland" in March of the same year. Colosus in April. "Neptune" in January. So what?
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 14: 28 New
          +1
          "Sevastopoli" fell between the first and second generation on the bookmark, between the second and third generation on delivery
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 12 July 2020 14: 33 New
            +4
            This does not speak about the advantages / disadvantages of the project, but about the state of industry in general and the state’s ability to finance construction. Moreover, the second is more important. EMNIP money steadily went only in 1912.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 14: 50 New
              +2
              this suggests that it was possible to further design and lay them on a new project

              By the way, are you aware of the electric engines of economic progress and that they were abandoned by the MTK magazine on 02.04.1911/XNUMX/XNUMX?
              The Seva was designed until the summer of 1911, however, alas, within the framework of the unsuccessful hull design mod. 1909 and unsuccessful layout arr. 1908, and it could take two years to fix it :)
              1. Senior seaman
                Senior seaman 12 July 2020 16: 13 New
                +3
                Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                it was possible to design them further

                Then they would not have been built at all.
                It must be understood that after the WWII, all the battleships of the first generation are hopelessly outdated.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 16: 19 New
                  -1
                  alternative plot:
                  for the money allocated in 1909, from 1909 ONE battleship is being built: delivery - April 1913, combat readiness - August 1913
                  the second is under construction since 1910: delivery - April 1914, combat readiness - August 1914
                  third and fourth since 1911 (new project): delivery - December 1914, combat readiness - April 1915
                  What is it?
                  1. Senior seaman
                    Senior seaman 12 July 2020 18: 13 New
                    +2
                    You are here: http://alternathistory.com/rossiiskii-imperatorskii-flot-v-1905-1917-g-drednouty-i-sverkhdrednouty/
                    а весь цикл: http://alternathistory.com/?s=%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82+%D0%B2+1905-1917+%D0%B3&post_type=post
                    In short, "Rurik-2" is a slightly slower, but better armored "Invisible", in 1908 two 12 "LKs were laid according to Skvortsov's project (they asked for money in ReI, the Ministry of Finance did not give it), and then in 1911 four superdreadnoughts with American 356mm cannons Something like a fast Nevada with human turrets.
                    1. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 20: 18 New
                      +2
                      we get an agreed conclusion: the parallel construction of 4 (exactly four) "Sevastopol" is nonsense
                      and I also have a nasty question: "who said that the Sevastopol project was fully completed in 1909 and it was not completed until 1912 inclusive?"
                      1. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 12 July 2020 20: 23 New
                        +4
                        Aftertaste, sir! hi
                2. Octopus
                  Octopus 12 July 2020 18: 34 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  It must be understood that after the WWII, all the battleships of the first generation are hopelessly outdated.

                  In many ways you are right, I myself like to bolt the old regime.

                  But on the other hand, if you look at the Washington Treaty, then only Britain and Japan had 100% superdreadnoughts. Even the States had Florida with Wisconsins (and before the completion of 16 "- and Delaware at all), not to mention the French and Italian battleships. So in the 22nd year the conditional RI: 4 Sevas, 3 Chornomortsy, 1, in extreme cases, 2 Izmail - This is a solid 4th place in linear forces, the undisputed leader from non-leading countries.For a poor non-maritime power - not so bad.
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 13: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Of the first generation of dreadnoughts of Sevastopol, if not the strongest in terms of speed / armor / fire, then it is definitely in the forefront ...

      This is of course all good, BUT ...
      One of the strongest in the first generation came into operation at the same time as one of the strongest in the penultimate generation.
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 13: 54 New
        +3
        Orion entered service on 02.01.1912/XNUMX/XNUMX, if anything,
        and "Queen Elizabeth" was taken over by the Navy in December 1914,
        Russian battleships received by the fleet 22.12.1914/XNUMX/XNUMX,
        but as Tsvetkov vaguely explains, "the tests ... continued in the summer of 1915 ..."
        by the way, "Poltava" came out for retests 21.11.1915/XNUMX/XNUMX
        ;))))
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 13: 56 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          and "Queen Elizabeth" was taken over by the Navy in December 1914,
          Russian battleships received by the fleet 22.12.1914/XNUMX/XNUMX,

          What am I talking about ... :)
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 12 July 2020 23: 36 New
        +1
        So it is necessary to finish reading the post ... I just pointed out the weakness of the production base. But this in no way casts a shadow on the project itself ... In any case, no one expected a "duel" situation with the British fleet (initially), and even with the Kaisermarine they were going to fight exclusively in "prepared positions".
  • Kolin
    Kolin 12 July 2020 15: 33 New
    +1
    Well, against the 11 and 12 inch German battleships, the Sevastopoli look pretty good.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 15: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: Kolin
      Well, against the 11 and 12 inch German battleships, the Sevastopoli look pretty good.

      So that's it ... But it's a spherical horse in a vacuum.
      In a real war, if necessary, the Germans can put about 8 LCs and a couple of three LCRs on one of our battleship brigades, as was, for example, in August 15th in the Gulf of Riga.
    2. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 16: 39 New
      -2
      Well, against the 11 and 12 inch German battleships, the Sevastopoli look pretty good.


      this is what a fright?
      You saw the muzzle energy of German guns to begin with:
      Germans 305 mm = 405 kg at 855 m / s
      our 305 mm = 471 kg at 762 m / s
      nemchury will seem to have more, no?
      the armor penetration of shells of the same caliber and one quality is approximately correlated as the ratio of their kinetic energies
      the armor penetration of shells of different caliber and of the same quality is approximately equal to the ratio of their kinetic energies, multiplied by the ratio of their areas
      weak to compare “Sevastopol” with “Seidlitz”? ;)
      1. Kolin
        Kolin 12 July 2020 17: 49 New
        +4
        Battleships shoot at each other not at point blank range, but from at least 9 km., The Russian shell is heavier and its speed drops slower.
        "Zeydi" has 8 barrels per side, 10 in very rare cases, and even then there will be damage on the ship, "Seva" has 12 guns and an advantage in caliber.
        “Zeydi” will break through the belt of “Seva” only at close range, “Zeydi” will have a narrow belt that will be broken by “Seva” somewhere from 60-65 cables, 230 mm section will break through from 80-85 cables.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 19: 24 New
          +2
          Quote: Kolin
          “Zeydi” will break through the belt of “Seva” only at close range, “Zeydi” will have a narrow belt that will be broken by “Seva” somewhere from 60-65 cables, 230 mm section will break through from 80-85 cables.

          On the basis of what is armor penetration calculated?
          1. Kolin
            Kolin 12 July 2020 19: 37 New
            +1
            For Russian gun
            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_12-52_m1907.php
            just figured it out.
            I didn’t even think about German, in Jutland, German 305 mm shells were either able to penetrate 9-inch English armor with 65 cable, or not. 280 mm is much weaker than 305 mm.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 19: 43 New
              -1
              how funny he is, this Nikolai :)))
              eccentric, how does K de Marra compare with the armor of German dreadnought, Russian and British?
              1. Kolin
                Kolin 12 July 2020 19: 50 New
                +2
                Russian armor is equal to English, and German is inferior to English by 10-15%.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 19: 56 New
                  +1
                  hahaha

                  Russian standard K = 2134

                  in 1918 the Angles tested a 305-mm shell arr. 1911 on their armor and received K at least 2475
                  1911 tests received for Russian armor against the same shell K = 2030
                  1921 tests received for Russian armor against the same shell K = from 1800 (I can find the exact numbers if necessary)
                2. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 20: 15 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kolin
                  Russian armor is equal to English, and German is inferior to English by 10-15%.

                  Can I see the absolute numbers?
      2. ban
        ban 12 July 2020 22: 13 New
        +1
        well well wink That's what Goben ran from the Black Sea battleships as hell from incense
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 22: 19 New
          -2
          Well and well; wink That's what Goeben ran from the Black Sea battleships as hell from incense


          1.between "Goeben" and "Seidlitz" there are a few big differences
          2. Between the Black Sea and the Baltic
          3. But what the hell is "Goebenu" any fight, if there is no base for repairs in Turkey - think weak?
          4.I understand that since we have reached the pair "Goeben against the Black Sea", then in the pair "Kaiser against the Baltic" you have total sadness?
          1. ban
            ban 12 July 2020 22: 27 New
            +4
            "Isn't it difficult to compare" Sevastopol "with" Seidlitz "?;)" - who wrote this?
            Is Seidlitz very different from Goeben? The forecastle and belt are slightly thicker. And the Black Sea with the Baltic? The difference is not fundamental either.
            "But the hell" Goeben "any fight," - tried a couple of times with battleships, but with a battleship - complete hopelessness.
            And about weak thinking - I advise you to communicate politely with strangers.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 23: 11 New
              0
              the armor penetration of shells of different caliber and of the same quality is approximately equal to the ratio of their kinetic energies, multiplied by the ratio of their areas
              weak to compare “Sevastopol” with “Seidlitz”? ;)


              I just tactfully noticed that it is very interesting to make calculations of the comparative armor penetration of the guns of these ships

              in general, I have long suggested AiCh to count the duel "Sevastopol vs. Seydlitz", it would be fun :)

              if my words sounded sharply, I apologize, did not want to
              1. ban
                ban 12 July 2020 23: 31 New
                +1
                And here, according to the experience of Dogger Banks, there are simply no options. You can not count anything. If only out of academic interest. The Germans still had serious flaws in the defense.
                In fact, to compare our new 12/52 and German 11/50 somehow ... I don’t even know. There are also 1,5 times more trunks. The effectiveness of our shells was well shown by the shooting of Chesma.

