Reflections on the accuracy of shooting at the outset of the Tsushima battle

The battleship "Prince Suvorov" fires at the enemy (still from the film)

Since pre-revolutionary times, the opinion about the low level of artillery preparation as one of the reasons for the defeat of the 2nd Pacific squadron has become a commonplace. We have no documents that can confirm or deny this narrative, but there are a number of available sources, information from which allows us not only to assess the level of training of Russian artillerymen, but also to compare it with the level of training of Japanese artillerymen according to such a criterion as shooting accuracy.

In our small research, we will rely primarily on the "Timeline of hits on Japanese ships" from the famous site and information from the article by D. Campbell "The battle of Tsu-Shima", published in 1978 in the "Warship International" magazine. As you know, the article is based on information gleaned from the report of the British observer Captain W. Pakenham (Captain William C. Pakenham), addressed to the British Admiralty and published in 1917.

As you know, during the Battle of Tsushima, a Russian 12 "shell hit the aft barbet installation of the battleship" Fuji ", in addition, on two Japanese battleships during firing, despite the preventive measures, characteristic incidents related to the 12" armor-piercing shimoza equipped shells of the AR 2 type, the hulls of which were made in Japan. The time and number of shells fired at the time of these events indicated by W. Pekinham will help us not only to estimate the rate of fire of the damaged guns, but also make it possible to assume how many shells of the main caliber could be fired by four Japanese battleships in 34 minutes and in 40 minutes, i.e. by the time the battleship "Prince Suvorov" went out of action at 14:44 (hereinafter, the time is indicated in Japanese) and by the time the battleship "Oslyabya" was lost at 14:50, respectively.

The death of the battleship "Oslyabya" (still from the film)

1) The right gun of the stern barbette installation of the battleship "Fuji", which was no longer used after it was hit at 14:58 (according to other sources, at 15:00) by fragments of a Russian shell (the new gun was installed on June 16, 1905, ten days after dismantling the damaged), fired twelve shells in 47 minutes. The average rate of fire for this gun will be 235 seconds per shell. Therefore, in 34 minutes the gun could fire nine shells, in 40 minutes - ten.

Damage to the frontal armor plate of the battleship "Fuji" (fragment of an archival document)

2) The right gun of the bow barbette installation of the battleship "Shikishima", disabled by the premature burst of a shell at 16:13 (the new gun was installed on June 18, 1905), fired eleven shells in a maximum of 79 minutes. The average rate of fire for this gun will be 430 seconds per shell. Consequently, in 34 minutes, the gun could fire five shells, in 40 minutes - six.

3) The right gun of the bow barbet launcher of the battleship "Mikasa", disabled by the premature burst of a shell at 18:02, fired twenty-eight shells in a maximum of 134 minutes.

Damage to the main battery gun of the battleship "Mikasa" (archival document)

The average rate of fire for this gun is 287 seconds per shell. Consequently, in 34 minutes the gun could fire seven shells, in 40 minutes - eight.

Thus, three 12 "guns of the three Japanese battleships (" Mikasa "," Shikishima "and" Fuji ") could fire twenty-one shells during the first thirty-four minutes of the Tsushima battle, and in forty minutes - twenty-four. For this battleship, the average rate of fire of the other three battleships was taken, that is, seven and eight shells in 12 minutes and in 34 minutes, respectively, to determine the rate of fire of 40 "Asahi guns for the indicated time intervals.

Further arithmetic calculations show that all sixteen 12 "guns of the 1st combat detachment by the time the battleship Prince Suvorov failed at 14:44 could have fired up to 112, and by the time the battleship Oslyabya died at 14:50 - up to 128 shells (presumably from the ships of the 1st and 2nd combat detachments, about 107 8 "shells and about 790 6" shells could have been fired into the battleship Oslyabya, of which a maximum of five and eleven shells, respectively, would have hit the target).

Battleship "Mikasa" is firing (still from the film)

Naturally interesting is the question: how many shells of the main caliber could hit the target?

In the battle of Port Arthur, depending on how many 12 "shells actually hit the target, the accuracy achieved by the Japanese with 12" guns ranged from 7,32% to 12,12%, and in the battle at Cape Shantung from 9,45% to 10,1%. If we extrapolate the largest of these indicators (12,12%) to the firing of Japanese battleships in the first phase of the Tsushima battle, and then round the resulting figures up, we get a maximum of fourteen 12 "shells that could theoretically hit the Russian battleships by the time they left building the battleship "Prince Suvorov" and a maximum of sixteen 12 "shells, which theoretically could have hit the Russian battleships at the time of the death of the battleship" Oslyabya ".

Now let's compare the calculated fourteen and sixteen possible hits of Japanese 12 "shells with shells of the same caliber that actually hit Japanese ships. Russian battleships, according to the" Chronology of hits on Japanese ships ", from 14:07:40 to 14:50 managed to achieve twelve straight hits by 12 "shells, including six into the battleship Mikasa" (14:14; 14:20; 14:21; 14:22; 14:25; 14:47) and one each into the armored cruiser "Kassuga" (14:33); "Nisshin" (14:40); Azuma (14:50); Yakumo (14:26); Asama (14:28) and Iwate (14:30).

The battleship "Prince Suvorov", engulfed in fires, fired a volley from a main battery gun (still from the film)

However, there is reason to believe that this is not all the hits of 12 "shells received by Japanese ships in the period under consideration. So, according to the report of the British attaché Captain T. Jackson (RN), who observed the battle from the armored cruiser" Azuma " , the ship received three more hits. In the first case, the combat report refers to a "large projectile" that exploded at 14:27:30 on the starboard side, and several fragments of which flew at the specified time over the stern of the cruiser. In the second case, the British Atache identifies the shell hit at 14:37 as 12 "and describes in detail the impressive effect of its explosion and the serious consequences of this hit. In the third case, it is said about a 12 "shell, which at 14:47 hit the barrel of the right gun of the stern tower.

The number of 12 "shells hit on both sides, a maximum of 14-16 Japanese against a minimum of 12-15 Russian, is comparable. However, from the Russian side, theoretically, a greater number of 12" guns could fire: 26 against 16 Japanese. How many of them actually fired, as well as the number of 12 "shells they fired, is unknown. However, if we talk about the consumption of shells of the main caliber on battleships of the" Borodino "type, which account for the lion's share of 12" shells that hit Japanese ships, then one can refer to the "Eagle", which fired fifty 14 "shells (two armor-piercing and 12 high-explosive) and 48 345" shells (6 armor-piercing, 23 high-explosive) in the daytime battle on May 322, which is much less than the consumption of ammunition of similar calibers for any Japanese battleship ...

With approximately the same number of 12 "shells hit in the first forty minutes, Japanese fire turned out to be much more effective than Russian, which later (as predicted in his report by Captain W. Packenham) gave rise to the writing fraternity, some historians and memoirists to overestimate the accuracy of the Japanese Analyzing the result achieved by the Japanese, the British observer gave in his report the main, in his opinion, components of the success of the attack on our two flagship battleships.

A column of Japanese battleships in the Battle of Tsushima (still from the film)

Comparing the results of two general battles, he noted that in the battle at Cape Shantung, the expectations of the Japanese were deceived, their 12 "shells not only did not cause the expected damage to enemy ships, but also did not cause a single serious fire on them. The conclusions were made, and the result The impact of the same shimosa on the ships of the 2nd Pacific Squadron exceeded the expectations of its most ardent fans.During the repair and partial modernization of the Japanese battleships to which they were sent after the fall of Port Arthur, the ammunition load of the main and medium caliber guns was changed and increased. Instead of ninety 12 "shells (50 armor-piercing and 35 high-explosive), one barrel began to rely on one hundred and ten (30 armor-piercing and 80 high-explosive). 12 "shells of low-quality (read: Japanese) production were for the most part replaced by shells of foreign production, and restrictions were imposed on the use of the rest. Looking ahead, we recall that if on July 28, 1904," Mikasa "fired 96 high-explosive and 76 caliber, then in the Tsushima battle, he fired the same 96 high-explosive shells of the main caliber, but only 28 armor-piercing.

Bow barbette gun of the main caliber of the battleship "Mikasa" (still from the film)

According to Captain W. Packenham, the old fuses were replaced with less sensitive ones, but even after this measure

a significant part of the energy of the shimosa explosion was lost from the outside of the 1.

Nevertheless, a comparison of the results of the inspection of the dumped Port Arthur battleships and the "Eagle" showed that before the appearance of the modified fuse, the energy losses of the shimosa explosion were much greater, which, in our opinion, is clearly illustrated by the following facts. By 14:48 the mainmast and rear chimney on the "Prince Suvorov" were shot down, while on the "Tsesarevich" the rear pipe withstood, despite being hit by two 12 "high-explosive shells. As well as its foremast, by 9/10 diameter broken by the explosion of the "suitcase." As stated in the report,

none of the Port Arthur battleships received damage from a single (high-explosive) projectile comparable to the damage received by the Eagle when hit by a (high-explosive) projectile of the same caliber. Each shell hit (in the Tsushima battle) produced a greater effect than it had before.

In addition to the new fuses, according to Captain W. Packenham, the frequency of hits in the Tsushima battle also affected. Before failing, "Tsarevich" received up to fifteen hits 12 "shells," Prince Suvorov ", according to our estimate, about the same number. But if" Prince Suvorov "these 12" shells hit within forty minutes, then " The Tsarevich "received the first 12" shell at 13:05, and the last one at about 18:45.

In addition to the above factors, which, in the opinion of the British attache, contributed to the success of the Japanese, it is necessary to mention others that are known to us from domestic sources. First of all, it is worth mentioning the successful distribution of the hits of the "suitcases", the consequences of the explosion of which were tragically superimposed on both negligence during operation and the unsatisfactory quality of construction, as well as on the design flaws of individual units and elements of ships: from the valves for flooding the "Oslyabi" cartridge magazines, small section which was not allowed to straighten the list of the ship, to the conning tower of "Prince Suvorov", the mushroom-shaped overhang of the roof of which repeatedly caught the fragments reflected from below and directed them inside the wheelhouse. Speaking of optical rangefinders, one cannot but mention that there were two of them on the "Prince Suvorov" (FA 3), and both were rendered unusable by fragments that fell into the conning tower at 14: 23-14: 27 due to an unsuccessful tower structures. At the same time, on the battleship "Mikasa" the entire battle distance was determined by one FA 2 rangefinder (and not dozens, as A.S. Novikov-Priboy claimed), which was served by midshipman K. Hasegawa (ensign Kiyoshi Hasegawa), who stood openly on the bridge not far from Admiral Togo. The optical sights of Lieutenant Perepyolkin of the 1899 model of the year, after the very first volleys, began to fog up from the soot of smokeless powder, spray and smoke from the explosions of enemy shells, and the shocks from the shots quickly and easily mismatched the sight scale, the sighting line itself and the axis of the gun. On April 14, 1905, the Japanese received the latest telescopic telescopic sights from J. Hicks, Hatton Garden ”, more perfect than they had before. The smokeless powder, which was used in the charges, after a long stay in the tropics, changed its chemical properties due to the evaporation of ether. As a result, its ballistic properties have also changed. Firing tables were compiled for gunpowder with some characteristics, and charges were loaded into the gun with others. The fire control devices stopped working shortly after the start of the battle. In the shortest possible time, on many ships, the wires were damaged, through which instructions were transmitted from the conning tower to the Geisler dials. Each plutong officer had to determine the distance by eye, as a result, we, not seeing the fall of our shells, fired without knowing the distance. On the Japanese battleships, orders about the direction of fire and the distance to the target were transmitted from the bridge with the help of horns, first by a messenger, and then relayed in the form of orders written on boards.

Gun crew of a Japanese gun (still from the film)

Summing up, we can state that with the beginning of the Tsushima battle, various negative factors gradually began to affect the firing accuracy of the Russian battleships (which the Japanese gunners did not have to face), coupled with the multiplying damage to the material part, which gradually reduced the combat training of Russian artillerymen to nothing.

In the photo: a fragment of the upper deck of the battleship "Mikasa", made of 51 mm thick garveenickel steel, with traces of multiple hits, received, according to information from the information stand, during the Tsushima battle. Attention is drawn to the accuracy of hits

Comments

[polpot]

Thank you interesting.

[Silvio]

Quote: polpot

Thank you interesting.

In the photo of a steel sheet with holes from the upper deck of Mikasa, the thickness of the sheet is clearly not 51 mm, but from strength 20. And the holes are made by shell fragments, this is not an example of heap shooting.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Silvio

the thickness of the sheet is clearly not 51 mm, but on the strength of 20

You are not the first to notice this. The thickness of the sheet is 0.5 inches, it is written at the bottom, on the plate that did not fit into the frame.

[The leader of the Redskins]

In detail, you will not say anything ...
And from which film are the shots?

[Macsen_wledig]

"Clouds over the hills" // Saka no ue no kumo

On torrents it is found, but the translation is so-so.
Although the film itself is very informative.

[Comrade]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

And from which film are the shots?

"Saka no Ue no Kumo"
can be viewed on the Internet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erk83OXMvYo
But if you download it as Blu-Ray, you can see more details and details.

[Alexey Sommer]

A tragic page in the history of the Russian Navy.
Blessed memory of the heroes and all Russian participants in this battle.
ps And the islands and Sakhalin are ours.
psp A will be buzz and Hokaido Ainam will give.

[Comrade]

Quote: kamui91

This is temporary. You will have to give up the stolen islands, whether you like it or not.

When the cancer hangs on the mountain.

[Fitter65]

Quote: kamui91

Not when, after the next crisis, children in the Far East will be fed again with compound feed.

And when were the children in the Far East fed with compound feed? You would be a nice person lying, but not lying. So much I want to spit on Russia, but look as if the spit didn't break.

[Fitter65]

Quote: kamui91

... You will have to give up the stolen islands, whether you like it or not.

So we took in 1945 what they stole from us in 1905.

[Senior seaman]

At last...

Instead of ninety 12 "shells (50 armor-piercing and 35 high-explosive)

Where are five more?
In general, the number of shells of the main battery inspires. I remember that we had 60 per barrel.

[Comrade]

Quote: Senior Sailor

de five more?

There was no "native" ammunition - 90 rounds per barrel.

[Senior seaman]

50 + 35 = 85 !!!

[Comrade]

Quote: Senior Sailor

50 + 35 = 85 !!!

I beg your pardon, there is a mistake in the text. Alas, there is no way to fix it.