                "if my words sounded harsh, I'm sorry, I didn't want to" - OK
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 23: 36 New
                  -1
                  to compare our new 12/52 and German 11/50 somehow ... I don’t even know


                  and you take de Marr’s formula and hammer the values ​​into it - that’s where the laughter will be :)

                  There are also 1,5 times more trunks.


                  and you digitize the area of ​​the shooting diagrams - that’s where the laughter will be :)

                  The effectiveness of our shells was well shown by the shooting of Chesma.


                  no, he showed the effectiveness of the armor protection "Sevastopol"
          2. ban
            ban 12 July 2020 22: 36 New
            +1
            PS "Kaiser against the Baltic" - so as not to waste time in vain, read Andrey's in previous articles, it is written there normally)) No sadness))
            If TWO Koenig barely coped with ONE Glory, then, probably, only Kaiser and Sevastopol did nothing. Is not it so?
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 23: 02 New
              -1
              if A&CH had normally written, I wouldn’t say anything, but it is written incorrectly, since he incorrectly calculated the zones of free maneuvering for the following reasons:
              1.K de Marra adopted as 2134 for all cases
              (this is the relative coefficient, which for 305 mm arr. 1911 will be:
              the Baltic people have a maximum of 2033,
              Germans have a minimum of 2250,
              British minimum 2450)
              that is, German armor is at least 10% more effective,
              and British armor is at least 20% more effective,
              since there is no data on the change of generations of Russian armor from 1901 to 1917 (a new generation of Krupp with increased resistance to cracking), it is presumed to be unchanged, and the Germans switched to the next type on the "Ostfriesland" and to the next on the "Bayern", the British switched to a new type on the second generation of dreadnoughts and did not change it throughout the war
              2. the protection power of coal pits (coal meter = 1 inch KC) has not been taken into account, this is still a German advantage, since they will have more coal and it is not consumed so quickly
              3. not taken into account the terrifying quality of the 305/52 guns, which burned out very quickly (where is the guarantee that the trunks are brand new)
              4. the disgusting quality of the working drawings of the Sevastopol was not taken into account (remember how the experimental compartment of the Chesma was falling apart)
              5. and if the sea is restless, then the Balts are in trouble against the "Seydlitz"
              and other and other
              1. ban
                ban 12 July 2020 23: 12 New
                +3
                All this is a bare theory, not related to practice. But in general, Andrew spelled correctly.
                About the terrifying quality of the new 12 inch guns only Shirokorad could write))
                The compartment was falling apart under the influence of our NEW shells in polygon conditions, so there is no big crime here.
                Free maneuvering zones are, according to the experience of two world wars, full of crap, because for two world wars, hits at long distances (100 cabs and more) can be counted on the fingers. It turned out that you can throw all the ammunition into the sea and achieve a couple of hits.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 23: 19 New
                  0
                  About the terrifying quality of the new 12 inch guns only Shirokorad could write))


                  “With the introduction of a heavier projectile, it was necessary to lower its initial speed to 762 m / s. Moreover, the pressure distribution in the gun channel no longer corresponds to the original design in the sense of calculating the longitudinal strength. This results in abnormal rapid wear of the guns and loss of combat accuracy. In addition to the unsuccessful design, the cause of excessive burnups is the Obukhov cannon steel, not suitable for the manufacture of modern heavy tools in terms of mechanical properties. Thus, a strong projectile in itself does not receive proper use when fired. "
                  artilleryman of the organizational and tactical department of the MGSH A.E. Koltovsky

                  so there’s no big crime here.


                  in the same way, "Sevastopol" would have collapsed if hit from the "Kaiser", and yes, "everything is fine, beautiful marquise"

                  since for two world wars hits at long distances (100 cabs and more) can be counted on the fingers


                  yes it should just be some kind of mutant, count all the hits of Jutland on the fingers :)

                  Would you like to pull up, sir
                  1. ban
                    ban 12 July 2020 23: 48 New
                    +1
                    "With the introduction of a heavier projectile, I had to lower its muzzle velocity to 762 m / s" - is this, by any chance, about 12/40?

                    "Sevastopol would have collapsed in the same way when hit from the Kaiser - Chesma was banked, fired at her, if I am not mistaken, Eustathius, with new shells, almost point-blank, the charges were selected in such a way as to ensure the ballistics of the new 12/52 guns ...

                    "Yes, it should just be some kind of mutant, count all Jutland hits on the fingers :)"
                    And you read Haase’s memoirs, for example. Or, in general, anything about Jutland - at twilight and smoke at what distance was the fire contact? Right now, too lazy to watch, cable 60)) The Germans did not even have a technical capability over 100 to Yutdand.
                    So what about the materiel you are in vain)))
                    1. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 23: 54 New
                      0
                      this, by chance, is not about 12/40


                      naturally no

                      charges were selected in such a way as to ensure ballistics of the new 12/52 guns


                      and the muzzle energy of the German 305/50 is much larger :)

                      And you read Haase’s memoirs


                      I'm not in vain about the materiel. it’s you here treating about the singularity of hits
                      1. ban
                        ban 13 July 2020 00: 07 New
                        +1
                        "hits at long distances (100 cab and more) can be counted on one hand"
                        Enlighten, please, who at least once got from such a distance at Jutland?
                      2. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 00: 15 New
                        -1
                        Enlighten, please, who at least once got from such a distance at Jutland?


                        enlighten:
                        Much later, i.e. at 20 hours 19 minutes, a 381 mm shell (probably from Barham) from a distance of 97,5 cub. hit the lower edge of the stern command post; some of the fragments of the shell penetrated through the main slot, killed there the third artilleryman, the second rangefinder, orderly and wounded several people; other fragments passed through the upper and battery decks and entered the engine room through the ventilation shaft, where they showered the refrigerator.


                        and express extreme surprise on the topic, why all this:
                        my thesis is that the Germans have a decisive advantage in the real battle distance, why the hell do you drag the battle to unrealistic distances, huh?
                      3. ban
                        ban 13 July 2020 00: 19 New
                        0
                        And there were many more such hits? Most in the middle distance. And the battle at unrealistic distances is the question of the zones of free maneuvering.
                      4. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 00: 22 New
                        -1
                        this is the question of free maneuvering zones.


                        You are funny how :) count the ZSM for "Sevastopol" under the fire of "Kaiser", do not hesitate - it will be fun
                    2. ban
                      ban 13 July 2020 00: 22 New
                      0
                      "at a real battle distance the Germans have a decisive advantage" - well, where? Is it only at Coronel
                    3. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 00: 24 New
                      0
                      as where? in a virtual battle against "Sevastopol", where else
      3. ban
        ban 12 July 2020 23: 19 New
        +2
        "and if the sea is restless, then the Balts are in trouble against" Seydlitz "
        and so on, and so on "
        And what, in the Baltic 12 points every day? I have not heard)))
        Something always disturbs a bad dancer, but the Germans on the sea in the WWI in the Baltic and the Black Sea showed no ice.
        Once again - the two Koenigs did not shmogut the old Glory to sink - how do you comment?
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 23: 29 New
          0
          Once again - the two Koenigs did not shmogut the old Glory to sink - how do you comment?


          Koenig fired a third salvo and:

          At 12.25, three shells severely damaged the Glory, and almost simultaneously two shells hit the Citizen. The latter, however, did not receive critical damage, but the “Glory” was doomed

          https://topwar.ru/131878-chetyre-boya-slavy-ili-effektivnost-minno-artilleriyskih-poziciy-chast-5.html

          Would you like to pull up, sir
          1. ban
            ban 12 July 2020 23: 57 New
            +1
            About "Glory" was doomed "- it is said too strongly, don't you think? Did it blow up? Or sank? That was why it had to be blown up in the canal later))
            As if on our old battleships (remember Eustathius), the German shells that 11 ", that 12" showed nothing outstanding. So what about the study of materiel - this is past))
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 00: 05 New
              0
              it's to the point :) "Slava" deepened and could not escape. That's the whole fight for three volleys in fact. And he writes it CAM AiCh.

              The report of the commander "Eustathius" at the link:
              http://armedman.ru/vospominaniya/raport-komandira-korablya-svyatoy-evstafiy-o-boe-5-noyabrya-1914-goda-s-kreyserom-geben-u-myisa-saryich.html
              "Goeben" fired masterfully, high-explosive shells proved to be worthy
              1. ban
                ban 13 July 2020 00: 15 New
                +2
                That's what Goben dumped.
                Do you even know who Haase is?
              2. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 00: 16 New
                -2
                draining counted
              3. ban
                ban 13 July 2020 00: 35 New
                +1
                It's just too late already, it's time to sleep, tomorrow for work. The report of Commander Eustathius has no time to read. Tomorrow.
                G. Haase, if anything, senior art. Derflinger officer.
                "On Derflinger at the Battle of Jutland".
                If you have not read, I advise.
                There are shooting records, interesting.
              4. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 09: 21 New
                0
                "Now every 20 seconds we fired a volley." (from)
                really, how do I know :) have a nice day!
              5. ban
                ban 13 July 2020 11: 56 New
                +2
                Thank! And you!

                Remember the distance of firing at Haase))
                I also liked how he described the appearance of the Evans-Thomas squadron))

                "Goeben" fired masterfully, high-explosive shells proved to be worthy "- how many days after the battle did the squadron set out on the next campaign?

                And, IMHO, two Koenigs were supposed to smash our kunstkamera to pieces in the sound board, but failed.
                And on paper, you can draw anything you like, somehow))
              6. ban
                ban 13 July 2020 12: 00 New
                +1
                And I read the report)) Thank you, it was interesting.
                So what? Surface damage.
              7. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 13: 20 New
                +1
                Ну и что?


                look at the galanin caperang:
                This projectile (HE) pierced the 6-dm side armor


                Compare with Kostenko:
                The Japanese spent the whole battle with high-explosive shells alone. The 3-inch casemate armor and 2-inch deck withstood the explosions of 12-inch HE shells without through holes, even with large fragments.


                we conclude the excellent quality of the German land mines.
                about the accuracy of the Germans, too.

                shooting distances at Jutland are well known.
                as well as distances of not less than half of ship defeats.

                I don't understand what this is for. "Goeben" did not have the task of fighting in five battleships,
                for the simple reason that he did not have a repair base: why the hell did he drown two of them, for example, at the cost of his own significant damage?

                Shl. "Glory" was doomed after 3 volley, which inflicted 3 defeats, read more about this battle
              8. ban
                ban 13 July 2020 17: 47 New
                0
                "This projectile (high-explosive) pierced the 6-inch side armor"
                "by making a neat, perfectly round hole like a porthole"
                High-explosive ??? Probably still armor-piercing))

                For the Germans, I also do not see the reasons for the battle at Sarych. But there were tasks that needed to be solved, but they were not solved (subsequently).
                Threat. They also managed to repair Goeben and Breslau after the bombings on mines. Last and six-inch rearmed))

                On this I propose to finish the discussion, because there is no time at all. Until next time)
              9. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 20: 12 New
                -1
                High-explosive ??? Probably still armor-piercing))


                this is the trick of the German landmines

                but they did not dare (subsequently).


                here yes, there would be a dock and a shipyard good and the possibility of replacing the towers, if that, that would be interesting

                have a nice day
              10. The comment was deleted.
              11. The comment was deleted.
  • SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD 12 July 2020 15: 33 New
    +1
    Thanks to Andrey from Chelyabinsk for another interesting analysis!
    And special thanks to competent commentators: from the comments I learn no less ..
    For this I love to sit in the evenings
  • NF68
    NF68 12 July 2020 17: 34 New
    +1
    Booking a belt to start the dreadnought race was not bad. The booking of the towers of the Civil Code was obviously weak. And the width of the PTZ was small. On a section by KO it is clearly visible.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 12 July 2020 17: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: NF68
      Booking a belt to start the dreadnought race was not bad.

      Especially when compared with Fischer's "cats" ... :)
      1. NF68
        NF68 14 July 2020 16: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Quote: NF68
        Booking a belt to start the dreadnought race was not bad.

        Especially when compared with Fischer's "cats" ... :)


        It would be more logical to compare with battleships.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 14 July 2020 18: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: NF68
          It would be more logical to compare with battleships.

          It was subtle Chukchi humor. :)
  • Undecim
    Undecim 12 July 2020 20: 37 New
    +1
    The reservation scheme of Sevastopol at the time of entry into operation seems to be well-known, but, oddly enough, not a single source contains a complete and consistent description.
    The source, which contains a complete and consistent description of the reservation scheme, is a working draft of the ship. Obviously, such, or part of it, can be found in the Russian State Archive of Naval Forces and find out all the contradictions.
    And you can guess at the coffee grounds, or at sources containing an incomplete and contradictory description, adding one more to them.
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 21: 37 New
      0
      I don’t quite agree here, A&H can summarize the data of several books and try to compare them among themselves, this is a very good level for the modern Internet
      It’s another matter that he loves to overdo it with a flight of fancy, and obscure addictions spoil a lot, but this makes him much more entertaining than a dull Zen, which can be watched 3 minutes a day from the phone
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 12 July 2020 21: 47 New
        +1
        I have repeatedly outlined my position on Andrei’s work, and I respect him and his literary experiences with great respect. However, when he introduces him into technical issues for the purpose of interpreting them, I believe that he is simply wasting time and effort. For some reason, humanities categorically do not accept the fact of the need for basic knowledge for judgments in technical matters.
        Therefore, today's article, which cost the author time and effort, in fact, did not clarify anything about the booking scheme for battleships of the "Sevastopol" type, and could not clarify anything, taking into account the sources on which it relied.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 July 2020 15: 55 New
          +5
          Quote: Undecim
          I have repeatedly outlined my position on Andrei’s work

          And you were repeatedly given the answer. Time passes, and all over again.
          Quote: Undecim
          Therefore, today's article, which cost the author time and effort, in fact, in the issue of the booking scheme for battleships of the "Sevastopol" type, did not clarify anything.

          And she shouldn't have. The purpose of the article is to point out contradictions in the sources and open questions about the booking of "Sevastopol". And this is why it is valuable, because a huge number of people interested in the history of the fleet have read the same Vasiliev, and think that they know everything about booking Sevastopol.
          Take out and give you a complete report.
          Quote: Undecim
          The source, which contains a complete and consistent description of the reservation scheme, is a working draft of the ship. Obviously, such, or part of it, can be found in the Russian State Archive of Naval Forces and find out all the contradictions.

          If you want me to do this for you, it’s not a question, I will present the costing to you and I will do the work after making the prepayment. If you want to know this without my services - you are welcome to RGAVMF. If you want the site to publish works that reveal issues of interest to you - create your own site and set the requirements for its authors.
          But I do not need to set requirements. Somehow I myself will decide on what topics I should write articles. Moreover, nobody forces you to read them.
          Incidentally, I am heartily amused by your comment in an article on the causes of Oslyaby’s death. Please tell me, in order to explain the fact of cooling tea in a cup, it is impossible to do without atomic physics?
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 13 July 2020 16: 12 New
            +2
            I, by the way, amused your comment from the bottom of my heart
            Me even more.
            Please tell me, in order to explain the fact of cooling tea in a cup, it is impossible to do without atomic physics?
            Perhaps because atomic physics does not exist in nature. There is no such science.
            But such a science as the theory of a ship, which studies the seaworthiness of a ship - buoyancy, stability, unsinkability, propulsion, controllability and behavior in waves, such a science exists. And there is no way to get around it when describing and analyzing seaworthiness. In the same way as when describing the principle of action of a wing, one cannot do without aerodynamics. But generations of humanitarians are trying to refute this, like the heroes of the film "Aibolit - 66" - normal heroes always go around.
            I wish you success and more articles on any topics that interest you.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              13 July 2020 16: 56 New
              +2
              Quote: Undecim
              Perhaps because atomic physics does not exist in nature. There is no such science.

              Atomic of course.
              Quote: Undecim
              But such a science as the theory of the ship, which studies the seaworthiness of the ship - buoyancy, stability, unsinkability, propulsion, controllability and behavior on a wave, such a science exists. And it is impossible to get around it in the description and analysis of seaworthiness.

              Yeah. Well, it’s impossible to guess without a higher shipbuilding company that a ship that has received flooding of the bow compartment will get a trim on the bow. And it is impossible to predict that the tea left in the mug will cool off without a thorough knowledge of the formulas and heat transfer coefficients. That a sheet of paper can be cut with sharpened metal scissors cannot be explained without solid knowledge of the compromising material. And God forbid to advise someone to eat an apple, not having a scientific title in biochemistry!
              Quote: Undecim
              I wish you success and more articles on any topics that interest you.