[Andrey Shmelev]

at Packinham (report dated 06.05)
there were 55 AP and 35 FS = 90
and with Tsushima 30 AP and 80 FS = 110
as I understood his report in JM were Japanese-made AP, which gave premature breaks, and under Tsushima AP, "foreign-made"

[Engineer]

The best (no irony) forces of the site are working on the Tsushima problem. It would seem that not a single controversial episode should remain. Everything was literally disassembled. But no, every article is a confrontation in the comments. Most likely it will be the same now

[Comrade]

Quote: Engineer

It would seem that not a single controversial episode should remain. Everything was literally disassembled.

Not all :-)
There are a lot of questions about combat damage, the most interesting of them, in my opinion, is the hit in the stern installation of the main battery "Fuji".

[Engineer]

Someone on the site will have to learn Japanese to put an end to it.)

[Comrade]

Quote: Engineer

To put an end to someone on the site will have to learn Japanese

The situation is under control :-)
We will not rely on OCR, comments on the damaged parts of the turret of the battleship "Fuji" will help, I hope, "overtake" my old friend Fujikawa-san in Word. Well, then it's a matter of technology :-)

[Engineer]

Win claim)

[Andrey Shmelev]

Hooray! New article by a very interesting author.
Now there will be a mahach) just a couple of thoughts:

Average rate of fire

in Tsushima there were episodes of long and short distances, good and disgusting visibility, different course angles, so I am against such a rough definition of the average rate of fire: nothing prevented the Japanese from shooting once a minute and even more often in the outset of a battle and once every five minutes in unfavorable periods and not even fire for half an hour at all

the accuracy achieved by the Japanese with 12 "guns ranged from 7,32% to 12,12%, and in the battle at Cape Shantung from 9,45% to 10,1%.

I understand that I'm tired, but the accuracy of sights and rangefinders is growing exponentially, with a reduction in the distance in arithmetic (fact), therefore it is much more logical to extrapolate the results of the April exercises from Jackson's report, guessing the accuracy of the order of 25%

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

New article by a very interesting author.

It's a pity that the latter :(

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

in Tsushima there were episodes of long and short distances, good and disgusting visibility

That's right, but Valentine writes specifically about the plot of the battle.

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

but the accuracy of sights and rangefinders is growing exponentially, with a reduction in the distance in arithmetic (fact), therefore it is much more logical to extrapolate the results of the April exercises from Jackson's report, guessing the accuracy of about 25%

It's hard to disagree with the first one, but as for the second ... well, as if in exercises they always shoot better than in combat, so “a quarter” is still too much.

[Andrey Shmelev]

so the "quarter" is still too much

and you Jackson's report dated May 06 to April 25, look: "Sikishima" knocked out 75% of accuracy with the main caliber and 67% with six-inch guns in exercises

[Comrade]

Quote: Senior Sailor

It's a pity that the latter :(

Ivan, from the fact that I moved from AI to VO, nothing has changed, who is interested in talking about such topics, just changed the place of discussion.

Quote: Senior Sailor

well, as it were, they always shoot better in exercises than in combat

Why, fifty percent was knocked out. If the Japanese had fired in the same way in the Tsushima battle, the number of 12 '' shells hitting our ships would have been in the hundreds.

[Andrey Shmelev]

If the Japanese had fired in the same way in the Tsushima battle, the number of 12 '' shells hitting our ships would have been in the hundreds.

BINGO!

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

nothing prevented the Japanese from shooting once a minute and even more often in the beginning of the battle

The Japanese were leading the so-called. "slow fire".

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

it is much more logical to extrapolate the results of the April exercises from the Jackson report, guessing the accuracy of the order of 25%

Firstly, the distance during the exercises was from 2743 meters to 2286 meters.
Secondly, the distance when the Japanese opened fire was from 6 meters to 200 meters.
Thirdly, the total accuracy of the Japanese then was not 25, but 50 (fifty) %.
Fourth, the speed during the exercise was four to five knots.
Fifth, the Japanese opened fire at 16 knots.

[Andrey Shmelev]

t. n. "slow fire".

Jackson even wrote "annoyingly slow"
however, the paradox: on the one hand, so, on the other hand - "a stream of shells like from a hose",
the easiest way to reconcile them is by ragged episodes, then so, then so

First, the distance in the exercises

Second, the opening distance

so the size of the target was no more than 100 feet in length - count through the sector :)

and they were still getting closer, because

Fourth, speed in exercises

Fifth, speed when opening fire

will roughly level the playing field

by the way, there were fewer hits when opening, that's when they stretched into the wake, then yes

Third, the overall accuracy

yeah, 16 from 32,
we will cut half for the difference between combat and exercises;)

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

"a stream of shells like a hose"

This is nonsense invented by one of our publicists, which has no confirmation.

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

half off for the difference between combat and exercises

If we proceed from the fact that "Mikasa" on May 15 did not fire at Nebogatov's detachment, then the total consumption of Japanese 12 "shells on May 14 was 429 pieces.
From your words it follows that the Russian ships in the daytime battle got one hundred and seven "suitcases".

[Andrey Shmelev]

It follows from your words that one hundred and seven "suitcases" fell into the Russian ships in the daytime battle.

from the descriptions of the state of the "COP" there is no problem to assume that he grabbed fifty, IMHO

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

from the descriptions of the state of the "COP" there is no problem to assume that he grabbed fifty

We will write the same amount for the "Eagle", Kostenko will help us.

[Andrey Shmelev]

what for? analysis of the damage of the "Eagle" and its state makes it very logical to assume that each destroyed EBR received in comparison with him, on average, a double portion or so
this fits perfectly with my assumption about the accuracy of the Japanese
it also correlates well with the accuracy of 2 TOE versus 1 TOE

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

analysis of the damage of the "Eagle" and its state makes it very logical to assume that each destroyed EBR received in comparison with him, on average, a double portion or so

According to Kostenko, during all the stages of the daytime artillery battle, the Eagle received 42 hits from 12-inch shells.
So "Oslyabya", based on your words, 84 (eighty-two).

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

this compares well with the accuracy of 2 TOEs compared to 1 TOE

We know the accuracy of the 1st Pacific Squadron, but we do not know and never will know the accuracy of the 2nd Pacific Squadron, with the exception of the guns of the main caliber of the coastal defense battleships.

[Andrey Shmelev]

According to Kostenko,

good already, we took apart Kostenko four times here, and on Tsushima, etc. another 100500 times
look at Japanese data, multiply by two

So "Oslyabya"

we will never know who exactly how much, but, extrapolating "Eagle", we understand that on the AVERAGE no less than twice
As for the AiCh type posts, two shells dragged him to the bottom, well, out of respect for him, I am ready to admit that 2 + 2 = 7,3 (3), but he demands to recognize 2 + 2 = ln 730 to the 1,128 degree, and this is too much for me;)

we do not know and will never know the accuracy of the 2nd Pacific squadron

"bulk manual" and "Campbell's numbers" have not been canceled, I agree, within 20%, one can reasonably argue with this, but no more

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

good already, we have analyzed Kostenko four times here. look at Japanese data, multiply by two

Ok give his versionHow many 12 '' shells hit the "Eagle". Specify the exact number, please.

Quote: Andrei Shmelev

we will never know who exactly how much, but, extrapolating "Eagle", we understand that AVERAGE not less than twice, we multiply by two

Why not one and a half or two and a half?

[Andrey Shmelev]

Okay, give your version of how many 12 '' shells hit Eagle. Specify the number, please.

well, xs, I think that 152-mm and higher about 50-60 hits, there are a lot of controversies you can make, but still about that, 12-inch suitcases are definitely no more than 15 pieces, IMHO

shl. a couple of years ago I confused the results of 8 inches and 12 inches = "guilty-dunce-fix

Why not one and a half or two and a half?

purely by sensations that the "Eagle" was twice as far from drowning
I understand that "half-finger-ceiling")
I doubt anyone will offer better

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

suitcases of 12 inches exactly no more than 15 pieces,

It turns out that Oslyabya "got thirty 12" shells?

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

purely by sensations that the "Eagle" was twice as far from drowning

"Prince Suvorov" was killed not from artillery fire, but from two or three torpedo hits. Get them "Eagle" and he wouldn't be well.
The idea of ​​taking a known number of hits in one or another survivor ship, and then double this amount and attribute it to the ship deceased, vicious.
An abstract example.
The battle cruiser Tiger received 15 main-caliber rounds, but did not die. The three British battlecruisers who died in the Battle of Jutland received an estimated five to seven rounds of their main caliber.

[Andrey Shmelev]

It turns out that Oslyabya "got thirty 12" shells?

xs, but definitely not two :)

"Prince Suvorov" did not die from artillery fire

I agree, but no one has ever blown the board along the edge of the belts again

Battle cruiser "Tiger"

not considered, because, someone flew through the barbet, someone did not

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

not considered, because, someone flew through the barbet, someone did not

Didn't Borodino arrive?

[Andrey Shmelev]

Didn't Borodino arrive?

xs, a lot of vairants

I read about the "sensation of the day" :)

[rytik32]

No.
1. Landmine could not break through the barbet.
2. Yushchin does not confirm this option. His ship heeled, water poured into the porticoes and overkill. A familiar picture ???

[Andrey Shmelev]

I would be guided by Yushchin, if not for one "but"

The list to starboard became very large: it was difficult to walk; the lower section of the bow gun turret touched the water - (the roll was about 20 degrees).

and no one else saw this, neither on the Eagle, nor the Japanese
otherwise I would immediately write about the "familiar picture"
and so there is a reason to answer

xs, many options

[rytik32]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

and no one else saw this, neither on the Eagle, nor the Japanese

Report of the Flagship Mine Officer Lieutenant Leontyev:

Lurching the head battleship - "Borodino" after a few seconds turned over, showing the entire left side of the underwater part and part of the right over the water surface.

Testimony of Lieutenant Slavinsky:

Just at this time, the Borodino was circulating to the left, and I saw a huge wave roll through the aft half-ports into the battleship.

Again circulation, like in "Oslyabi"!
Reading of Rank 2 Captain Artschwager:

At 7 o'clock. evenings the battleship Borodino, with a roll and having a big fire, went out to the side, and then, entering the wake behind us, turned over.

Description of the battle of Lieutenant Baron Taube.

Soon after 7 o'clock, tilts heavily "Borodino", still heading

Testimony of Warrant Officer Augustow:

This continued until 7:XNUMX, when two shells in a row hit the "Borodino" in the stern; you could see how a large plume of smoke rose and "Borodino" banked and began to fail to the right, without ceasing to shoot; lurching more and more and immediately turned over. This happened at about 7 o'clock. 10 min., At the time of sunset

Description of the battle of Warrant Officer Pell 4

the Japanese concentrated their fire on the Borodino. The roll on this battleship increased gradually... About 7 o'clock, the fire at the mainmast intensified, it was all clouded with smoke, and when the smoke cleared, "Borodino" was not on the water surface

enough?

[Andrey Shmelev]

guilty-dunce-fix!

[rytik32]

I also want to read about "Alexander" in detail, so that you can speak for sure, you can pull it into the pattern "turn - water into the portico - overkill". So far this template contains only "Oslyabya" and "Borodino".

[rytik32]

In general, the same picture, only "Alexander" resisted for a long time:

Description of the battle senior. artil. officer, Lieutenant Gertner 1st.

Alexander III ", about 7 o'clock. in the evening, with a large roll to the starboard side, cut through the formation and on the left kambol, in the cab. 6, turned over at Nakhimov

Captain Rank 2 Artschwager

At 5 pm the battleship "Emperor Alexander III" went out of order, burned, with a roll and, still having a fire at the top, soon overturned

Description of the battle of Warrant Officer Markov 1.

"Emperor Alexander III", who continued to march at the head of the line, but after a few time, a strong fire and a lurch forced him to fail as well. Out of order to the left, he went to the end of the line. Only one signalman could be seen on the bridge, who signaled with a semaphore: "I am in distress." The battleship entered the Senyavin's wake. 15 minutes later, having straightened the roll, he also opened fire, but suddenly the roll began to increase again and at 5 o'clock. For 20 minutes, the battleship turned over almost instantly.

Description of the battle of Lieutenant Baron Taube.

At 6 o'clock. "Alexander III" lurches heavily to the left and fails to the right, towards the enemy. He has, on the left side in the nose, huge holes and strong fires in several places on the Spardek. The bank could reach 20 °, but the battleship slowly straightens up again and enters the wake behind the Admiral Senyavin. At 6 o'clock. 30 min. "Alexander III", again under the bank, breaks down to the left and suddenly immediately turns keel up to the left side.

Testimony of Warrant Officer Zatursky.

Less than five minutes after the sinking of Borodino, the battleships, without any signal, apparently due to the approach of the Japanese destroyers, turned "all of a sudden" to the left and went to Zuid-West. During this turn, "Alexander" turned over.

Testimony of Warrant Officer Augustow

This continued until 6 o'clock, when the "Emperor Alexander III" went out of order, cutting the line between "Navarin" and "Sisoy the Great", and holding out, with a roll of about 20 minutes, turned over. It was about 6 o'clock. 30 min

Indication of Art. mate officer of transport, Warrant Officer Emelyanov.

"Alexander III", having gone out of order (away from the enemy) and having reduced the speed, began to lurch a little; when he fell behind approximately to the traverse of the Sisoy, the roll to starboard began to rapidly increase at 7 o'clock. 20 minutes. he rolled over at a distance of ½ mile

Testimony of Second Lieutenant for the Admiralty Frolov

About 6 hours. In the evening, the battleship "Alexander III" was out of order, having a strong roll to starboard and, after 4 minutes, it capsized.

Copy of the note of the Flagship Navigator Captain 2nd rank De-Livron

Around sunset, "Alexander III" went at the end of the line with a strong roll; when all the battleships turned without any signal, almost all of a sudden, to the south, then "Alexander III", in order not to interfere with other ships, put the rudder down, thereby tilting even more and, scooping up with half-bores, turned over

Copy of the report of the Doctor of Medicine I. Zubov from the transport "Korea"

Around 6 pm there was a signal "keep NO 23 °, stroke 8 knots." and our battleships began to turn to the right, but at that time the battleship "Emperor Alexander III", on which there was a fire before

And now we can ask the question why "Suvorov" did not overturn? My answer: when he went out of order at the beginning of the battle, he had not yet collected water, and then had too little stroke and could not abruptly lay the rudder, because driven by machines. "Oslyabya" left first because he had no armor in his nose. According to "Eagle", the picture is well described by Kostenko, that is, if all the battleships had been beating at it for another half hour, the Eagle would have been there.