              I could wish you to stop looking at any publication as a scientific article, in which scientific novelty, theoretical significance, etc. must be present. But alas, this is clearly beyond your power
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 13 July 2020 17: 27 New
                +1
                Novelty should be present in any case, otherwise the readers will be uninteresting.
                To state the fact of cooling tea, physicists do not need to know.
                But when you try to explain this issue, without it - no way.
                But the lyrics deny it.
              2. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 20: 40 New
                0
                Yeah. Well, it’s in no way impossible to guess without the highest shipbuilding that a ship that received a flooding of the bow compartment will get a trim on the nose


                and you count it :)
                "Oslyabya" had an area of ​​2038 square meters along the waterline, which means that to increase its draft on an even keel by a meter, approximately 2055 tons are needed, because 200 tons of flooding in the bow compartments will give a trim =?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  14 July 2020 07: 36 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  because 200 tons of flooding

                  I won’t even ask how you got 200 tons. Only the water that spills over the living deck gives 150 tons minimum.
                  Perhaps, in some ways, Undecim is right :))))))
                  1. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 07: 43 New
                    -1
                    what are your numbers :)
  • Kolin
    Kolin 12 July 2020 21: 56 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    in 1918 the Angles tested a 305-mm shell arr. 1911 on their armor and received K at least 2475

    Armor at the level of the best WWII samples? Oh, these tales, oh, these storytellers ...
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    1921 tests received for Russian armor against the same shell K = from 1800 (I can find the exact numbers if necessary)

    With an increase in the thickness of the armor, its quality decreases + they fired at the armor plates several times.
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 July 2020 22: 00 New
      0
      Armor at the level of the best WWII samples?


      I will try to answer you politely:
      1.
      K de Marrah is not an absolute coefficient, but a relative one, you would have to understand the elementary fundamentals of physics (for the 7th grade), and then write nonsense
      2.
      study the test standards for "non-countable penetration" - have you seen the Tigers tested by shelling in the pictures, for example?
      1. Kolin
        Kolin 13 July 2020 09: 37 New
        +1
        You’ll see nonsense in your writings, and as for those experiments, it’s only there that we can state the equality of Russian 12 dm. 1911 shell and 13,5 dm English. sample 1918.

        In the battle of battleships, even 2 hits in one plate is a rarity, in the experiments of 20-22 years, the plates resemble a colander, and each hit is a decrease in the resistance of the plate.
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 10: 12 New
          0
          and you read the plates with the results of the experiments for starters :)

          Between the end of 1918 and the beginning of 1919 the British tested the Russian projectiles against 8 "(20.3 cm) Cemented (face-hardened) armor at 20 degrees to the normal ... The projectile holed the plate but broke up at 1,447 fps (441 mps) and penetrated intact at 1,615 fps (493 mps).
          I translate:
          at a speed of 441 m / s the projectile reached CL and cracked
          at a speed of 493 m / s the projectile reached NL
          441 m / s = 13500 meters
          493 m / s = 10500 meters
          for those especially unable to read simple texts I write even easier:
          by British COP 8 inches thick NL achieved with 60 cable
          by British COP 8 inches thick HL achieved with 73 cable

          for comparison, the Russian plate KS with a thickness of 8 inches pierced the same shell from a distance of 100 cable as NL
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            13 July 2020 15: 11 New
            +2
            Andrei, people are already good at nightmare with British trials :))) With the de Marr coefficients and with armor penetration, and therefore with the resistance of Russian armor, everything is far from as obvious as you write.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 15: 15 New
              -1
              ok, suggest alternative numbers?
              You can try to digitize Jutland, if that :)
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                13 July 2020 15: 42 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                ok, suggest alternative numbers?

                I can, and even intended to do it, but for now - not enough time. In the meantime, I can note that the figures you quoted have the most internal contradictions that you, for some reason, do not want to see.
                Tell me, please, at what angle did Russian shells fall into the British armor plate?
                Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                at 20 degrees to the normal

                Or at 20 degrees to the normal plus projectile angle? Was the tip on the shell or not?
                Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                for comparison, the Russian plate KS with a thickness of 8 inches pierced the same shell from a distance of 100 cable as NL

                May I ask where exactly were such firing? Something I won’t immediately realize where we tested the 203 mm armor. 254 mm - yes, 225 mm - yes, 127 mm - any number ... But 203 mm - forgot. Was the shell with a tip? At what angle did the projectile hit the stove?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  13 July 2020 17: 15 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  ok, suggest alternative numbers?

                  Well, for example. Tests of Chesma, shot No. 27. the shell of 1911 is armor-piercing, the mass is for some reason 460 kg. The speed on the armor is 557 m / s, the deviation from the normal is 35 degrees. The shell was not pierced only by a pothole of 75 mm depth and 200 m width. That is, de marr there is more than 2400 Russian armor
                  1. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 22: 06 New
                    -1
                    sir, I expect a public apology from you:


                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      14 July 2020 07: 38 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      sir, I expect a public apology from you:

                      In honor of what? :))) Did the shell pierce the armor or not?
                      1. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 07: 45 New
                        -2
                        Sir, I present to you that you are a vile liar: the projectile did not hit the aiming point, but made a pothole in the upper edge, the nature of which is evident in the figure
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        14 July 2020 09: 33 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        Sir, I present to you that you are a vile liar: the projectile did not hit the aiming point, but made a pothole in the upper edge, the nature of which is evident in the figure

                        Oh, how much time did you wait for this moment ... But alas. Andrei, but let’s you still not only consider the pictures, but also read the text. wink The shell made a pothole and exploded right there. That is, there was an explosion when overcoming the armor :)
                        Next, we read the report (I can attach a scan in the evening, but it is in your source)
                        Two more shots were made with armor-piercing shells from an estimated distance of 65 cabs. One of the shells, hitting the upper edge of the armor of the main belt, made a pothole in it and exploded without slowing down

                        So ... I'm waiting for an apology laughing
                      3. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 09: 43 New
                        -1
                        the shell pierced all the armor that was in his way according to the drawing,
                        blue arrow - entry point, red - exit point
                        the borders of the through hole of the armor edge are highlighted in green

                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        14 July 2020 10: 03 New
                        +2
                        Andrew, one more time. If the shell
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        pierced all the armor that was in his way according to the drawing

                        That would have been written about him, saying that he pierced the armor. This is not there.
                        First, look at the armor plate number. No. 50. Secondly, look at our source where this plate was located (hint - a casemate was placed above it). Thirdly, read the description. Casemate was not injured!
                        And finally, in the fourth - please explain how a 305 mm caliber projectile was able to cleanly pierce the armor plate and go inside, making a 75x200 mm pothole in it? If there was clean air above, then yes, but there was a casemate
                        He didn’t break through the armor, Andrei, but, having hit the stove, exploded upon breaking. He apparently knocked out a small cork, but didn’t get inside, it can’t even be called a gap when passing through the armor.
                        ZY and yes. Will I ever get a link to a test where a Russian projectile pierced 203 mm from a distance of 100 cables? Or is it time for me to call you a "sweaty liar"? wink
                      5. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 10: 06 New
                        -1
                        faintly draw it on the ORIGINAL drawing?
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        14 July 2020 11: 03 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        faintly draw it on the ORIGINAL drawing?

                        Where is the original drawing?
                      7. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 11: 05 New
                        -1
                        here draw:

                  2. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 10: 22 New
                    -1
                    I'm sorry, I sent the previous comment early,
                    I suggest taking into account the following:
                    if the shell regularly burst THERE SAME, then the tube was installed without slowing down,

                    And still it would be necessary to look at this photo:

                  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    14 July 2020 11: 02 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    And still it would be necessary to look at this photo:

                    It is necessary. It is very clearly visible on it that the armored plate is covered from above with an armored deck (which for some reason you have outlined with blue lines as part of the armored plate. Here you can still clearly see

                    Deck - not damaged, casemate - not injured, from a shell of 304,8 mm hole 75 * 200 - armor is broken through :)
                  4. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 11: 12 New
                    -1
                    "and tearing off the protruding hem of the shirt with a square"

                    pay attention to the red lines (plate borders)
                    and blue lines (shirt borders with a square)

                  5. The comment was deleted.
                  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    14 July 2020 11: 30 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    and tearing the protruding edge of a shirt with a square

                    The shirt is behind the armor plate, and not on top of it. But over the stove there is 37,5 mm of armor, and it also seems to be on a 25 mm substrate

                    The thickness of the shirt on the scheme of the 27th shot is 16 mm. And there is also an arrow showing that it is behind the armor plate. And visually above the stove in the photo above - well, not 16 mm
                  7. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 11: 42 New
                    -1
                    the shirt behind the stove is understandable, but in the drawing it is clearly released with the top edge ABOVE the stove

                    this topic can be discussed forever, but there is one certain, IMHO, truth, for the calculations of K de Marr 27 shot is not good at all
                    including due to INSTANT slowdown

                    and here’s a 25 shot when the shell flew into the machine gun and exploded there, very much
                  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    14 July 2020 12: 21 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    this topic can be discussed forever, but there is one certain, IMHO, truth, for the calculations of K de Marr 27 shot is not good at all
                    including due to INSTANT slowdown