[Saxahorse]

"Borodino" after a few seconds turned over, showing above the water surface the entire left side of the underwater part and part of the right.

By the way, this part strongly compromises the arguments for the alleged explosion of cellars. After the explosion of the cellar, the right side of the bottom of Borodino should not have been available. And he would not have floated up belly if there was a huge hole there.

[rytik32]

Very true noticed!

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

well, xs, I think that 152-mm and higher about 50-60 hits, there are a lot of controversies you can make, but still about that, 12-inch suitcases are definitely no more than 15 pieces, IMHO

About 10 years ago in "Sea War" was an article by Arsen Danilov about the damage to the "Eagle" in the Tsushima battle.

[rytik32]

Can you have a link? I will be grateful.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: rytik32

Can you have a link? I will be grateful.

I would love to, but wherever I looked, the links are already dead.
Search for "Sea War 2008-01".
Maybe you will be more fortunate.

[rytik32]

Thanks, I'm lucky!

[Andrey Shmelev]

please share

[Andrey Shmelev]

I read it with pleasure, thanks, the questions to the realswat conclusions remained the same)

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

well, xs, I think that 152-mm and higher about 50-60 hits, there are a lot of controversies you can make, but still about that, 12-inch suitcases are definitely no more than 15 pieces, IMHO

I can propose amendments on this issue.
- About 50-60 shell hits I will add, caliber from 76 mm to 203 mm
- For 12 "and possibly 10" shells (remembering the opinion of Messrs. Pekinham and the Frenchman Ferrand?) We can say that there were from 7 to 15 hits.

[Andrey Shmelev]

it's hard to say about the three-inch ones, it's too incomprehensible with them on the damage diagrams

and the Japanese also counted holes, but they stubbornly disliked counting non-penetration, and their presence in a significant number is obvious

[Cyril G ...]

If sclerosis does not let me down, the Japanese from 76 mm opened fire when the distance was less than 20 cab., According to the orders for the conduct of the battle. And periodically the Japanese fired secondary battery. That is, 3 "hits should have been.
In reality, it turns out that in Tsushima, unlike Shantung Togo, he decided to fight at shorter distances. And this is the main reason for the increase in the number of hits and defeat.

and the Japanese also counted holes, but they stubbornly disliked counting non-penetration, and their presence in a significant number is obvious

At home? Yes, it was striking that most of the Russian hits struck something, or tore something off ...

[Andrey Shmelev]

Russians, first of all, did not like to count non-penetration, that is, a 305 mm land mine that got into the belt without penetration is far from the fact that it will be taken into account

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

that is, a 305 mm land mine that got into the belt without breaking through is far from the fact that it will be taken into account

There is such a thing. The same Kostenko wrote about the many hits in the 6 "armor of the upper belt with almost no traces. And after the battle in the Yellow Sea, there is often one" shine "from a land mine on the armor as a trace. taken into account.

[rytik32]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

we will never know who exactly how much, but, extrapolating "Eagle",

There are more reliable data for the assessment. The rate of fire of 12 "Fuji" guns has already been calculated: 0,25 rounds per minute per barrel.
From the report of the commander of the ship, the time of firing at Oslyab is known: from 14:11 to 14:21, 10 minutes.
During these ten minutes, 3 hits were recorded in the same source.
We count how many shells were fired. 0,25 (rounds per minute) * 4 (barrel) * 10 minutes = about 10.
We consider the actual accuracy. 3/10 = 30%.
Total accuracy "Fuji" in the outset of Tsushima 30% for the GC! Approximately 3 times more than what you have in your calculations.
Valentine, why can't we expect a similar increase in accuracy for other ships and weapons?

[Andrey Shmelev]

because "Oslyabya" sank only from TWO hits !!!! :)

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

Valentine, why can't we expect a similar increase in accuracy for other ships and weapons?

Judge for yourself.
"Shikishima" from one 12 "gun in the 40 minutes that, according to V. Sidorenko's schedule, he fired at" Oslyab ", could fire six shells, from four guns - twenty-four shells. Thirty percent of them - eight hits addition to those achieved by Fuji. Total, we have eleven hits of 12 "shells in" Oslyabya "against your own four... See screenshot below, opens on click.

[Andrey Shmelev]

I don't really understand why exactly "4 hits" and how they were obtained

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

I don't really understand why exactly "4 hits" and how they were obtained

Screenshot from Alexey's article. During the discussion, we came to the conclusion that there could be three 12 ".
It means that :
a) "Shikishima" of 12 "guns did not hit even once;
b) On "Fuji" they mistakenly considered someone else's 12 "hit as their own.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Please give me a link, I seem to have missed something important

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

please give a link

Alexey has the very first article in his profile.

[Andrey Shmelev]

well, how to say, this is just a speculative assumption, based on one and a half accuracy against FM, nothing more

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

a) "Shikishima" of 12 "guns did not hit even once;

And here I will argue.
There was one more, fourth big hit, in the bow tower. Why large?
1. The tower has been removed.
2. "The tower has been pierced from the left side" - only a large armor-piercing shell could penetrate the tower's armor. Because "Fuji" and "Kasuga" fired only land mines, then "Sikishima" remains.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

The tower was pierced from the left side "- only a large armor-piercing projectile could penetrate the tower's armor. Since Fuji and Kasuga fired only land mines, then Sikishima remains.

It is possible that even so, "Shikishima" fired four armor-piercing shells of the main caliber. But the statement about the allegedly broken tower armor of the Oslyabi, against the background of the results of the battle on July 28, raises serious and reasonable doubts.

[rytik32]

And what are the doubts? A 305-mm Japanese projectile had a penetration of a 229-mm krupp, and only a harvey ...
By the way, I will assume that the shell did not explode, so it pierced the armor and therefore was not noticed by the Japanese

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

I will assume that the projectile did not explode, so it pierced the armor and therefore was not noticed by the Japanese

To throw a 10 '' turret off the rollers (if this really happened), the impact force of a 12 '' shell that pierced the armor would not be enough. There, an explosion from the outside needs a strong one.

[rytik32]

Well, there were three hits in the bow tower!

[Andrey Shmelev]

There an explosion from the outside needs a strong one.

an explosion outside for kinetic energy will give little compared to the blow of a blank, IMHO

[rytik32]

here is my article https://topwar.ru/171481-osljabja-protiv-mikasy.html

[Andrey Shmelev]

Thanks, I read it, I just didn't remember right away

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

In total, we have eleven hits of 12 "shells in" Oslyabya "against your own four

No no! I proceeded from a slightly different rate of fire (but not about it) and a different accuracy:
15% for 12 "
6% for 8 "
2,25% for 6"

And 15% for 12 "is average accuracy, as well as the average ammunition consumption for the entire battle. And 30% - in some good moments. After all, there could be unsuccessful ones?

What percentage of accuracy did you proceed from?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: rytik32

The rate of fire of 12 "Fuji" guns has already been calculated: 0,25 rounds per minute per barrel.
From the report of the commander of the ship, the time of firing at Oslyab is known: from 14:11 to 14:21, 10 minutes.

Sorry for the mischief, but Commander Fuji's report is a slippery spot. He really writes that he was shooting somewhere, but the distance indicated by him is not similar to the distance to Oslyabi. It was once discussed, perhaps there is a gross translation error. Proper names from Japanese cannot be translated unambiguously.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Comrade

This is nonsense invented by one of our publicists, which has no confirmation.

R. Melnikov writes about this referring to the artillery officer of the "Aurora" Lieutenant Losev.
Interestingly, in his report on the battle, Losev does not write anything like that.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Yes, I agree, Losev does not write anything about the hose, a good topic to understand

[Comrade]

Quote: Macsen_Wledig

R. Melnikov writes about this referring to the artillery officer of the "Aurora" Lieutenant Losev.

Referencing emotions is not an argument. Take a look at the total consumption of shells on the 1st combat squad (opens on click), "spread" it for two hundred and a half minutes and estimate how many and what Japanese shells could be in stream Melnikov air.

The cost of Japanese light cruisers is comparable to that of our cruisers. If Losev did not mean battleships, but the enemy's cruisers, it means that our Japanese were being watered with shells, as if from a hose.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Comrade

Referencing emotions is not an argument.

I'm not arguing. :)
I am familiar with the theory of shooting at sea, so I perceive Melnikov's messages as nothing more than journalism.

[Andrey Shmelev]

I perceive Melnikov's promises as nothing more than journalism.

in principle, the theory "about the hose", even if not literally, but from the same Losev is deduced, however, the "boiling sea" is a fact from the whole detachment, but the "hose" is just an emotion, albeit justified by the subjective perception of the fact "boiling sea"

[rytik32]

Valentin, please draw your attention to the consumption of medium-caliber shells

In Tsushima, for some ships it is several times higher!
Don't you find that it was the sheer number of 6-inch rounds fired, combined with the shorter range (higher accuracy!) That made Tsushima?
It was they who created the "hail of shells" effect, which was not in the Yellow Sea.

[Nehist]

In part, it was 6 "high-explosive shells that created that sea of ​​fires that was under Tsushima and was absent in the Yellow Sea.

[rytik32]

Again about the "miracles" of Tsushima are written by those who have something to justify themselves for. And most importantly: the shells flying into the battleships were hardly visible from the Aurora ...

[andrew42]

Indeed, there are inconsistencies in the assessment of the rate of Japanese shooting - sometimes the hyped Takuga-Zen, sometimes "annoyingly slow." All this is strange.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

nothing prevented the Japanese from shooting once a minute and even more often in the outset of the battle and once every five minutes in unfavorable periods and even not firing for half an hour at all

In general, the passport rate of fire of 12 guns is 1 shot in 2 minutes, like, at least at Novikov-Priboi, Eagle shot like this. Plus, did the Japanese have to set the turrets to 0 to reload?

[rytik32]

Quote: Pilat2009

Plus, did the Japanese have to set the turrets to 0 to reload?

Only on "Fuji" and only after 16 shells in the tower have been spent.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: rytik32

16 shells in the tower.

Colleague, was there a boy?
That is, these shells have long become a common place, but ... as far as I understand, the feed mechanisms were located in a narrow, fixed part of a pear-shaped barbet. Suppose we put racks for shells and charges in the rotating part for some time ... but how to load? 380 kg is a damn serious weight.

[rytik32]

The shells were placed along the rear wall of the rotating part. They were fed with the help of mechanisms fixed on the roof and worked from the efforts of the artillerymen))) And there were additional headers for feeding shells into the barrel from the tower (when feeding from below, other headers worked).

[Senior seaman]

Quote: rytik32

They were fed with the help of mechanisms fixed on the roof and worked from the efforts of the gunners)))

I mean, hoists? Here's what a shitty decision, I'm telling you, as a rigger of artillery ammunition.

[rytik32]

So this is the Yapi themselves then invented! Initially, the guns were loaded only from below and with the rotation of the barrels along the axis of the ship.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

So it was the Yapi who invented it themselves!

This was a common practice in English shipbuilding. The battleship "Majestic" was not even 16, but 20 shells.

[Senior seaman]

So the rammer in the rotating part of the barbet?

[rytik32]

Fuji had two pairs of rammers. One in a rotating piece for tower stock. The second is in the fixed part for shells from the cellars.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: rytik32

Fuji had two pairs of rammers.

It's not about the rammer, but about feeding the projectile to the tray. But the fact that Fuji had a separate hydraulic pusher for projectiles in the tower niche suggests that they were fed not through a common tray, but somehow differently.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Senior Sailor

I mean, hoists? Here's a shitty decision

Not the fact that simple hoists. The weight of the projectile is known in advance, they could accommodate something balanced by a load or springs. One way or another, they showed 9 volleys in 12 minutes on tests. This is 80 seconds. for a shot. By the way, they write about 18 shells and not about 16.

[Kayuk]

Hooray! New article by a very interesting author.

I agree 100%. And the article is good and the author writes interestingly, and the topic seems to be eternal!
Although I repeat, the article generally confirms that not everything is so simple with the Japanese shells in the Tsushima battle.

[Macsen_wledig]

In the photo: a fragment of the upper deck of the battleship "Mikasa", made of 51 mm thick garveenickel steel, with traces of multiple hits, received, according to information from the information stand, during the Tsushima battle. Attention is drawn to the accuracy of hits

This is not 2 "armor. At best, normal steel flooring with a thickness of 0,5"
Accuracy of hits is caused by shrapnel damage to the skin.

[Comrade]

Quote: Macsen_Wledig

This is not 2 "armor. At best, normal steel flooring with a thickness of 0,5"

Please reread the caption under the photo. At the stand it is said that there 51 mm, and you claim that 12,7 mm.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Comrade

Please reread the caption under the photo. The stand says that there is 51 mm, and you say that it is 12,7 mm.

Turn on the thinker (I'm not in an offensive sense, if anything), look at the "curly" edges of the holes, scale and figure out what size the armor plate should be so that the ragged 2 "thick metal looks SO.

[Comrade]

Quote: Macsen_Wledig

Turn on the brain

You are right, I looked at high magnification, there is no 2 ''.

[Andrey Shmelev]

hooray, thanks, otherwise I was also worried about the fact that it doesn't look like 2 inches there)

[DrEng527]

Quote: Comrade

You are right, I looked at high magnification, there is no 2 ''.

the comma is probably missing when compared with the diameter of the rivets - 0.5 dm.

[Thrifty]

Here, it was interesting to read, the author for the article plus +!

[Comrade]

Quote: Thrifty

it was interesting to read, the author for the article plus +!

Glad you liked it, thanks for the support, colleague :-)

[Rurikovich]

Plus material - it is always interesting to read different opinions on RYAV
Dear Valentin provided the point of view of the Japanese side through the eyes of a formally neutral English citizen (read an ally of the Japs), which, in principle, confirms the thesis of one of the respected authors on VO that the accuracy of the Russians in the outset of the battle was in no way inferior to the accuracy of the Japanese, despite the indicated the author has a number of negative points. Another thing is that the effect of Russian shells was lower than that of Japanese shells, and coupled with the superiority in the speed of the latter, which resulted in the concentration of fire on the head of the column, the result was not long in coming - the failure of the flagships with the subsequent loss of command for the Russians .. ...
How many people, so many opinions, because the theme of Tsushima is eternal. You can consider both objective and subjective factors, therefore, it is not the ZPR that is 100% to blame for the defeat, and it is not Togo's "talent" that is 100% applied to the defeat of 2TOE ... Here you need to consider ALL the nuances of that battle, only then will it be the general picture is mostly to blame - ships are only iron, built by people for the war of people against their own kind ... But it happened ... History does not know the subjunctive mood

[Artavazdych]

Bad luck, multiplied by the obvious superiority in the strength of the enemy. Probably the most tragic page in the history of the Russian army.
Given that we have something to be proud of in this war.