                    Andrei, why did the shell instantly burst? Should I remind you that there were no instant fuses on the Russian armor-piercing ones? Both the Morveda pipe and Dzerkovich implied a slowdown.
                    I agree with you that it may very well be that shot No. 27 did not penetrate the armor precisely because of the untimely, direct operation of the tube. It may very well be. After all, even EMNIP is not an isolated case in trials.
                    And now - a difficult test of impartiality.
                    Attention, the question. And how can you judge that the non-penetration of the British 203-mm plate is connected precisely with the armor penetration limit of the Russian shell according to the de Marr formula, and not because of the untimely operation of the Russian fuse?
                  9. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 12: 26 New
                    -1
                    Do I have to remind you that there weren’t instant fuses on the Russian armor-piercing ones? Both the Morveda pipe and Dzerkovich implied a slowdown.


                    and the deceleration seems to be regulated, up to its instantaneous response, or was it wrong on these tubes?

                    did not break through the reservation


                    he tumbled higher based on the drawing
                    There is NO non-penetration in the drawing, the drawing is ORIGINAL, and the text is the processing of the original, moreover with bills and recounts, therefore the drawing is primary
                    In addition, we open our eyes and look at the text:
                    "hit the top EDGE of the armor"

                    And how can you judge that the non-penetration of the British 203-mm plate is connected precisely with the armor penetration limit of the Russian shell according to the de Marr formula, and not because of the untimely operation of the Russian fuse?


                    because it clearly and unambiguously says "fell apart", and not "torn"
                  10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    14 July 2020 12: 56 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    and the deceleration seems to be regulated, up to its instantaneous response, or was it wrong on these tubes?

                    Nope. But the Dzerkovich tube itself had to determine the delay depending on the strength of the blow. In the course and determined.
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    he tumbled higher based on the drawing
                    There is NO non-penetration in the drawing, the drawing is ORIGINAL, and the text is the processing of the original

                    Not processing, but a description.
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    therefore the drawing is primary
                    In addition, we open our eyes and look at the text:
                    "hit the top EDGE of the armor"

                    Who cares? take a pencil in the little hands and draw. From the point of view of the geometry of the passage of the armor plate, getting into the edge only makes it easier to penetrate, but makes it difficult
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    because it clearly and unambiguously says "fell apart", and not "torn"

                    So it doesn't say "exploded" for any shell, does it?
                  11. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 17: 02 New
                    0
                    In the course and determined.


                    oh, I forgot, this is a dear DT, well, I got AiCh:

                    “In 1911, experiments were completed on equipping armor-piercing shells for large-caliber guns with this alloy. A. A. Dzerzhkovich developed a 10DT fuse for them with an automatic installation, shown in Fig. 77. The fuse has a special valve 1 suspended on a wire check 2 , the resistance of which is calculated so that when a shell hits a thick plate (about 0,5 caliber), it breaks off and allows the valve to close the flame direct passage from the small capsule to the firecracker 3; ignition of firecrackers is accomplished through a powder moderator. If small resistance gets into thin plates and targets, the wire rod withstands the pressure of the valve and the flame from the small capsule manages to directly penetrate the firecracker. Both capsule and detonation excitation technique remained the same in this fuse as in the 11 DM fuse.
                    Experienced shooting showed that 10-inch. armor-piercing shells at a speed at the time of impact of about 550 m / s pierce the normal 6-inch. cemented plates, the wire pin is cut off, the valve closes the direct passage to the firecracker, the fuses act with a slowdown and give full explosions behind the plate in 60-70% of cases. The remaining gaps occur during the passage of the plate. The Maritime Department became interested in this fuse and tested it in 1912 during the firing on the old battleship Chesma organized in the Black Sea. We will touch upon these experiments below. By the beginning of the world war, the 10DT fuse was not yet in service. "


                    That is, the shell hit the edge and the fuse defined it precisely as a blow to the edge (a thin plate is an insignificant obstacle), and not a thick plate. The myth is destroyed. QED
                  12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    14 July 2020 17: 10 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    That is, the shell hit the edge and the fuse defined it precisely as a blow to the edge (a thin plate is an insignificant obstacle), and not a thick plate. The myth is destroyed.

                    Andrey, I don’t know what myth you destroyed :) We have a pothole of 75 * 200 - what kind of insignificant obstacle can we talk about? Dzerkovich worked normally on a 127 mm plate, and then suddenly - immaterial?
                    And let's still return to the "broken up", or whatever it is, in English I ask you to provide some evidence that our shell fell apart in the process of overcoming the British plate, and did not explode in it
                  13. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 17: 16 New
                    0
                    We have a pothole at 75 * 200


                    IN EDGE (Karl!) Not in the middle of the slab, but in EDGE,
                    that is why the instant fuse activation worked, that is, the resistance was less than that of the 152-mm plate, because the check did not break and the small capsule worked
                    when will you tighten the materiel :)

                    back to broken up


                    no problem. when shooting with shells with inverted fuses the British had three terms:
                    -broke
                    -was whole
                    - went damaged with the following damage ...
                    that's why not a single gap was recorded
                  14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    15 July 2020 07: 30 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    IN EDGE (Karl!) Not in the middle of the slab, but in EDGE

                    So what? :) Why did the word "edge" bewitch you so much?
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    that is why the instant fuse activation worked, that is, the resistance was less than that of a 152 mm plate

                    Sorry, but I don’t even know how to comment. Firstly, you decided for some reason that if you hit the edge, the resistance will drop significantly. This could well be if the projectile hit exactly the edge, and closer to the back of the plate. But in this case, the projectile would hook not only 225 mm but also horizontal armor - but there is no information about its damage. So - by
                    The second one. Your theory, according to which an obstacle of less than 152 mm of armor causes instant detonation of the Dzzerzhkovich tube, is not worth an egg, because
                    12 "armor-piercing 1911, with the tip and tube of Colonel Dzerzhkovich.
                    2) When hit in 5 ”armor: a) at an angle of 30 degrees. and at a speed of 1400 ft./sec. (83 cab.) The tube acted instantly (shot No. 23) and the phenomena were the same as with the tube of the Maritime Department; b) at an angle of 45 degrees. and at a speed of 1400 ft./sec. (83 cab.) Hit the edge of the plate, broke a corner and exploded in 3 feet. behind the stove, i.e. acted with almost no deceleration (shot No. 48); c) at an angle of about 90 degrees. and at the same speed the tube acted with a deceleration. The plate (cutting base) is broken, an explosion followed inside, at the moment the head of the projectile entered the rear plate. The rear plate was broken, torn out and thrown back into several fathoms (shot No. 13). Another shell (on the casemate) pierced the stove, bulkheads and exploded at the opposite side (shot No. 30).

                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    when will you tighten the materiel :)

                    Yes, Andrey, when?
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    no problem. when firing shells with twisted fuses

                    Again, no question, please give a link to material that confirms that the fuses were not installed
                  15. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 15 July 2020 11: 21 New
                    -1
                    Your theory, according to which the barrier is less than 152 mm of armor


                    Are you overheated or fooling around?
                    This is not a theory, but a description of a fuse from Rdutlovsky.

                    please give a link to the material

                    You are talking nonsense about premature detonation.
                    Here you are and give a link to where it is described.
                    And I DIRECTLY read the document, where not a single fact of detonation is noted.
                    Neither for Russian, nor for British shells.
                  16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    15 July 2020 12: 56 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    Are you overheated or fooling around?
                    This is not a theory, but a description of a fuse from Rdutlovsky.

                    Which is NOT CONFIRMED by the practice of firing at Chesme when shelling 120 and 125 mm of armor with shells with a Dzerzhkovich tube
                  17. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 15 July 2020 21: 44 New
                    0
                    CONFIRMED CONSUMPTION OF SHOTS :)
                  18. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    16 July 2020 09: 13 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                    CONFIRMED CONSUMPTION OF SHOTS :)

                    Only in your wild fantasy, see answer below
            2. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 16 July 2020 10: 23 New
              0
              colleague, let us study a little the British terminology of that time for the difference between the words "brok up" and "burst"



              here's a quote from ADM



              here's another quote from ADM
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    14 July 2020 12: 24 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    the shirt behind the stove is understandable, but in the drawing it is clearly released with the top edge ABOVE the stove

    This is not a drawing, but a drawing. Something more or less similar to the drawing I cited above
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 12: 32 New
    0
    Here is a photo with the size of the shirt (between the arrows)

  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    14 July 2020 13: 06 New
    +3
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    Here is a photo with the size of the shirt (between the arrows)

    Quite possible. But this does not replace the scheme I have given, in which the 225 mm deck adjoins the upper edge of the 37,5 mm armored plate (well, let it not lie on the armored plate). As a result, the projectile hits the edge, does not pierce the stove, does not damage the deck behind the stove, but only knocks the cork out of the 225 mm stove, the shirt behind it and the corner. Damage is still not there.
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 16: 50 New
    0
    the projectile hits the edge, cuts off this part of the edge, the protruding part of the shirt and breaks the square, THERE is a break through the edge where the projectile hit,
    1.
    it’s exactly 27 that you died, you decided to use K de Marr’s to calculate, can you substitute the values ​​in the formula?
    2.
    and tomorrow you write that “Yamato” has never managed to defeat “Sevastopol”? :)
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    14 July 2020 17: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    the projectile hits the edge, cuts off this part of the edge, the protruding part of the shirt and breaks the square, THERE is a break through the edge where the shell hit

    And it explodes. When passing :))))
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    it’s exactly 27 that you died, you decided to use K de Marr’s to calculate, can you substitute the values ​​in the formula?