[27091965]

The optical sights of Lieutenant Perepyolkin of the 1899 model of the year after the very first volleys began to fog up from the soot of smokeless powder, spray and smoke from the explosions of enemy shells, and the shocks from the shots quickly and easily mismatched the sight scale, the aiming line itself and the axis of the gun.

Dear Valentin, an interesting article, thank you.
There are many opinions on this matter, I will present one of them.

Captain 2nd Rank N.P. Kurosh, flagship artilleryman of Rear Admiral N.I. Nebogatov

"....As for the sights, as a flagship artillery officer, I know well the history of the equipment of both the 2nd and 3rd Pacific squadrons ...

....... MTK for the 2nd Pacific Squadron made an order for 295 pieces of American sights. By August 26, all the sights were in place. For some ships the battleship "Navarin" and the armored cruiser "Nakhimov" did not have time to make sights and they installed Lieutenant Colonel Krylov's sights on these ships, which they did not know how to handle. These sights, as well as the sights of Captain Perepyolkin, have not been tested ...

..... on the 3rd squadron on the coastal defense battleships "Ushakov" and "Senyavin" were the sights of Captain Perepyolkin, which worked well, but on the battleship "Emperor Nikolai 1", where the old guns were the same sights sagged..... "

As we can see, there are different opinions on this issue.

[Andrey Shmelev]

"The smoke from the fires, spreading along the deck, obscured the sights, which interfered with aiming and determining distances. Due to the fire on our front ship, more than once, we could not shoot at the enemy, because we did not see him because of the smoke. ... The fires destroyed almost all devices, damaged optical sights and burned the electric lighting wires and all the wires to the searchlights. " (Swede)

"All guns had optical sights, starting with 75 mm cannons, the system of Lieutenant Perepelkin. The sights were finally installed only in Revel. People were trained to use the sights, but, unable to acquire the habit of using them when firing from guns, they shot uncertainly and often switched to the sighting devices of the same sights.a) The sights were not installed on the guns tightly enough, as a result of which the sighting lines shifted easily; b) the clarity was lost due to fogging of the glasses and mold cobwebs in the optical tubes; c) the intersection of the crosses was done roughly (with cuts on the glasses themselves); e) the sight gave good guidance provided that the eye was correctly applied to the rubber of the eyepiece, which was not very convenient with the former device, g) the glasses were covered with soot from the smoke and required rather frequent wiping; a) checking the sighting lines in the open sea and on the move does not give useful results, for this purpose it is necessary to develop a special new device; f) shooting at long distances, without optical sighting devices, is impossible. "
(Shamshev)

"We had Captain Perepelkin's optical sights for all large guns, including 75 mm. They were installed in Reval and Libau. Their big drawback was that they were terribly sensitive and changed the aiming line from the slightest hesitation, so that they constantly had to be verified and The fix was made difficult by the fact that we did not release the gaskets and we had to make them ourselves, and we did not have the material to make thin enough gaskets. On the cruiser 1 rank "Dmitry Donskoy" there was still a difficulty that his often rocked and the side line sometimes remained unchecked for more than two weeks, while there was an order to check them at least once a week.During the battle, columns of water were constantly rising from the explosion of shells on the underwater part of the battleship, which flooded the glasses of the sights and also the glass darkened strongly from the smoke of the fires, so that they became cloudy and the gunmen complained that it became difficult to see in them. the sighting lines would sometimes change by three divisions; during the battle, they had to disperse very significantly from the continuous firing of live ammunition and from the strong shaking of the towers, from the explosion about them and the circle of shells. With the same installation of the sight, shooting almost simultaneously, it happened that one gun gave a large undershoot, and the other - a long flight, so, controlling the fire of the battleship, I ordered each gun to determine the distance independently. "(Ryumin)

"On the campaign, the team was trained to use these devices almost every day, but during the battle they turned out to be unsatisfactory due to the above reasons, and, in addition, the glasses of telescopic sights from gases, in the presence of wet weather, are covered with a coating that cannot be wiped off during the battle." ... (Taube)

[27091965]

Dear Andrey. If some of the ships reached Vladivostok, we would have more accurate information. In the same case, as they say, "how many people, so many opinions." Everyone sees the fight differently.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Dear Igor! I agree that

"how many people, so many opinions"

but the "average opinion" is extremely scolding the optical sights, as I understand it

[27091965]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

but the "average opinion" is extremely scolding the optical sights, as I understand it

I think no. In 1907 MGSH printed a small brochure, to be honest, I don’t understand why it was labeled "secret", it concerns the Japanese fleet, a scan from it;

There were different opinions.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Sorry for the sarcasm:

"How little luck in battle
And things are not good
Guilty, it used to be
Try to search there.
Sensible artillery
She says she is right:
- The whole trouble is that tanks again
Turned into the woods for firewood.
And even more complicated scores,
A little tankman met:
- The infantry let down again.
She lay down. The fuse is gone.
And the infantry is not boastful,
On-Off
Just wave his hand lazily:
- Exactly. The tanks failed.
So it goes in a circle
And they scold each other,
Only in agreement everything
Aircraft scolded.
All the good guys
As you look - beauty,
And not at all to blame
And the village was not taken. "

[27091965]

I liked it. +++++++++++

[Comrade]

Quote: 27091965i

I think no. In 1907 MGSH printed a small brochure

It is important under what conditions the tests were carried out. Before being sent to Rozhestvensky's squadron, prototypes of optical rangefinders were tested on the Black Sea, the results were good. But a limited number of shots were fired, and therefore they did not have time to affect the design flaws of the sights.
The shortcomings appeared only in the Tsushima battle, when a sufficiently large number of shots were fired.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Yes sir! I completely agree

[27091965]

Quote: Comrade

The shortcomings appeared only in the Tsushima battle, when a sufficiently large number of shots were fired.

It seems to me that in this matter there was another problem for which the fleet was not ready. If you look at the manual on the conduct of artillery combat, written for the 2nd Pacific Squadron, you can see that shooting using these scopes was effective under central control. In case of loss of this control, it became ineffective at long and medium distances, since all data had to come from the conning tower.

[Comrade]

By the way, the image of the Japanese telescopic sight (visible above the barrel of the 76,2 mm gun) on the battleship "Asahi".

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Comrade

It is important under what conditions the tests were carried out.

Immediately I remember the case of the insufficient strength of the mechanisms of 6 "guns. In peacetime, when firing on tests and in the navy, everything is fine. As soon as they started shooting in wartime, breakdowns began.

[Comrade]

Quote: Alexey RA

As soon as they started shooting in wartime, there were breakdowns.

Exactly !

[Comrade]

Quote: 27091965i

Dear Valentin, an interesting article, thank you.

Thank you for your kind words, Igor, your opinion has always been important.

Quote: 27091965i

MTK for the 2nd Pacific squadron made an order for 295 pieces of American sights

Interestingly, I have never heard of this before. Everywhere in the memoirs they speak only of Perepyolkin's sights.

[27091965]

Quote: Comrade

Interestingly, I have never heard of this before. Everywhere in the memoirs they speak only of Perepyolkin's sights.

I have not dealt with this issue in detail, the words of Captain 2nd Rank NP Kurosh are only indirectly confirmed in the "Conclusion of the Investigative Commission".

[Artavazdych]

I would like to read materials about the state of the fighting spirit of Russian sailors during the battle - in general and on each ship. And proceed from this already.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Artavazdych

I would like to read materials about the state of the fighting spirit of Russian sailors during the battle - in general and on each ship.

EMNIP, MGSH did not do "centralized" research, which means that it is necessary to look at reports, reports of memoirs, which in general will give a subjective picture.

[Andrey Shmelev]

"subjectivity of perception is compensated by the repeatability of experience"
because the totality of subjective points of view is often objective

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: Andrei Shmelev

"subjectivity of perception is compensated by the repeatability of experience"
because the totality of subjective points of view is often objective

In a way, yes ...
But this requires a fairly large sample, but, given the large losses at Tsushima, the amount of data does not give a representative picture.

[Andrey Shmelev]

the amount of data does not provide a representative picture.

I would say it gives, but it is discredited by the fact that the absolute majority of the survivors fled or surrendered)

[rytik32]

Read Krestyaninov. If you do not find it on the network - write in a personal

[Andrey Shmelev]

Firing tables were compiled for gunpowder with some characteristics, and charges were loaded into the gun with others.

it should have been checked in Annam, actually

The fire control devices stopped working shortly after the start of the battle. In the shortest possible time, on many ships, wires were damaged, through which instructions were transmitted from the conning tower to Geisler's dials. Each plutong officer had to determine the distance by eye, as a result, we, not seeing the fall of our shells, fired without knowing the distance. On the Japanese battleships, orders about the direction of fire and the distance to the target were transmitted from the bridge with the help of horns, first by a messenger, and then relayed in the form of orders written on boards.

the guidance system was broken and it became like that of the Japanese)

I have more questions:
mismatch of rangefinders, misalignment of sights, etc.

[Harry cuper]

Thank you, dear Valentine. I read it with pleasure

[iouris]

In the Tretyakov Gallery you can see a painting by the Russian artist Vasily Maksimov (1844-1911) "Everything is in the past"
In the foreground are two elderly women - a lady and her confidante maid. They are located at the threshold of the outbuilding, and the main building of the estate is in the background - in disrepair, with boarded up windows. Around it there are dried trees, and where once the flower beds were laid, there are heaps of dry wood. A lilac bush has blossomed near the outhouse, in the shade of which the lady and the servant are sitting on this sunny spring day.
The lady is sitting in an armchair with a pensive look, with half-closed eyes. In her imposing pose, a noble stance is visible, which has been preserved despite her advanced age. She has a snow-white cap on her head, gold rings on her hands, she is dressed in a dress with an elegant bow and a velvet talma trimmed with fur. In her lowered hand, she holds a lorgnette. A pillow is placed under her legs, next to which a spaniel is perched. In comparison with the sketch, the image of the lady in the picture has become more complex. Apparently she is remembering something from her past life. “She is full of the consciousness of her former dignity. Before us is a byrynya, once domineering and cruel. "
Recommend.

[Arthur 85]

But the question is: why are the Japanese battleships signed in English letters? Is this the fashion now? This is a bad fashion, it needs to be changed ... And in science the same thing: I do not want to read the names of organelles or enzymes in English ... And then we wonder why young people rush to the West in companies and herds? What do they like there so much?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Arthur 85

But the question is: why are the Japanese battleships signed in English letters?

And in order not to arrange for the discussion on Tsushima also the discussion of Polivanov vs Hepburn.

[Graz]

something in the last photo, the thickness of the sheet looks like 15-20mm more, does not pull by 51 mm

[Saxahorse]

The article is interesting. The author found and stated a number of interesting details. Thanks for the article, of course!

But a number of ambiguities and questions arose. The first of them, of course, concerns the very methodology for determining the rate of fire.

..the battleship "Fuji", which was no longer used after being hit by fragments of a Russian shell at 14:58 (according to other sources, at 15:00) (a new gun was installed on June 16, 1905, ten days after dismantling the damaged one), for 47 minutes fired twelve shells. The average rate of fire for this gun will be 235 seconds per shell.

Immediately, one involuntarily recalls that it is customary in artillery to shoot in series. Zeroing in, covering series, checking distance, again covering series, transferring fire, zeroing again, etc. From the fact that Fuji fired 12 shells in 47 seconds, it does not follow at all that the battleship was firing one shell every 235 seconds. By the way, we can recall that there were more than one transfer of fire in the first minutes.

The second thing that puzzled is how the author again managed to calculate his "average" rate of fire for Shikishima and Mikasa? From the figures given, I did not understand at all how it was connected with "a shell burst at 16:13 (the new gun was installed on June 18, 1905), fired eleven shells in a maximum of 79 minutes." The same about Mikasa, how did the author cut off? "A shell burst at 14:16, fired twenty-eight shells in a maximum of 13 minutes." From what moment did the author count 11 minutes here and why ?? Well, again, I want to remind you about shooting in bursts, which should especially affect the long interval of several hours.

The only thing we can agree with is the rough fact that one 12 "Fuji cannon" fired twelve shells in 47 minutes. ”It is logical to assume that the average rate of fire for generally identical squadron guns is the same, hence we can assume that in the same 47 minutes all 16 pieces 12 "guns of Togo could fire 192 rounds of 12" caliber.

Calculations show that all sixteen 12 "guns of the 1st combat detachment by the time the battleship Prince Suvorov failed at 14:44 could have fired up to 112 shells, and by the time the battleship Oslyabya died at 14:50 - up to 128 shells

It is easy to see that the numbers 192 and 128 are different, and one and a half times! Those. potentially we already have 23 hits based on a modest 12%. But the percentage of hits, as noted above, could be 25% at some moments.

It seems that the range of estimates is too large for any serious conclusions.

According to Captain W. Packenham, the old fuses were replaced with less sensitive ones, but even after this measure.

Quite a curious moment. You can read in Kostenko that the Japanese fired two types of shells at different explosives. Some exploded immediately upon touching any obstacle, while the second exploded only against the second obstacle, after breaking the side, for example. Perhaps this is due precisely to different fuses.

[rytik32]

Quote: Saxahorse

Quite a curious moment. You can read in Kostenko that the Japanese fired two types of shells at different explosives. Some exploded immediately upon touching any obstacle, while the second exploded only against the second obstacle, after breaking the side, for example. Perhaps this is due precisely to different fuses.

I suppose Kostenko is talking about land mines and armor-piercing.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: rytik32

I suppose Kostenko is talking about land mines and armor-piercing.

But at the same time, Kostenko writes about black clouds of smoke when the first breaks and yellow hot ones when the second breaks. Black clubs suggest the same black powder, which was in armor-piercing but not in high-explosive shells of the Japanese. However, let's wait for your second article on shells.

[Comrade]

Colleague, focus, please.

Quote: Saxahorse

From the fact that Fuji fired 12 shells in 47 seconds

My text says the following:

The right gun of the stern barbet installation of the battleship "Fuji" ... in 47 minutes fired twelve shells.

See the difference?

Quote: Saxahorse

How did the author again manage to calculate his "average" rate of fire for Shikishima and Mikasa?

Take "Mikasa".
The right gun of the bow barbet launcher was damaged at 18:04, and the battleship opened fire at 18:10.
According to a compilation of information from Meiji and a report from Packenham, the ship in the time interval from 14:10 by 18:04 fired for a maximum of 134 minutes. Taking into account the interruption of the fire, it looks like this: 48 minutes + 17 minutes + 34 minutes + 7 minutes + 24 minutes + 4 minutes = 134 minutes.

Quote: Saxahorse

It is logical to assume that the average rate of fire for generally identical squadron guns is the same

The battleship "Fuji" has one technical rate of fire, while the other three battleships have a different technical rate of fire.

Quote: Saxahorse

It is easy to see that the numbers 192 and 128 are different, and one and a half times!

Read the article carefully, in the text no data 192.
it says

1) Sixteen 12 "guns in 34 minutes (by the time the battleship" Prince Suvorov "failed) could be released up to 112 shells.
2) Sixteen 12 "guns in 40 minutes (by the time of the death of the battleship" Oslyabya ") up to 128 shells.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Comrade

Colleague, focus, please.

Dear Valentine. You don't seem to notice that I'm asking you the same thing.
Why do your calculations of the rate of fire grossly contradict the known information about the technical rate of fire of Japanese battleships?

It is known that Fuji, as the oldest, had 2-2.5 rounds per minute (150 sec). Not counting the 18 rounds booster for the turret. Shikishima and Asahi had improved installations and could fire three shots in two minutes (90 seconds). Mikasa on trials in England showed 48 seconds per shot.

I guess that you are calculating your 235 seconds. you mean rather a practical rate of fire, taking into account all the necessary elements I have listed above. However, you have not even tried to explain the explicit inverse relationship in numbers. Why does the outdated Fuji in your calculations shoot one and a half times faster than Shikishima? The crew at Shikishima suddenly got drunk or something? Why Mikasa, having a potentially three times higher technical rate of fire, shows almost the same result as Fuji? Don't you think that these oddities in your calculations need an explanation?

Quote: Comrade

According to a compilation of information from Meiji and a report from Packenham, the ship fired for a maximum of 14 minutes during the time interval from 10:18 to 04:134. Taking into account the interruption of the fire, it looks like this: 48 minutes + 17 minutes + 34 minutes + 7 minutes + 24 minutes + 4 minutes = 134 minutes.

So this is your compilation !? From two fundamentally different sources? Did you cross a snake with a hedgehog in passing and then average it?

Excuse me, dear Valentin, but in this place your calculations clearly need detailed argumentation. And this chain of numbers itself causes some emotion. for 34 minutes Mikasa fought and then jumped into hyperspace! And then he fought for another 7 minutes and jumped back! So what? How did you manage to divide combat and non-combat minutes here? Moreover, we are not talking about the technical rate of fire.

All this your, hidden from prying eyes, timing clearly needs detailed motivation, well, or this whole calculation scheme is completely replaced.

Quote: Comrade

Read the article carefully, there is no 192 in the text.

But it's a pity that she (numbers 192) is not there. She somehow looks more reasonable at once. Well, it's not clear what prevented you from going, for example, from above? And check your calculations for example.

Do you remember that in battle the 1st and 2nd squadrons of the Japanese spent 11159 rounds of medium and large caliber. (12 ", 10", 8 ", 6"). It is logical to assume that 3/4 of the attention was paid to the first five Russian battleships. Those. each got 1674 pieces of attention. Based on your 12%, as many as 200 of these pieces should have reached their goal.

Something tells me that such a figure is noticeably superior to even the most daring calculations of Kostenko, and either your hit percentages need to be adjusted, or to admit that for our first battleships, everything could be much worse than you think.

[Comrade]

Quote: Saxahorse

Why do your calculations of the rate of fire grossly contradict the known information about the technical rate of fire of Japanese battleships?

I can give only hackneyed advice - teach materiel, dear colleague.
I recommend starting with the Japanese manual on artillery shooting at sea from 1903. Then you will find out why "Fuji" fired one hundred and six shells of the main caliber, and "Shikishima" - seventy-four.

If you chose a different tone in communication, it would not be difficult for me to explain this to you here in three words. And so, smoke the primary sources yourself.

Quote: Saxahorse

So this is your compilation !? From two fundamentally different sources?

These two sources complement each other well. Meiji is on several occasions not as detailed as the Englishman's report.
For example, there is a time А and there is time Б... In this time interval, the ship is firing, but with pauses, which are hinted at in Meiji. And Campbell's article indicates the time when these very pauses were made.

Quote: Saxahorse

Those. for 34 minutes Mikasa fought and then jumped into hyperspace! All this time calculation of yours, hidden from prying eyes, clearly needs detailed motivation

Here's an alignment for you, old friend, where the first ones came from forty eight minutesthat made you laugh Homeric.
We open your favorite source (Description of military operations at sea in 37-38. Meiji), and read.

And so on.

Quote: Saxahorse

But it's a pity that she (numbers 192) is not there. She somehow looks more reasonable at once.

Dear colleague, the keyboard is in your hands. Write an article, put forward your hypotheses, and we will consider.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Comrade

If you chose a different tone in communication, it would not be difficult for me to explain this to you here in three words.

Your favorite argument however is "I know! But I won't tell .."

Once again, you suggest that all readers of the article take your word for it .. Oh, I do not advise .. We have something to remember from the time of the battle in the Yellow Sea. It remains to assume that you just messed something up again, like that time.

Quote: Comrade

Here's the deal for you, old friend, where the first forty-eight minutes came from.
We open your favorite source (Description of military operations at sea in 37-38 years Meiji),

Dear Valentine, that is why I suggested that you rely on these 47 minutes above. From there, and 192 shells. :) This is the only period where the continuity of combat contact is beyond doubt, although there were transfers of fire from target to target. But to estrapolate these figures for several hours in advance, to put it mildly, is reckless. There is no longer to separate pure maneuvering from combat, no matter how you invent it in your compilations.

[Comrade]

Quote: Saxahorse

Once again, you invite all readers of this article to take your word for it.

By no means.
I suggest you pick up two historical fact - "Fuji" released during the Tsushima battle 106 (one hundred and six) 12 "shells," Shikishima "fired during the Battle of Tsushima 74 (seventy-four) 12 '' shells - bring them up to your eyes and wonder how it could happen that

Quote: Saxahorse

the given calculations of the rate of fire grossly contradict the known information about the technical rate of fire of Japanese battleships?
It is known that Fuji, as the oldest, had 2-2.5 rounds per minute (150 sec). Not counting the 18 rounds booster for the turret. Shikishima and Asahi had improved installations and could fire three shots in two minutes (90 seconds).

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Comrade

I suggest you take two historical facts into your hands - "Fuji" fired 106 (one hundred six) 12 "shells during the Tsushima battle,

I suspect that you learned these wonderful facts from the hands of the same beloved Englishman Packingham. Which was not at all distinguished by either the accuracy of the numbers or the thoroughness of the wording and descriptions.

For example, according to other sources (oddly enough Campbell), after the repair, Fuji's left gun fired 23 more shots. This means at least 117 shells, because they usually fired in volleys. And plus a certain number of volleys, the bow tower of two barrels also gave repairs during these 40 minutes.

Again, if you remember the evil Pekinham, then Asahi fired the most shells during the battle! As many as 142 pieces. You, suddenly forgetting about the Englishman, modestly equated her with Shikishima. Meanwhile, Shikishima, after being damaged, also resumed fire and was supposed to release shells no less than Fuji.

In general, we have to conclude that your rate of fire numbers are mostly taken from the ceiling. And where you tried to count something, you obviously screwed up with the technique.

Well, a separate amazement is caused by your stubborn unwillingness to think about medium calibers. They are average there, not average, and about 200 hits in each of our battleships, according to your own percentages, they gave out exactly. Well, in general .. Defiantly ignore 10 thousand shells .. Well, this is just some kind of impenetrable, British snobbery, probably.

I am afraid that the errors that these 10 thousand shells undoubtedly contributed to your estimates are many times greater than all the expected benefits from your not very successful attempt to analyze the rate of fire.

I hope that in your future materials you will be able to take into account the unpleasant mistakes you made in this article.

[Andrey Shmelev]

and the clock exactly coincided, maybe who was in a hurry, and who was behind?

[rytik32]

I drew attention to the time when compiling for "Borodino" and "Alexander". The same event could differ by hour from different witnesses!

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

and the clock exactly coincided, maybe who was in a hurry, and who was behind?

This is a fundamental question for some of the episodes hitting the "Fuji" stern barbet in particular.
I have a suspicion that the Japanese did not always indicate the exact time, sometimes after the battle they wrote an approximate one after the fact.

[Andrey Shmelev]

here I am)

[rytik32]

Dear Valentine, good evening!
I am very glad that your article was published after all.
Now let's move on to the discussion.

First. In my opinion, the accuracy of the Japanese fire in the Tsushima tie cannot be judged on the basis of their accuracy in previous battles without corrections. There were many factors indicating that the accuracy in Tsushima should be higher, and most of these factors are indicated in the reports of the British observers, the data from which you provide in the article.
1. Less distance than in the Yellow Sea. I remind you that as the distance decreases, the accuracy grows quadratically!
2. Accumulated experience. Both in battles and in exercises. So, for example, the accuracy of barrel firing increased by 1,5 times. Why, for this reason alone, we cannot assume that in combat the accuracy will be commensurately higher?
3. New optical sights.
4. New system for transmitting target designations of artillery.

Second. In the Yellow Sea, the estimates clearly underestimate the number of 8 "hits by evaluating them as 10" or even 12 ". The fact that the accuracy of 8 ”should be significantly higher was proved by the results of Asama on the Varyag.

Third. About Japanese fuses. The sensitivity of the fuses was adjusted by increasing the mass of the striker: the more mass, the harder it hits on impact. So, according to the results of the battle at Port Arthur and the shelling of Vladivostok and Port Arthur, a lot of Japanese shells did not explode. The Japanese concluded and increased the sensitivity to combat in the Yellow Sea, and simply returned it to Tsushima.

Fourth. To quote Packinham, you are translating "projectile" as a high-explosive projectile. And it should be translated as just a shell (without specifying the type). Moreover, in the next sentence he writes about the best penetrate, which is clearly not about land mines.

Fifth. Packingham has clearly not seen these photos.

And he could not objectively compare the damage. By the time Port Arthur was surrendered, the damage received in the Yellow Sea had been repaired, but new ones appeared, from siege artillery.

[Comrade]

Hello, Alexey!

Quote: rytik32

I ask you to draw your attention to the consumption of medium-caliber shells. In Tsushima, some ships have it several times higher!
Don't you find that it was the sheer number of 6-inch rounds fired, combined with the shorter range (higher accuracy!) That made Tsushima?

I see no reason for this assumption.
1) In the battle in the Korea Strait, six armored cruisers fired 4 127 '' shells, in the Battle of Tsushima, the same six cruisers fired 6 4 '' shells, another 084 6 '' fired Togo.
2) Total - 9 832 '' shells from battleships and armored cruisers (Tsushima) versus 6 4 '' shells from armored cruisers (Ulsan).
3) If in the Korea Strait 4 127 6 '' shells did not make much of an impression on three armored cruisers, why in the battle of Tsushima 9 832 6 '' shells should have done something terrible with eleven battleships и one armored cruiser?

Quote: rytik32

1. Shorter distance than in the Yellow Sea.

Dear colleague, in the battle of Port Arthur, the accuracy of the fire of the Japanese 12 '' guns was higher than in the battle at Cape Shantung, so my calculations are based on the maximum possible accuracy that the Japanese achieved precisely near Port Arthur, not in the battle at Cape Shantung.

Quote: rytik32

2. The accuracy of barrel firing has increased 1,5 times. Why, for this reason alone, we cannot assume that in combat the accuracy will be commensurately higher?

Not only the accuracy of barrel firing has increased, but also the wear of the gun barrels of the main caliber guns.

Quote: rytik32

3. New optical sights.

The main guns fired with old telescopic sights.

Quote: rytik32

4. New system for transmitting target designations of artillery.

In the Tsushima battle, they shouted from the bridge into a megaphone in the same way, and showed the distance signs to the gunners, as in the battle at Cape Shantung.

Quote: rytik32

In the Yellow Sea, the estimates clearly underestimate the number of 8 "hits by evaluating them as 10" or even 12 "

So look not the results of firing without impurities, for example, in the battle of Japanese armored cruisers with the battleship "Admiral Ushakov".
Iwate and Yakumo used up 89 8 '' and 278 6 '' shells, from which horrible three 8 '' and three 6 ''.
The hit rate is not impressive.

Quote: rytik32

Fourth. To quote Packinham, you are translating "projectile" as a high-explosive projectile.

I don’t understand what this is about, could you just poke your finger, post a quote?

Quote: rytik32

Fifth. Packingham has clearly not seen these photos.

And what is unusual there, let me be curious?

[Andrey Shmelev]

wear of gun barrels of main caliber guns.

but didn't you change it?
+ April drill is a strong case for high accuracy

"Iwate" and "Yakumo"

what was the distance there? :)

with eleven battleships and one armored cruiser

and on how many were fired?

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

In the battle in the Korea Strait, six armored cruisers fired 4 127 '' shells, in the Battle of Tsushima, the same six cruisers fired 6 4 '' shells, another 084 6 '' fired Togo

Valentine, there were 4 armored cruisers in the Korea Strait (Izumo, Azuma, Tokiwa, Iwate). Well, the distances are completely different. As I find the time, I can make a selection of combat distances for comparison.

Quote: Comrade

something awful with eleven battleships and one armored cruiser?

So the fire was focused not on everyone

Quote: Comrade

the basis of my calculations is the highest possible accuracy

Please provide the% accuracy values ​​for each caliber for which you made calculations. And I'm also interested in what data you calculated the rate of fire of 8-inches.

Quote: Comrade

Not only the accuracy of barrel firing has increased, but also the wear of the gun barrels of the main caliber guns.

Then a colleague correctly noticed that the worn out tools were changed.

Quote: Comrade

In the Tsushima battle, they shouted from the bridge into a megaphone in the same way, and showed the distance signs to the gunners, as in the battle at Cape Shantung.