    Yes, that’s not the point :)))) But the fact that Russian AP shells sometimes could explode when breaking through the stove due to the premature firing of the fuse, and not because they couldn’t armor the armor. And in the case of British armor, there could be the same case.
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 17: 18 New
    +1
    1. About DT I already told you materiel, teach
    2.
    And in the case of British armor, there could be the same case.

    what evidence do you have for that?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    15 July 2020 07: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    About DT, I already told you materiel, learn

    And it turned out that you need to pull up the materiel
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    what evidence do you have for that?

    K = 2400
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 15 July 2020 11: 14 New
    0
    And it turned out that you need to pull up the materiel


    I wrote that you are lying on the subject of premature detonation of diesel fuel and quoted Rdutlovsky with his description, explain that SPECIFICALLY does not suit you

    K = 2400


    what is the problem?
    with regard to the Russian KS, no data on modernization has been found since the "first Krupp",
    the Germans switched to a new brand on "Ostfriesland", and also updated on "Bayern" (data from Okun & Co),
    all the WWI until Hood inclusively the British had a new brand (I don’t remember from what particular pre-war year, it seems from the Orions) (data from Okun and Co.),
    if the shaves write that their reservation is 10% stronger than the German
    (I read that Krupp did not take into account the importance of greater relative elongation for large thicknesses against large shells), then taking into account the assumption of the action of scale factors
    who prevents to meet against 305 arr. 1911 is something like this:
    "Seva" = just over 2000 (fact)
    "Nassau" = also means just over 2000 (the same armor)
    "Ostfriesland" and "Baden" = in the middle (around 2200) and 10% below the brittes (although this is very debatable, we'll get down to it later)
    5 squadron = more than 2450 (fact)?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    15 July 2020 12: 52 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    I wrote that you are lying

    You are generally inconsistent with the language, especially when the argument ends
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    and cited Rdutlovsky with his description, explain that SPECIFICALLY does not suit you

    I am not happy that according to the quote you quoted, the fuse will fire instantly if the armor is less than 152 mm thick. And on Chesma’s tests, the fuse did NOT START instantly punching a 125 mm casemate. What I told you about with a quote from your own source - Galkevich.
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    what is the problem?

    in the finger from which they are sucked
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    "Ostfriesland" and "Baden" = in the middle (around 2200) and 10% below the brittes (although this is very debatable, we'll get down to it later)
    5 squadron = more than 2450 (fact)?
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 15 July 2020 21: 42 New
    0
    from which they are sucked


    let's analyze:
    1. having a hand drawing from Galkevich, you compose about the 50-mm bevels
    2. having on hand a description of the nomenclature is sewn from Galkevich You compose about the armor of the brabets below the middle deck
    3. having a plate of British test shells on hand you are writing about
    3.1.pro the resulting angle (ok, refused later)
    3.2.about the lack of a cap (ok, refused later)
    3.3. Premature rupture
    4. having on hand a drawing of 27 shots you compose about its results
    5. without a shot angle of 27 you compose that you digitized it according to de Marr, which is impossible without a corner

    where do you suck it all and why?
    would take Galkevich, but laid out honestly, it's good to powder readers' brains
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    16 July 2020 09: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    let's analyze:
    1. having a hand drawing from Galkevich, you compose about the 50-mm bevels

    Andrey, of course you are a baaalsh technical specialist, only you have now merrily moved off the topic and transferred arrows to me in the style of "sam d urak" :))))
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    1. having a hand drawing from Galkevich, you compose about the 50-mm bevels
    2. having on hand a description of the nomenclature is sewn from Galkevich You compose about the armor of the brabets below the middle deck

    In fact, I just put off a detailed study of Galkevich for later, using him as a guide to individual hits. And I did not "compose" anything, but honestly noted that the bevels could be 12 + 25 and there could be no armor below the middle deck.
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    3. having a plate of British test shells on hand you are writing about
    3.1.pro the resulting angle (ok, refused later)
    3.2.about the lack of a cap (ok, refused later)

    In fact, I'm still not sure that 20 degrees is exactly the angle of the projectile with the stove, and not the angle of the stove. In our test descriptions of the same 1920, this was indicated separately. He simply waved his hand and agreed to consider your point of view correct.
    And I asked QUESTIONS, received more or less satisfactory answers to them, and agreed with them. What does the essay have to do with it?
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    3.3. Premature rupture

    So the tests with fuses went, or not?
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    having on hand a drawing of 27 shots you write about its results
    5. without a shot angle of 27 you compose that you digitized it according to de Marr, which is impossible without a corner

    Firstly, the angle is indicated directly - 65 degrees, i.e. 35 from the normal. Secondly, in the compositions there you hit, not me at all. There is a FACT - the shell detonated without breaking the plate, which I wrote about.
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 15 July 2020 10: 54 New
    +1
    And it explodes. When passing :))))


    Andrei, do you really don’t understand or are you fooling around?
    The fuse DT activates a large capsule if the resistance force of the plate is more than 152 mm equivalent,
    in other cases, the fuse DT activates a small capsule,
    when shot 27 he activated a small capsule
    Further to think weakly?

    Russian AP shells could sometimes explode when breaking through the stove due to premature fuse triggering


    what concrete evidence is there?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    15 July 2020 12: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    Andrei, do you really don’t understand or are you fooling around?

    Andrey, your rudeness is already tired. At first I tried not to notice, but ...
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    The fuse DT activates a large capsule if the resistance force of the plate is more than 152 mm equivalent,
    in other cases, the fuse DT activates a small capsule,

    And the Dzerzhkovich’s tube NEVER worked without slowing down at 125 (one hundred and twenty-five) mm casemates and EMNIP at 120 mm (one hundred and twenty) mm to the base of the deckhouse. Is there no contradiction in sight?
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 15 July 2020 21: 52 New
    +1
    here are the statistics:



    6 cases of regular action,
    1 wrong geography
    1 failure

    Shame on you?!
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    16 July 2020 08: 58 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    here are the statistics:

    Andrey, Andrey :))))
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    Shame on you?!

    This is not for me, it should be a shame on you ..
    We look at examples given by you
    Hit the deck at an angle of 85 degrees to the normal. Hit in 125 mm casemate number 23 at an angle of 60 degrees to the normal. Shot No. 48 at an angle of 45 to the normal. That is, almost at ricochet angles when the shell will not penetrate the armor. But when the angle from the normal is 35 or less - Dzerzhkovich works normally
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 15 July 2020 23: 37 New
    +1
    oh, sorry, I forgot that you are a humanist,
    because now I’ll write quite simply
    so that even humanities can understand:

    The inertia tube is triggered by the difference in the relative speeds of the projectile and sinker checks,
    that is, it is tuned to the force, which arises as "um veh relative square in half" check sinkers

    the resistance parameter to the movement of the sinker checks is calculated, but is specified according to the results of tests (including this one), where the ratio of the decelerating effect of the barrier with the holder of the sinker checks and the force of the checks is selected

    in the DT of the check is the switch between the instant fuse - a small capsule (there is no serious resistance to the projectile) and the slow fuse - a large capsule (there is serious resistance to the projectile)

    DT is designed for six inches of CS along the normal (switching limit by check), I could not find the exact value for the tube in the projectile in experiments 1913

    but the problem is that you don’t understand what you are writing and what you want to prove
    You had to prove that when you hit the armor 203 mm and thicker, the tube gave instant tears, and on the contrary it worked normally (there was a switch from a small capsule to a large one)

    the fact that the tube gave either slowdowns or instantaneous rupture upon impact into the plate about 5 inches at an angle is perfectly normal, since this is near the threshold switching zone, but this can only mean that it was mistakenly set to switch BELOW 152 mm normal

    simply put,
    ordinary tube, the more sensitive it is tuned and the stronger the blow, the earlier it explodes
    DT, the more sensitive and stronger the blow, the later it explodes.

    therefore, a premature rupture of 27 shots means that the force of the blow was less than the response threshold, which for a diesel engine is 152 mm
    and you prove that in 1913 it was STILL lower, which is against your own arguments


    A colleague, until you begin to study physics, do not understand the materiel
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    16 July 2020 08: 58 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    oh, sorry, I forgot that you are a humanist,

    This is not a reason to hang me spreading cranberries on my ears
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 16 July 2020 09: 29 New
    +1
    This is not a reason to hang me spreading cranberries on my ears


    objections, that is, no?
  • Jura 27
    Jura 27 14 July 2020 12: 28 New
    +1
    [/ quote] The shirt is located behind the armor plate, and not on top of it. But above the stove there is 37,5 mm of armor, and it also seems to be on a 25 mm substrate [quote]

    There is no 37,5mm deck and 25mm substrate above the stove, their ends abut against the armor plate from the inside, or rather they abut against a 16mm thick shirt with an angle attached to it.
    In general, a typical hit on the upper edge of the armor plate is when the projectile axis is higher than the edge of the plate, hence the armor is demolished only 75 mm from the upper edge; there is a shell explosion right there and since the casemate wall is separated by a cut from the upper edge of the GP, the casemate is not damaged.
    By the way, one more confirmation that the floor of the casemates was 25 mm thick, and not 19 mm thick. The middle deck was probably 19 mm thick only outside the casemates (and 25 mm within the casemates).
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    14 July 2020 13: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: Jura 27
    There is no 37,5mm deck and 25mm substrate above the stove, their ends abut against the armor plate from the inside, or rather they abut against a 16mm thick shirt with an angle attached to it.