This is a big topic that requires separate proceedings)))

Quote: Comrade

The hit rate is not impressive.

Do you forget about the distance again? The Japanese kept just out of our range of fire!

Quote: Comrade

I don’t understand what this is about, could you just poke your finger, post a quote?

There is also a question about the picture with the image of "Fuji"
She's too different from the Japanese. Can you tell me where this picture comes from?

Quote: Comrade

And what is unusual there, let me be curious?

What I mean is that the actions of Japanese shells on the "Eagle" do not differ fundamentally from the actions on other ships in the Yellow Sea. Packinham simply from the known facts (reduced the sensitivity of the fuse, increased the bottom thread, abandoned some types of shells) concluded that because of this, the power of the shells increased. But this is not true. All of the above measures were developed as measures to combat shell explosions, and this is written about in an article that I recently posted in the comments.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: rytik32

Hmmm ... First, there are complaints that last year Japanese non-explosive charges disappointed those who expected great destruction and fires from them. It is then argued that in the last battle, this same BB showed itself at its best, surpassing all previous expectations. It was only necessary to replace low-quality shells, better protect the bottom fuse and more carefully control the temperature in the cellars, preventing overheating. The incendiary effect this time was so huge that in fact the outcome of the battle depended on it.
What is the reason for this? There are two of them: the introduction of a less sensitive fuse, which, nevertheless, provided greater penetration (but even when using which a significant part of the explosion force remained outside the 1/4 "plate). According to the results of a comparison of ships 1 TOE and" Orla ", it is obvious that damage the first from the explosions of individual shells are incomparable with the "Eagle".
Further, it again points to a greater destructive effect and a greater incendiary ability of new shells.

It turns out that the passage in question is about shells with non-explosive charges - about land mines.

[rytik32]

Quote: Alexey RA

more carefully control the temperature in the cellars

Please highlight where you read about the cellars?

And the mention of land mines ... no!
I will also note that the Japanese "armor-piercing" shells in their action differed little from land mines.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: rytik32

Please highlight where you read about the cellars?

Yes, you are right - there is no cellar, the exact translation is ... and strict precautions against overheating have reduced premature breaks (the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph above the highlighted one).

Quote: rytik32

And the mention of land mines ... no!

It is written about high-explosive charges, with which Japanese shells were supposed to cause great damage to the enemy and have a significant incendiary effect.

[rytik32]

Quote: Alexey RA

Writes about high-explosive charges, with which Japanese shells were supposed to cause great damage to the enemy and have a significant incendiary effect

Yes, these are land mines, but three paragraphs above))) Although literally charges are "charge, equipment". Those. shimosa which was in both types of shells.

Quote: Alexey RA

Yes, you are right - there is no cellar,

I just recently dealt with this problem and re-read the English)))
In general, overheating was not in the cellars, but more on that in a separate article;)

[Alexey RA]

Quote: rytik32

Yes, these are land mines, but three paragraphs above)))

Right. But here's the thing ...
In the second paragraph of the excerpt, it is written about the shells equipped with high-explosive charges, and about the frustration of using them a year earlier.
In the third - that the same explosive in the last battle exceeded all expectations, and the measures taken to avoid premature ruptures and damage to their ships.
In the fourth - about the huge incendiary effect of these shells, which was not previously observed. And the question is asked - why, with the same design of ships 1 and 2 TOE, the impact of shells was so different.
And in the fifth, highlighted, paragraph, part of the answer to the question of the fourth paragraph is given - why the destructive power of the shells increased.
That is, paragraphs from the second to the fifth are connected by a single line - the shells equipped with high-explosive charges and the difference in their effect on the ships 1 TOE and 2 TOE.

Giggle ... a traditional situation for military history forums - the parties prove two opposite points of view, relying on the same source.

[rytik32]

Quote: Alexey RA

In the second paragraph of the passage, it is written about shells equipped with high-explosive charges

Both land mines and armor piercing are equipped with this.
If Packinham wrote about projectiles, it would be high-explosive projectile or shell

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

there were 4 armored cruisers in the Korea Strait (Izumo, Azuma, Tokiwa, Iwate).

You are right.
I made a mechanical mistake. Three cruisers of the Vladivostok squadron of cruisers from four armored and two light cruisers were released 4 428 6 '' shells.
In the Battle of Tsushima, twelve armored ships were fired 9 832 6 '' shells.

Quote: rytik32

So the fire was focused not on everyone

However, six-inch shells received all or nearly all. And who did you focus on?

Quote: rytik32

Do you forget about the distance again? The Japanese kept just out of our range of fire!

How many numbers do you think?

Quote: rytik32

There is also a question about the Fuji picture. She's too different from the Japanese.

It's just a better quality drawing than usual. The discussion ends, I'll start translating and cleaning the scans.

Quote: rytik32

What I mean is that the actions of the Japanese shells on the Eagle do not differ fundamentally from the actions on other ships in the Yellow Sea.

Colleague, don't you think that the photo you posted has more than one hit in a limited area?
Personally, this is exactly the impression I have.

Quote: rytik32

All of these measures were developed as measures to combat shell explosions.

Is this your personal opinion, or do you have documentary evidence?
To clarify, because I know of other measures aimed at preventing premature explosions of shells, and you have not mentioned them.

Quote: rytik32

a colleague correctly noticed that worn-out tools were changed.

Two or three, damaged in the battle at Cape Shantung, have certainly changed. As for the rest, a question. How is this known? Novikov-Priboy wrote about this, and who else?

PS

Quote: rytik32

To quote Pekingham, you translate "projectile" as a high-explosive projectile.

You have posted a screenshot, everything is clear. There is no translation, if you look at the article, you will see that the word high-explosive enclosed in brackets. This means that there is clarification, not transfer.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

However, six-inch shells received all or almost all

The question is the intensity of the hits. This is the difference between Tsushima and other battles.

Quote: Comrade

And who did you focus on?

For example "Oslyabya" - up to 8 ships simultaneously!

Quote: Comrade

How many numbers do you think?

According to the report of Simamura, from a little over 49 kb to 38 kb

Quote: Comrade

Is this your personal opinion, or do you have documentary evidence?

I posted here a scan of the translation of a Japanese article about shimosa ...

Quote: Comrade

How is this known

Changed more. Source - British observers.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

According to the report of Simamura, from a little over 49 kb to 38 kb

In other words, from 9 to 075 meters.
And according to the inscription on the diagram from the report, the distance reached 6 000 meters, and then decreased even more.
Now let's compare these distances with the distance that took place at the beginning of the Tsushima battle.
"Mikasa" from a distance of 6 meters (500 cab.) Fired the first shell at "Prince Suvorov". The ships going behind, laying down on a new course, also consistently opened fire on the enemy. "Shikishima" at 35:13 from a distance of 52 6 meters (800 cab.) Opened fire on "Suvorov", "Fuji" at 36,7:13 from 53 6 meters (200 cab.) Began firing at "Prince Suvorov "," Asahi "at 33,5:13 from 53 meters (7 cab.) Also opened fire on the Russian flagship (" Description of military operations at sea 000-37,8 in the city of Meiji ". Vol. 37, p. 38 ). The distance between the opponents was continuously decreasing, amounting to about 4 meters by 87:14 (12 cab.), Then gradually increasing by 5:500 to 29,7 meters (14 cab.)

At the same time, two armored cruisers, firing at the "Admiral Ushakov", as in a shooting range, achieved accuracy of fire from 6 '' guns just one percent.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

achieved accuracy of fire from 6 '' guns only one percent.

And if you also take into account the hits in the pipes? ;)

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

And if you also take into account the hits in the pipes?

I thought about it, I am inclined to think, in view of the insignificance of the damage, that these are fragments from shells that exploded into the water.

[rytik32]

You wrote yourself

both pipes received five or six hits from shells of unknown caliber

And the diagram is solid

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

You wrote yourself

I wrote, I do not argue.
And now I am sitting and thinking, do not these hits look rather weak? The Japanese observer depicted these hits in the pipes with holes of much smaller diameter than those in the hull. So maybe it's not "unknown caliber"was, but large fragments?
The answer, alas, is no.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

Changed more. Source - British observers.

"Больше" - how much is this ?
If it doesn't make it difficult, post a scan of the report, please.

[rytik32]

I'm not ready to commit another feat and re-read several hundred pages in English)))
But I found something for you, though the specifics are not enough.

and a bonus caught my eye about the speed of the asamoids

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

I'm not ready to take another feat and reread several hundred pages in English

You have found what you need.
The report you posted says that the Japanese did not have the opportunity to replace worn out tools, and cites the example of "Fuji", in which heavily worn tools were left in the stern barbet.
And replaced, as I told you earlier, according to the report were only damaged tools. Obviously, this refers to those that were damaged on July 28th.
The question of how the worn-out Japanese guns could give 25% accuracy per circle remains open.

[rytik32]

And another question arises.
So where did you go then?

this is from Krestyaninov's "Tsushima battle"

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

So where did you go then?

There was some kind of reserve in the arsenal, since after the Battle of Tsushima in mid-June, two damaged 12 '' guns were replaced with new ones.
It can be assumed that the heavily worn, in the opinion of the Englishman, 12 '' guns were recognized by the director of the arsenal for combat.

Quote: rytik32

In general, I understood the meaning of how "worn-out tools were changed, but not everyone had enough"

It says the spare have been replaced damaged (damaged) 12 '' guns. It is not said that they allegedly changed worn out (worn out) 12 '' guns.

The statement of Novikov-Priboy came to my mind that the Japanese, on the eve of the Tsushima battle, allegedly installed sixteen 12 "guns from a needle" on all their battleships.

[Andrey Shmelev]

for all their battleships sixteen 12 '' guns "from a needle."

and count yourself: 20 minus those that exploded on July 28 = how much? this time

secondly, you are a little biased, since in the original you skip the phrase "at least" and read it as exactly 20, which is not gut)

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

cites the example of "Fuji" as an illustration, in which heavily worn-out tools were left in the stern barbet.

In general, I understood the meaning of how "worn-out tools were changed, but not everyone had enough"

[Andrey Shmelev]

how worn-out Japanese guns could give 25% accuracy per circle, remains open.

and how did Sikishima knock out 75% in the exercises?

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

In the Tsushima battle, they shouted from the bridge into a megaphone in the same way, and showed the distance signs to the gunners, as in the battle at Cape Shantung.

I will answer about the distances and a little about the shooting control.
I must say right away that this is data from the reports of the commanders of the ships, taken from Arseny Danilov.

"Azuma" Ulsan.

05.25 opened fire with 8 "guns
05.37 at a distance of 10 m [distance according to the rangefinder, apparently] started firing from 500 "gun No. 6
05.38 fire on "Rurik" from a distance of 8 m 500 "guns on the left side
05.56 6 "guns on" Rurik ", bow 8" tower on "Russia", stern 8 "tower on" Thunderbolt "[curiously the Japanese fired]
06.06 8 "guns on" Rurik "
06.07 stopped firing (?)
06.15 from a distance of 10 m opened fire from an 000 "gun
06.42 6 "according to" Rurik "
06.53 started firing 8 "guns across Russia from 9 300 m
07.00 8 ", 6" guns on "Rurik", 7 m
07.07 6 "and 12-fn guns on" Rurik ", 6 m, 000" guns on the lead ship, 8 7 m
07.16 "Rurik", 5 m
07.27 12-lb ceased firing, 8 "at the lead ship, 9 m
07.33 6 "guns on" Rurik ", 7 m
08.13 "Russia", 9 m
08.30 and until the end of the battle at distances less than 8 m, 000 "and 8" guns on "Russia" and "Thunderbolt".

"Fuji", Cusima

14.11 - Oslyabya, 6 200 m
14.14 - a 12-inch shell hit the Oslyabya, distance 5 m
14.15 - "Oslyabya", 5 m
14.18 - "Oslyabya", 4 m
14.21 - the second ship (of the "Borodino" type), 5 m
14.38 - second ship, 4 600 m
14.40 - first ship, 4 700 m
14.42 - second ship, 5 400 m
14.52 - 5 200 m
15.10 - the third ship of the "Borodino" type, 3 m
15.11 - 3 100 m, same target
15.15 - 2 600 m, same target
15.18 - "Pearl", 2 m
15.37 - "Admiral Nakhimov", 5 800 m [possibly a typo, and should be 15.27]
15.38 - stopped firing

"Asahi" Cusima

14.12 - opened fire, 7 m, lead ship
14.22 - 5 700 m
14.34 - at a distance of 4 m opened fire from 700-pounder guns
14.36 - 4 600 m
14.41 - second enemy ship, 4 m
14.48 - the first enemy ship, 5 600 m
14.51 - 5 200 m
14.52 - stopped firing (?)
15.09 - first ship, 4 100 m
15.13 - 3 700 m
15.14 - type "Borodino", 3 100 m
15.15 - 2 500 m
15.16 - 2 300 m
15.17 - 2 500 m
15.18 - 3 000 m
15.21 - stopped firing 12-lb guns, 3 m
15.25 - target - "a burning ship with a downed pipe", 4 m
15.27 - 5 500 m
15.28 - stopped firing

"Fuji", Shantung Phase 2 of the battle

17.36 - 7 800 m, 12-inch and 6-inch guns for the first ship
17.44 - second ship, 8 400 m
17.46 - 8 600 m, stopped firing from 6-inch guns
17.53 - fourth ship, 9 m
17.55 - the mainmast of the fourth ship is shot down
18.00 - at the fourth ship the foremast is shot down, the target is the third ship, 8 m
18.14 - the same target (?), 8 600 m
18.16:6 - started firing 8-inch guns from a distance of 100 XNUMX m
18.27 - third ship, 7 300 m
18.31 - fourth ship, 7 m
18.36 - the fourth ship has a fire near the mainmast
18.41 - / the exit of "Tsarevich" is fixed /
18.44 - / "sharp turn" of the second ship was recorded /
18.45 - / "sharp turn" of the third ship was recorded /
18.47 - fifth ship, 6 m
18.49 - fifth ship, 5 m
19.00 - (???), 5 200 m
19.02 - distance to head 5 m
19.05 - according to "Retvizan" (?), 5 400 m, "the distance decreased to 4 100 m" (until 19.11)
19.19 - "stopped (suspended) shooting" (?)

"Sikishima", Shantung, Battle phase 2

17.38 - 8 m, opened fire from 500-inch guns
17.40.30 - 8 300 m
17.41 - 8 200 m
17.43 - 8 100 m
17.45 - 8 000 m
17.47.30 - began zeroing in with 6-inch guns at the second ship
17.49 - 7 800 m
17.52 - 8 300 m
17.55.30 - stopped firing from 6-inch guns, 9 m
17.58 - 10 m, an enemy shell hit Mikasa / the same explosion /
18.01 - 9 500 m
18.05 - / it was noted that the front and rear masts of "Peresvet" were shot down -? /
18.13 - 9 500 m
18.17 - 8 900 m
18.20 - 8 500 m
18.25 - 8 400 m
18.27 - 8 200 m
18.28 - started firing 6-inch guns
18.29 - 7 900 m
18.30 - 7 700 m
18.35.40 - hit by a 152 mm shell
18.38 - 7 500 m
"At the same time" hit in "Poltava"
"At the same time" hit in "Sevastopol" was noticed (?)
18.39 - 7 900 m
18.45 - 6 700 m
18.47 - 6 600 m
18.48 - hitting Sevastopol was noticed
18.50 - 6 300 m
18.51 - opened fire from 12-lb guns from 6 m
18.52 - 5 800 m
18.55 - 5 600 m
18.58 - 5 200 m
"At the same time" - hit in "Sevastopol" was noticed, after which a fire started
18.59 - 5 300 m
19.00 - 5 m, "the enemy line is mixed" (?), The target is "Retvizan"
19.01.30 - 5 600 m
19.04 - 5 300 m
19.05 - 5 200 m
19.12 - 4 800 m
19.12.30 - hit in "Retvizan"
19.13 - 4 600 m
19.17 - ... "temporarily suspended the shooting"
19.17.30 - 5 600 m
19.20 - 6 200 m
19.21.30 - stopped firing from 12-lb guns
19.22 - 6 100 m
19.23 - 6 300 m
19.25 - 7 m, "stopped shooting" (?)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

Let me remind you that as the distance decreases, the accuracy grows quadratically!

Who told you that? :)))))

[rytik32]

[quote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk] [quote = rytik32] I remind you that as the distance decreases, the accuracy grows quadratically! [/ quote]
There is a Japanese plot of accuracy for 12 "(solid line) and others, presumably 6" shells (dotted line), derived from the results of shooting practice

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Very good :)))) I will not criticize the graph you presented now, I will only draw your attention to the fact that:
1) In your example, "squarely" means exactly what it means - that is, it is described by a function of the form y = ax2 + bx + c
Something like this y = 0,0799x2 - 1,6458x + 11,425

2) If you undertake to postulate the truth of this graph, then you should state that the esteemed Valentin in his article HIGHER the accuracy of Japanese shooting - as we can see from the graph, on practice shooting (a priori more successful than combat), an accuracy of about 10% is possible only by 20 cable.

[rytik32]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

then you should state that dear Valentine in the article OVERCASES the accuracy of Japanese shooting

You won't have to. I have never stated and do not assert that the results of the accuracy of one fight can be transferred one to one to another fight. Because of conditions are different
For the same reason, the conditions of an exercise cannot be compared to a battle. This table just demonstrates how the accuracy changes depending on the range, and the ratio of the accuracy of 12 "and 6" guns.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

This table just demonstrates how the accuracy changes depending on the range, and the ratio of the accuracy of 12 "and 6" guns.

I would also add - in some, do not understand what conditions in which the Japanese displayed this graph. Because, for example, the firing accuracy of the same 12 and 6 dm guns in LM differed by almost an order of magnitude - here - no more than several times

[rytik32]

I already wrote the reason here. According to statistics, ZhM should transfer part of 10 "and even 12" hits to 8. Otherwise, the aft tower of "Kassugi" looks like a super sniper, simultaneously shelling half of the enemy squadron)))
And one more argument in favor of transferring to 8 ": compare the ratio of accuracy 6" and 8 ", where there is a clear separation of them and there is no admixture of larger calibers: Chemulpo and the shooting of" Ushakov ". So there is 8" more precisely 6 "in about 2,5-3 times are obtained.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

According to statistics, ZhM should move part of 10 "and even 12" hits to 8 ".

Yes, why would?

Quote: rytik32

Otherwise, the aft tower "Kassugi" looks like a super sniper, simultaneously shelling half of the enemy squadron)))

??? Nissin and Kasuga were there, then Yakumo also connected with Asama.
Alexey, in the ZhM, 57-305-mm, 4-254-305-mm, 4-254-mm, 3-203-mm and 29 - 152 mm caliber were recorded, and 51 more hits of unidentified calibers. What reasons do you have for believing that 203-mm hits should be subtracted from 305-mm hits, and not from "unknown caliber" hits?

[rytik32]

"Kassuga" out of 10 "fired 33 shells. Calculate the minimum and maximum accuracy)))

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

What grounds do you have for believing that 203-mm hits should be subtracted from 305-mm hits, and not from "unknown caliber" hits?

Look at the descriptions of the "unknown" damage. As you find those that look like 8 "- let me know)))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

"Kassuga" out of 10 "fired 33 shells. Calculate the minimum and maximum accuracy)))

The 254-mm projectile may well be confused with the 305-mm. And, assuming an accuracy of 10%, 3,3 rounds should be expected. So I don't see anything unusual or extraordinary.

Quote: rytik32

Look at the descriptions of the "unknown" damage. As you find those that look like 8 "- let me know)))

Tsarevich
- A shell of unknown caliber hit the net of toponant arrows;
- A projectile of unknown caliber hit the vertical armor of the right bow 6 "turret;
- A projectile of unknown caliber hit the foremast top;
- A projectile of unknown caliber hit the vertical armor of the right rear 6 "turret;
- A shell of unknown caliber made a hole in the side between 102-106 shp.
Retvizan
- A shell of unknown caliber pierced the foremast;
- A shell of unknown caliber pierced the mainmast;
- A shell of unknown caliber knocked down a gaff;
- A shell of unknown caliber pierced the casing of the aft chimney;
- A round of unknown caliber pierced the casing in the upper part of the bow chimney.
"Peresvet
- A shell of unknown caliber hit the waterline under the gun, damaging the copper and wood plating.
- A shell of an unknown caliber hit the armor under the bow casemate.
- A shell of unknown caliber exploded near the side, a shrapnel damaged the 47-mm gun.
- A shell of unknown caliber hit the armor of the bow casemates.
- A shell of unknown caliber hit the forward beam of the wheelhouse, exploded, smashed and tore apart the engine hatch. The splinters falling down disabled the medium vehicle.
- A round of unknown caliber hit the bracket supporting the right wing of the bridge. Shrapnel pierced the bridge, crumpled the pedestal of the 47-mm gun, and smashed the knurling rod of the 75-mm gun.
- A shell of unknown caliber knocked down the foremast and both battle lights.
- A shell of unknown caliber hit the rostra and tore them apart, the deck and pipes with fans were showered with debris.
- A projectile of unknown caliber hit the mainmast and demolished the upper mars and topmast, damaged the 47-mm gun.
Continue?:)))

[rytik32]

Andrey, thank you for a good selection)))
I will definitely answer, but later, tk. the answer takes time.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: rytik32

Andrey, thank you for a good selection)))

There are still a lot of similar hits, as you understand :)))

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

There are still a lot of similar hits, as you understand :)))

And almost anyone could be an armor-piercing eight-inch.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I totally agree. And in a number of cases, dear colleague, it could even be a high-explosive 203-mm

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And in a number of cases, dear colleague, it could even be a high-explosive 203-mm

One hundred percent !

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

57-305 mm, 4-254-305 mm, 4-254 mm, 3-203 mm and 29-152 mm caliber, and 51 more hits of unidentified calibers. What are your reasons for believing that 203-mm hits should be subtracted from 305-mm hits, and not from

By the way, how many of them did not pierce the armor ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Cyril G ...

By the way, how many of them did not pierce the armor ...

It takes a long time to count :)))) But in general - the point? There, they once pierced 229 mm at Pobeda (the shell knocked out the plug, but did not enter inside) EMNIP once or a couple of times pierced 102 mm armor, otherwise only 51 mm armor could be used

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

There, they once punched 229 mm at Pobeda (the shell knocked out the plug, but did not enter inside) EMNIP once or a couple of times pierced 102 mm armor, otherwise only 51 mm armor could be used

I remember this, but I studied it too long ago, do you remember the case to what extent the Japanese and we took into account the hits on the armor that did not cause damage? In theory, a trace on the stove still remains ... Even if a banal dent has not formed ...

Roughly speaking, were all hits taken into account? However, there could be another hit of a good splinter in the armor, too, could be mistaken for a shell.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Cyril G ...

Roughly speaking, were all hits taken into account?

Yes. We have a lot of evidence of unbroken armor, even in cases where the hit did not result in damage.
Of course, I cannot give my head to cut off, that absolutely all hits were taken into account, theoretically they could have missed something, but ... If the shell exploded on the armor. nevertheless, the trace (yes at least due to the paint) remains quite sensitive.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Of course, I cannot give my head to cut off, that absolutely all hits were taken into account, theoretically they could have missed something, but ... If the shell exploded on the armor. nevertheless, the trace (yes at least due to the paint) remains quite sensitive.

that is, there were no hits in the Eagle GP, well, ok
but what about if there are numbers for hits in the armor of the towers?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

that is, there were no hits in the Eagle GP, well, ok

There were definitely no hits in the Eagle GP, by the beginning of the battle he was under water. Above the water, the Brodintsy had a second armor belt, and there are no hits in it (numerous according to Kostenko) in the picture. The poorly armored Peresvetov has a different picture, just above the waterline there is a continuous strip of dents and holes.

[Andrey Shmelev]

well, that's what I meant, I'm sorry for the inaccuracy

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

that is, there were no hits in the Eagle GP, well, ok

There was not, and could not be. I'll tell you more - not a single shell hit the Oryol at all.
Kirill and I discussed the battle at Shantung, and I will reveal a military secret: "Eagle" did not participate in it. "

[Andrey Shmelev]

Kirill and I discussed the battle at Shantung, and I will reveal a military secret: "Eagle" did not participate in it. "

sir, do not play up, essentially object, as I understand it, weakly

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

compare the accuracy ratio of 6 "and 8", where there is a clear separation and no admixture of larger calibers: Chemulpo and the shooting of "Ushakov". So there 8 "more precisely 6" is about 2,5-3 times obtained.

Does not work.
On May 14, the battleship "Admiral Ushakov" was hit on the starboard side by an 8 '' projectile in the area of ​​the 15th frame near the waterline. The next shell, 6 '' caliber, hit the side at the waterline, opposite the bow tower. The third round (of unknown caliber) hit the aft turret.
On May 15, three 8 '' and three 6 '' shells hit the hull of the battleship "Admiral Ushakov".

[rytik32]

I mean the fight on May 15th. This is an ideal situation where the hits are clearly separated (apart from the hits in the pipes).

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

I mean the fight on May 15th.

And I mean the same, read the third paragraph.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: rytik32

Otherwise the aft tower "Kassugi"

if you're talking about 10 "then nasal.
In general ... yes. single-gun towers, of course, more accurate, but ...

[rytik32]

I beg your pardon, of course nasal
Well, you understand me ... an accuracy of 12-25% against a background of about 10% for 12 "raises questions.
And an abnormally low hit percentage of 8 "too.

[Senior seaman]

Well, yes, the Japanese have one gun - 3 hits, the Russians have seven and also - 3.
And I also paid attention to the abnormally small number of 8 "hits.
But if you can confuse 8 "and 10" somehow you can (although it is twice as heavy), then 12 "... I don't even know.

[rytik32]

Polomoshnov believes that the hits in the Peresvet pipes recorded as 12 "are actually 8"

[Andrey Shmelev]

But if you can confuse 8 "and 10" somehow you can (although it is twice as heavy), then 12 "... I don't even know.

cracked and not fully detonated, so it looks like eight inches, for example

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

cracked and not fully detonated, therefore looks like eight inches

I don't even know what to say to you ...
Large fragments or a splintered projectile are just the same easier to identify

[Andrey Shmelev]

Large fragments or a splintered projectile are just the same easier to identify

yeah, if there is an opportunity to collect them, and if four flew into the tower, how to identify each?

[Senior seaman]

So you seriously believe that four large fragments from an 8 "shell look like a broken 12"?

[Andrey Shmelev]

I seriously believe that the entire deck is dotted with shrapnel of different sizes (they are confused) and, since not every shell gives surviving identifiable fragments, the vast majority of hits are identified by damage, so an eight-inch land mine hitting the turret armor can easily be confused with an abnormal defeat from a twelve-inch

[Saxahorse]

I agree with you. Especially if you remember the size of the fragments after shimosa. There you need to collect sand .. If there are no uniquely identifiable fragments, then it writes on the damage. And if there is only paint from the damage, then it is not a fact that they will even notice.

[Senior seaman]

If the projectile fired normally, and the deck is strewn with the remaining small shrapnel, this is undoubtedly so, but ...

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

cracked and not fully detonated

and if the fragments are large, then adding from the remains of four 8 "one 12" is unlikely to work.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Firstly,

add from the remainder of four 8 "one 12"

I did not suggest, but tactfully noticed that the mixed fragments of 4 shells can be confused

secondly, out of thousands of fragments, only a certain number of the largest are suitable for identifying the size of the projectile:

at the same time, it is the largest fragments that often fly away far

thirdly, hitting the round tower, the projectile ricochets, splitting and immediately partially detonating - large fragments can fly over the opposite side

fourthly, during the battle and after it, many events occur that interfere with the safety of the fragments and their places :)

fifthly, as it has been said many times, the Japanese in Russian ships did not identify and did not take into account any non-penetration, as a rule

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

I did not suggest, but tactfully noticed that the mixed fragments of 4 shells can be confused

Nope. You originally wrote

cracked and not fully detonated

To which I told you that such the fragments will not be difficult to identify.
With small ones, I agree, there can be confusion, especially if he hit ... well, let's say, on the railing. But even in the picture you have presented you can see very well the preserved bottom of the shell. And you can't confuse her, darling.
P.S. Let's assume that you didn't express your thought very well, and I didn't understand you.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Nope. You originally wrote
cracked and not fully detonated

meaning:

hitting a round tower, the projectile ricochets, splitting and immediately partially detonating - large fragments can fly over the opposite side

I wanted to say that in some cases there will be no shell fragments left on the ship

writing,

large fragments often fly away

I meant that it can fly up to 200 meters, and "dust" the size of a fraction "ten" will give you nothing

and finally, I had in mind that when several shells hit the Eagle's nose turret, you can be very tormented and mistaken, determining their caliber from the collected fragments

in the future I undertake to express my thoughts more clearly)

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

in the future I undertake to express my thoughts more clearly)

Accepted.