    And they do not get damaged.
    Quote: Jura 27
    In general, a typical hit in the upper edge of the armor plate when the axis of the projectile is higher than the edge of the plate,

    Actually, the angle is 65 degrees (35 from the normal), so I don’t see how the projectile axis could be higher than the armor plate
  • Jura 27
    Jura 27 14 July 2020 15: 52 New
    0
    [/ quote] And they do not get damaged. [quote]

    Well, yes, they are behind the shirt.
    The angle of 65g., - This is the horizontal and the axis of the projectile above the edge of the plate is also relative to the horizon, - a typical hit in the edge.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    14 July 2020 17: 15 New
    0
    Quote: Jura 27
    Well, yes, they are behind the shirt.

    Jura, if a shell pierces armor, even along the edge, then he must reach horizontal armor through his shirt for anyone. It was like this when shelling a cabin - and broke 250 mm, and the floor bent.
    Quote: Jura 27
    the axis of the projectile above the edge of the plate is also relative to the horizon

    +65 degrees or 35 from the normal - the projectile goes much down, gets at least to the top of the armor plate, even to the edge, its line of movement leads it down behind the plate
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 18: 26 New
    0
    Jura, if a shell pierces armor, even along the edge, then he must reach horizontal armor through his shirt for anyone.


    +65 degrees or 35 from the normal - the projectile goes very down,




    but when will you pull up the materiel!
    what do you think, "Eustathius" or the experimental vessel # 4 were heeled?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    15 July 2020 07: 13 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    but when will you pull up the materiel!

    Andrey, we are reading a document. And there it says - the angle of the meeting with the barrier is about 65 degrees. What is the problem this time? :)
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    15 July 2020 07: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    what do you think, "Eustathius" or the experimental vessel # 4 were heeled?

    Experimental ship, of course. Towards the shooting ship
  • Jura 27
    Jura 27 15 July 2020 06: 38 New
    0
    [/ quote] Jura, if the shell pierces the armor, even along the edge, then he must get to horizontal armor for any [quote]

    No, the shell hits its edge against the edge of the plate (the axis of the shell above the edge of the plate) and goes up (further the explosion of the shell).
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 10: 54 New
    -1
    PS.
    207 mm with 100 cable - Titushkin's data
    they are repeated here:
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_12-52_m1907.php

    207 mm rounded equal to 8 inches :)
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    14 July 2020 11: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    PS.
    207 mm with 100 cable - Titushkin's data
    they are repeated here:
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_12-52_m1907.php

    so yes, but this is some calculated data, and not the test results, is it?
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 11: 46 New
    0
    so yes, but this is some calculated data, and not the test results, is it?


    I found on my old laptop a record that the average of C de Marr by Chesma’s tests can be estimated as 2030, and I’ll look for another calculated from the data as 2033
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 17: 32 New
    -3
    Or at 20 degrees to the normal plus projectile angle?


    colleague, do not be shy in the flight of your fantasies, I propose the following iteration of your reasoning in advance:
    "Togo had 4 EBRs under Tsushima, I'm waiting for a question from you, why exactly did I decide that he did not have 12 more battleships and 4 nuclear submarines";)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 July 2020 07: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      colleague, do not be shy in the flight of your fantasies, I propose the following iteration of your reasoning in advance

      That is, you can’t confirm that the angle in the tables is exactly the angle of the projectile’s meeting with the armor; you can’t say nothing about the tip, where you found a breakdown of Russian armor of 203 mm per 100 cables and in which conditions there is silence.
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 22: 15 New
    -1
    and here's the promised greeting from me:

  • Jura 27
    Jura 27 14 July 2020 06: 16 New
    0
    [/ quote] Something I do not immediately realize where we tested the 203 mm armor [quote]

    I gave you a link to Tsushima with the British tests last time, everything is clearly written about the meeting angles and the presence of all kinds of tips.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 July 2020 07: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Jura 27
      I gave you a link to Tsushima, with the British tests last time, everything is clearly written about the meeting angles

      It says "corner" here. We write "the corner of the meeting with the obstacle." I repeat the question - apart from your personal confidence, is there any other information that "angle" in this case means exactly "the angle of meeting the obstacle"? And yes, I don’t see the tips
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 07: 53 New
        -1
        is there any other information that "angle" in this case means exactly "the angle of the meeting with the obstacle"?


        we read the document verbatim: the angle means the angle of the meeting, in ADM according to Baden, if there are two angles, then both are indicated and the resulting one, then the second is not indicated, where did you get it from?

        I don’t see the tips


        Show you again today that you are a vile liar?
        here it is written in black on white APC - that is, with a tip
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 July 2020 09: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          we read the document verbatim: the angle means the angle of the meeting

          Clear. As we hear, we write, but for sure - you do not know. Unlike ADM in Baden.
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          Show you again today that you are a vile liar?

          For what? I asked you a question - with or without a tip. You asked me to call me a vile liar for a question? :))) Well, Mr. Impartiality :)))
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          here it is written in black on white APC - that is, with a tip

          I do not understand this, please explain.
        2. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 09: 49 New
          -1
          explain:

          it is highlighted in red above that the Russian shell is APC
          highlighted in red in the plate "cap" and its weight in pounds and percent

          for a British shell the same thing is highlighted in blue

        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 July 2020 10: 05 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          explain:

          I understood everything, thanks! Do I understand correctly that AR is armor-piercing, and ARS is armor-piercing with a tip?
        4. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 10: 07 New
          0
          AP ... "capped"
    2. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 14 July 2020 10: 03 New
      0
      just compare the term here:


      and here:




      documents of one subject, one time, one source (it is possible that one authorship)

      in the first - the resulting angle (for several values)
      in the second - just an angle

      We open the legislation of the Russian Federation and read:
      1.documents are read verbatim
      2.only if it is proved that the content cannot be established on the basis of a verbatim reading, other evidence is accepted regarding their content to establish the true meaning
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 July 2020 11: 03 New
      +1
      OK, I agree. Let's assume that this is the angle the projectile hits the stove
  • Jura 27
    Jura 27 14 July 2020 11: 53 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Jura 27
    I gave you a link to Tsushima, with the British tests last time, everything is clearly written about the meeting angles

    It says "corner" here. We write "the corner of the meeting with the obstacle." I repeat the question - apart from your personal confidence, is there any other information that "angle" in this case means exactly "the angle of meeting the obstacle"? And yes, I don’t see the tips

    Well, not the corner of the room, but the angle of the meeting with the barrier from the normal to the barrier. If 20gr is from the plane of the plate, then there will be a clear rebound.
    Tip material and weight, in the far right column "Remarks".
  • Kolin
    Kolin 13 July 2020 15: 12 New
    +1
    Those. the whole theory of mithril armor is based on the fact that once one Russian shell cracked after breaking through. It is easier to assume that the shell is substandard than to block megasuperteoria.
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 13 July 2020 15: 16 New
      0
      while you don’t have anything at all, only a lot of beech trees,
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Jura 27
      Jura 27 14 July 2020 06: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Kolin
      Those. the whole theory of mithril armor is based on the fact that once one Russian shell cracked after breaking through. It is easier to assume that the shell is substandard than to block megasuperteoria.

      There were still many new British shells and they behaved in the same way as the "miraculous" Russians - if the speed was not enough, then they destroyed making a hole, if there was enough, then they pierced, remaining intact.
  • ecolog
    ecolog 13 July 2020 01: 25 New
    +3
    booking like a battlecruiser, disgusting seaworthiness ... why battleship? because slow?
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 13 July 2020 11: 53 New
    0
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: WapentakeLokki
    but the fact that they could not use the fleet in the Second World War

    In the Black Sea, the enemy was mainly the Romanian fleet of 2,5 patrol and ancient destroyers. Chasing the battleship for watchtowers?
    Pacific Fleet did not fight.
    There were no battleships on the SF.
    On the BF, again, with whom to fight? Was there a serious fleet of Germany?

    In late 1944 and early 1945, the German surface fleet on the Baltic Sea hit even more than the Soviet one - 2 old battleships, 2 armadillos, 2 heavy cruisers, 4 light cruisers, many destroyers and a large number of other surface ships and boats. The BF then only had 1 battleship and 2 light cruisers.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 13 July 2020 16: 11 New
    +1
    For World War II, the main drawback of Sevastopol is very weak horizontal armor and PTZ. Only on the Paris Commune is a little corrected. On the Baltic battleships the same was placed additional reservation of the upper deck. But where and how much is not entirely clear.
    To break through the side armor at angles of more than 40 degrees and a long distance (over 14-15 km) is not easy. The most vulnerable deck over a long distance, and here Sevastopol has a very good half-armor-piercing projectile and low charges to defeat enemy decks.
    I thought and it turned out that 16-20 km. armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing shells of Sevastopol pass through the deck of the new German battleships (including Tirpitz).
    If at this distance of upgrades Sevastopol supports directional coal of 45-55 degrees, then it has a chance against the new German battleships.
    1. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 14 July 2020 10: 23 New
      0
      Thanks for the involuntary support, Kostadinov!
      In my comments, I sank for a "super-heavy cruiser" with a 305-mm main caliber, including the fact that a heavy armor-piercing projectile at long distances threatens the horizontal armor of high-speed battleships with the exception of the Yamato and Richelieu.
      However, the trouble with "Sevastopol" is that it is not able to dictate the bearing and distance in such a battle, and "Tirpitz" from 16 - 20 km is certain death for the old man.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 14 July 2020 14: 29 New
    0
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    Thanks for the involuntary support, Kostadinov!
    In my comments, I sank for a "super-heavy cruiser" with a 305-mm main caliber, including the fact that a heavy armor-piercing projectile at long distances threatens the horizontal armor of high-speed battleships with the exception of the Yamato and Richelieu.
    However, the trouble with "Sevastopol" is that it is not able to dictate the bearing and distance in such a battle, and "Tirpitz" from 16 - 20 km is certain death for the old man.

    Sevastopol is not capable of dictating the distance, but directional coal is another matter.
    Against Tirpitz, if there is a chance, it is very small. But against Scharnhorst with 280 mm artillery there will be a zone of relative invulnerability of Sevastopol for at least 2-3 km in which it can hit the deck of Scharnhorst. With a superior speed of 10 knots at Scharnhorst, he slipped through this dangerous zone for himself in 5-10 minutes. During this time, Sevastopol can give about 10-15 volleys. Sevastopol’s chance will be good.
    Against "pocket" battleships, this chance is already much higher.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 14 July 2020 15: 59 New
    0
    Quote: WapentakeLokki
    .. the evacuation of the Crimea (.. no, no .. not ours but already Deutsche ...) .. the Deutsch will evacuate everything that can go (from the BDB to the feluccas) .. the Luftwaffe is not like in 41-42 .. but ... the fleet (..again the Red Banner Black Sea Fleet ..) is on the bases .. (.. OLS + PL does not count .. yes, there was no sense in them ...) and then .. withdraw LK Sevastopol .. into battle .. (.. the first in the history and ... the last decisive ..) and who and what could have opposed it 12x305 mm ... but ... LC stayed there ... until the cutting itself ... when Nekite ... sadness ... and ineptly spent metal and rubles ... or is it all wrong ???

    Intercepting a BDB battleship with 305 mm artillery is not a good idea. The Germans, in addition to aviation, on the Black Sea had 6 submarines and a dozen torpedo boats for which the old battleship was the best target.
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 15 July 2020 13: 57 New
    0
    I wonder how would the armor of the "October Revolution" 20.3 cm / 60 SK C / 34 "Prinz Eugen" resist? In the second half of 1944 / the first half of 1945, such a meeting is hypothetically possible (if we make allowances for the quality of the command staff of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet).
    1. Jura 27
      Jura 27 15 July 2020 15: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      I wonder how would the armor of the "October Revolution" 20.3 cm / 60 SK C / 34 "Prinz Eugen" resist? In the second half of 1944 / the first half of 1945, such a meeting is hypothetically possible (if we make allowances for the quality of the command staff of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet).

      What distance?
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 15 July 2020 18: 44 New
      0
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      I wonder how would the armor of the "October Revolution" 20.3 cm / 60 SK C / 34 "Prinz Eugen" resist?

      In theory, 20,3 cm Psgr L / 4,4 (mHb) began to punch normally 240 mm slab from KC n / A armor from a distance of 12500 m. 220 mm - from 14000 m. 125 mm casemates made their way at all reasonable battle distances .
      How to compare in terms of resistance "German Krupp of the new model" and "Russian Krupp" is a very good question.
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 16 July 2020 09: 41 New
        0
        So it turns out that the Prince's rapid-fire cannons at combat distances are capable of inflicting lethal damage to the old dreadnought through the upper belt + bevel, through the frontal armor of the towers, through the upper ring of the barbet, through the combination of the upper belt + barbet. Against the 28 cm / 52 SK C / 28, the situation is even worse. The "October Revolution" cannot control the distance and bearing, so the risk of getting a lucky shot from an aristocrat or a pickpocket is very high.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 16 July 2020 18: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          So it turns out that the Prince's rapid-fire cannons at combat distances are capable of dealing

          As I wrote above "in theory" ...
          In practice (in real life) "Eigen", having met an enemy battleship, would have given the fullest speed and would have rushed off into the sunset.
          If, for some reason, the battle had to be accepted, the cruiser commander would have kept at a distance of 20-23 km and, using landmines, little by little shredded the enemy LK ... and then - according to the circumstances.
          1. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets 17 July 2020 09: 11 New
            0
            According to the instructions, the cruiser commander would have to leave the battle, but that if he could. And if (and this is most likely!) The battleship is more sea-going? Only a rapprochement with a quick fire in the hope of a varnish shot.
            But I don’t agree with long-distance combat. Here the advantage is behind the large caliber, and the hits of semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive shells for the aristocrat are critical from the point of view of reduction / loss of course.
            By the way, defeat through the upper belt + bevel or bulkhead, as well as through the combination of the upper belt + barbette below the VP is impossible, is sinful. Having broken the first obstacle, 20,3 cm Psgr L / 4,4 (mHb) will detonate to the second without breaking.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 17 July 2020 15: 24 New
              0
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              But I don’t agree with long-distance combat.

              German combat instructions order the opposite: high-explosive fire at the greatest possible distance.

              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              . Having broken the first obstacle, 20,3 cm Psgr L / 4,4 (mHb) will detonate to the second without breaking.

              Not a fact ... An experiment is needed for conclusions.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 17 July 2020 17: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    I wonder how would the armor of the "October Revolution" 20.3 cm / 60 SK C / 34 "Prinz Eugen" resist? In the second half of 1944 / the first half of 1945, such a meeting is hypothetically possible (if we make allowances for the quality of the command staff of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet).

    The main armored belt of a battleship is very difficult to break through. The battleship will support course coal of 30-50 degrees, which means that the cruiser must approach several kilometers to break through the main armored belt. The towers and barbets of the battleship are very vulnerable, but getting into them is unlikely.
    For the armored deck, it is very important to additionally book a battleship from 1942, which makes it impossible to break through of 203 guns at all practical combat distances.
    The battleship hits the cruiser’s deck with semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive shells at all practical distances. The same applies to the tower and barbete cruiser.
    So for a cruiser, it’s better to run away from the battleship more quickly. There are small chances, but the risk is an order of magnitude greater.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 22 July 2020 15: 33 New
    0
    The armor of the Baltic battleships (primarily horizontal) was also improved during the war.
    As far as there is information, stone slabs from the embankment were laid on the upper deck of Marat at the end of 1941 or 1942.
    At the October Revolution, additional armor plates were placed on the upper deck and they all reached 1084 tones. At the same time, the thickness of the upper deck became 90-110 mm (source "KBF in the Great Patriotic War").
    All 1084 tones correspond to approximately 60-70 mm of additional armor for 2000 sq. meters. 60-70 mm + 37 mm = 97-107 mm armor deck.
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 13 August 2020 23: 58 New
    0
    Looked - the author did not pay attention to the fact that there was an inch system in RI at that time?
    Why then 75, 150, etc. sizes? So for an example of this mess - a quote from the Wiki about Sevastopoli:
    "main belt: 225 mm citadel, 100-125 mm tip
    upper belt: 75-125 mm
    upper deck: 37,5 mm
    middle deck: 19-25 mm
    lower deck: 12-50 mm
    [b] main turret: 76-203 mm
    barbets of main buildings towers: 75-200 mm [/ b
    conning tower: 70-250 mm " bully
    I recommend GOST 3262 - easy to find, but explains hi
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 22 August 2020 11: 10 New
    0
    Generally speaking, there is nothing secret about the armor protection of "Sevastopols". There are simply many mistakes in the descriptions. So we look at the diagram - and write what we see ... Then there will be no mistakes!