[rytik32]

I came across an article in the newspaper about the shelling of Vladivostok:

Details of yesterday's bombing. There was no serious damage, but only a shell of a 12-inch gun pierced the wooden house of Master Kondakov. The shell entered through the roof and went out through the opposite wall into the courtyard, and in the house itself killed Kondakov's wife, pregnant, mother of four children

As can be seen from the description, the shell did not explode, but it was recorded at 12 ", although we now know for sure that the carriers of the 12" guns were not there.

[Senior seaman]

The key word is "in the newspaper". The press could not write that. "Asama" was drowned at least twice, the ill-fated "Takachiho" is also on the conscience of the newspapermen, not Rudnev.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

the firing accuracy of the same 12 and 6 dm guns in the LM differed by almost an order of magnitude - here - no more than several times

I can partially explain - Then the Japanese were shooting with a medium caliber, but large-caliber guns fired at a medium caliber sight. That is, already at a really specified distance to the target. And the SK consumption for sighting will not be small

[Andrey Shmelev]

If you undertake to postulate the truth of this graph

to be ironic, you first need to study the shooting conditions, taken as the basis of this graph

and, well, yes, you always have 5%: from any distance, day and night, into a destroyer and battleship, at any course angle, both with a series of 100 and with a single shot

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

to be ironic, you first need to study the shooting conditions, taken as the basis of this graph

Yeah. To me. Not my dear opponent who posted this chart.

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

and, well, yes, you always have 5%: from any distance, day and night, into a destroyer and battleship, at any course angle, both with a series of 100 and with a single shot

Andrey, come to your senses, please. This is my opponent, in confirmation of his words that in real combat clashes in RYA, the dependence of hits on distances is quadratic, laid out this graph. Thus, a priori asserting that the data presented on it can be transferred to the battles of the RYA, So who should study the shooting conditions on the basis of which the schedule was drawn up?

[Andrey Shmelev]

Andrey, come to your senses, please

that's it, come

the graph demonstrates the CHARACTER OF THE FUNCTION "accuracy / distance", which is absolutely correct

You write:

2) If you undertake to postulate the truth of this graph, then you should state that the esteemed Valentin in his article HIGHER the accuracy of Japanese shooting - as we can see from the graph, on practice shooting (a priori more successful than combat), an accuracy of about 10% is possible only by 20 cable.

that is, you saw percentage numbers in it and decided that they are universal, which, tactfully speaking, is very funny :)

as

and, well, yes, you always have 5%: from any distance, day and night, into a destroyer and battleship, at any course angle, both with a series of 100 and with a single shot

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Eh, Andrey ...
Sit down, a deuce to you by logic. You have in these statements

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

the graph demonstrates the CHARACTER OF THE FUNCTION "accuracy / distance", which is absolutely correct

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

that is, you saw percentage numbers in it and decided that they are universal, which, tactfully speaking, is very funny :)

classic catachresis.
If your remark that

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

and, well, yes, you always have 5%: from any distance, day and night, into a destroyer and battleship, at any course angle, both with a series of 100 and with a single shot

It turns out that the accuracy will depend on a number of parameters, and not only on the distance.
Moreover, here is this statement

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

the graph demonstrates the CHARACTER OF THE FUNCTION "accuracy / distance", which is absolutely correct

there is a statement that this nature of the function is applicable FOR ALL kinds of purpose, regardless of individual parameters. That there is a logical error and a contradiction.
If it's so hard for you, I'll explain it easier.
1) Or the conditions of the practice shooting more or less coincided with the real live fire at the Russian EBRs - and then the percentage of hits in the battle should have been the same, or lower than indicated
2) Or the conditions of the practice shooting did not coincide with the actual shooting at the Russian EBRs, in this case you should not pay attention to%, but the nature of the derived function does not have to correspond to the function that will be in real shooting at Russian EBR
And if this is very difficult for you, then I will explain it quite simply.
If you think that the Japanese in this case fired a slingshot at pigeons, and not a cannon at a target, then where did you get the idea that when firing a cannon at an battleship, the dependence would be the same?
Hence the conclusion - if my dear opponent proposes to consider the function shown on the graph as corresponding to the real shooting in the battle of the main forces in Tsushima and ZhM, then HIM should be provided with shooting conditions, from which it follows that the shooting data can be applied to real combat conditions. Not me.
In short, Shmelev. Don't buzz

[Andrey Shmelev]

I understand that you are very sad, but turn on your mind and recount your last comment again - let's laugh together

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

I understand that you are very sad

Of course, it's sad to waste your time.

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

turn on the brain and recount your last comment again - let's laugh together

How did you write down there? Was the drain valid?

[Andrey Shmelev]

the nature of function applicable FOR ALL types of target, regardless of individual parameters.

the nature of the function is "quadratic", it is due to:
geometric increase of distance / size and spread functions
squared error of sights and rangefinders
an increase in the error of the heading angle correction exponentially

the specific function is determined by the specific shooting conditions,
but the CHARACTER OF THE FUNCTION is always like this

Hence the conclusion - if my dear opponent proposes to consider the function shown on the graph as corresponding to the real shooting in the battle of the main forces in Tsushima and ZhM,

hence the conclusion, you did not understand what was written above, try again

And more:
Fire control systems and rangefinders capable of allowing accurate firing at ranges over 10,000 yards (9,140 m) were nonexistent. The Russians estimated that a ship firing a four-gun broadside under ideal conditions (daylight, good visibility, target at a constant range) had a 40 percent chance of making a hit at 4,000 yards (3,600 m) and a 10% chance at 10,000 yards (9,100 m).

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_12-40_m1895.php

learn materiel, sir, at least a little

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

the nature of the function is "quadratic", it is due to:
geometric increase of distance / size and spread functions
squared error of sights and rangefinders
an increase in the error of the heading angle correction exponentially

the specific function is determined by the specific shooting conditions,
but the CHARACTER OF THE FUNCTION is always like this

Not necessary. If the accuracy factors were exhausted exclusively by the given factors, then yes. And with real shooting, and even in battle - alas, and not close.

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

And more:
Fire control systems and rangefinders capable of allowing accurate firing at ranges over 10,000 yards (9,140 m) were nonexistent. The Russians estimated that a ship firing a four-gun broadside under ideal conditions (daylight, good visibility, target at a constant range) had a 40 percent chance of making a hit at 4,000 yards (3,600 m) and a 10% chance at 10,000 yards (9,100 m)

The fact that the accuracy increases with decreasing range (all other things being equal) does not make the dependence necessarily quadratic.

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

learn materiel, sir, at least a little

To understand some aspects of the topic under discussion, one must have not a higher education, but a secondary imagination.
Even under ideal conditions, the factors I have listed below (and I have not yet touched on the influence of "combat" factors) can give a jump in accuracy with increasing distances, or, conversely, a "plateau" on the graph. Real battle conditions can completely "break" the quadratic dependence

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

can give an abrupt increase in accuracy with increasing distances

With decreasing distances, of course.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Real battle conditions can completely "break" the quadratic dependence

no, they transform the graph of the "quadratic" function,

Even in ideal conditions, the factors listed below (and I have not yet touched on the influence of "combat" factors) can give spasmodic an increase in accuracy with increasing distances, or, conversely, a "plateau" on the graph.

hopping, cannot

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

hopping, cannot

They can easily. For example - at the moment when the error in a shot along the vertical angle due to the influence of rolling is leveled by the height of the target.

[Andrey Shmelev]

the error when firing in the vertical angle due to the effect of rolling is leveled by the height of the target.

we are talking today for 10 + kilo shots, on such LARGE numbers randomness is not taken into account

[Andrey Shmelev]

Let's start simple - with the accuracy of aiming the first shot at a fixed point

Mechanical accuracy = 1 - sighting error - rangefinder error - sighting error, where the sighting error, rangefinder error, sight error are "quadratic" to the distance
Aiming accuracy = mechanical accuracy - a sighting error - a rangefinder error - an aiming error, where an error on a sight, an error on a rangefinder, an aiming error are unpredictable due to the human factor, but are USUALLY approximately equal to "square" to the distance for the same person
Thus, the accuracy of aiming the first shot at a fixed point = 1 - square-law error of the sight * approximately square-law error on the sight-square-law error of the rangefinder * approximately square-law error on the range-finder - square-law error of the sight * approximately square-law error of aiming

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

Thus, the accuracy of aiming the first shot at a fixed point = 1 - square-law error of the sight * approximately square-law error on the sight-square-law error of the rangefinder * approximately square-law error on the range-finder - square-law error of the sight * approximately square-law error of aiming

Uh-huh. For a fixed aiming point with a stationary gun
Aim exactly. Well, the projectile, such an infection, took and deviated from the target due to its dispersion. Undershoot. An amendment was introduced. The sight is not accurate, the target is at the edge of the dispersion ellipse. Shot - hit. The transition is not a quick fire - three shots - the shells fall with the flight.
The second option - aimed accurately - hit - transition to rapid fire - four shells - two of them hit the target, two go into the ellipse, giving cover but not hitting.
In other words, in the same simplest case, with the correct initial aiming and the correct actions of the gunner, the accuracy was 1% in the 20st case, 2% in the 60nd case. And such situations are possible as the distance decreases. That is, the same gunner, having taken the correct sight in one case at a large distance, can show accuracy better than at a reduced one.
And if we add to this the factors that the gun does not stand still, pitching, etc. ...

[Andrey Shmelev]

And if we add to this the factors that the gun does not stand still, pitching, etc. ...

then the function will have a bunch of members, so many that it cannot be digitized, however, you will not believe:
but the instruments of the skartometrist also have a quadratic nature of the error
and the dispersion of shells, roughly speaking, too :)
and even the effect of pitching;)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

then the function will have a bunch of members, so many that it cannot be digitized

The question is not about digitization. The question is that if we, being on the same ship, approaching the target, will release 100 shells at the target for each cable of rendezvous, then, for sure, the accuracy of shooting will take the form of a quadratic function. Because in theory it should be quadratic. And if you collect a large array of statistics - it will be so.
But in a real battle, statistics can be significantly distorted by the influence of relatively random factors, which can be built in such a way that they will knock down this very quadraticity. I.e. Roughly speaking, if we carry out 100 Tsushima battles, then, according to the aggregate statistics, the accuracy of Japanese shooting will be quadratic. But in one battle (and even if we talk about some part of it) - this may not be

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

RYA dependence of hits on distances is quadratic, I posted this graph.

In principle, I once worked closely with RYA materials when writing AI RYA, there is a specific relationship between target speed and hit probability. However, as far as I remember, this is also in the regulatory documents. In my opinion, this is one of the essential factors of the defeat - the lower squadron speed of the Russians

[Andrey Shmelev]

this relationship is not very important in parallel moving columns

[Cyril G ...]

They moved at different speeds. So you are wrong

[Andrey Shmelev]

how would it be easier for you to explain, the artillery officer takes into account the sines as two fingers, difficulties arise with the determination of the exchange rate correction at high speeds, giving a significant change in the distance per unit of time, materiel, sir

[Cyril G ...]

You don’t need to explain, it’s not worth it. And no one counted the sinuses in battle. What you are talking about in the navy was THEN called VIP. The amount of bearing change. The second indicator is VIR, The magnitude of the change in distance. The ideal case, of course, is a fight on parallel courses and comparable speed when VIP = VIR = 0, Approximately of course. We took aim and are working. In tsushima it turned out differently, the Japanese, due to their higher speed, took such a position that they were able to provide, in fact, double fire superiority over the Russian first detachment at effective firing ranges. And the second and third detachments of the Russians, in fact, could not really shoot, although they also had some success.

[Andrey Shmelev]

so agree

[27091965]

Quote: Cyril G ...

there is a specific relationship between target speed and hit probability.

Indeed, such a study was carried out, I came across this in one report of the British Admiralty, but it is difficult to link it to the actions of the 2nd Pacific Squadron without documentary confirmation. Although to be honest I really wanted to.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Cyril G ...

In principle, I once worked closely with RYA materials when writing AI RYA, there is a specific relationship between the speed of the target and the probability of hitting.

Rather, it's still between VIP and the probability of hitting :))))

[Cyril G ...]

Well, yes, you need to agree with this amendment.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Who told you that? :)))))

data about the quadratic increase in the error of sights and rangefinders have already been laid out for you

and also wrote about exponential growth with a note that for the general public we will say "quadratically" :)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

data about the quadratic increase in the error of sights and rangefinders have already been laid out for you

That has very little to do with the actual accuracy of shooting in combat. I don't remember if I mentioned this.

[Andrey Shmelev]

I don't remember if I mentioned this.

please tell me if the accuracy of the rangefinder and sight

has very little to do with actual shooting accuracy in battle

WHAT then has to do with it?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

WHAT then has to do with it?

All other factors that led to the fact that ships with the same sighting devices gave completely different hit percentages

[Andrey Shmelev]

Drain counted

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

Drain counted

That is, I need to list the factors that affect shooting performance? Don't you know them? But what about your remarks above? All these

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

and, well, yes, you always have 5%: from any distance, day and night, into a destroyer and battleship, at any course angle, both with a series of 100 and with a single shot

Sclerosis tortured, or what?
Andrey, I am frankly tired of you. You do not care about the truth, you just blurt out something across me. While you could still be polite, it was still somehow bearable, but now ...
Well, to have fun. What can affect the increase in shooting accuracy with a decrease in the distance
1) Training of the gunner. If a person learned to shoot at 20 cables, then the increase in accuracy when shooting from 50 to 20 cables will be different than in a person who learned to shoot at 50 cables.
2) The flatness of the art scene and pitching. Target height. Roughly speaking, with decreasing distance, the permissible error of the vertical guidance angle will increase, at which the projectile will not go below or above the target.
3) The speed and course of the target in combination with its size - for a relatively small target, the value of the bearing change may be critical when approaching (we turn the gun faster)
4) Accuracy of shooting. Zeroing at a distance of 2,5-3 miles and further can be trivially delayed due to the relatively unsuccessful spread of shells along an ellipse (for example, the first shell falls close to the upper edge, the second - to the bottom, which is statistically unlikely, but quite possible)
5) The number of shots per exercise.

Enough, or else?

[Andrey Shmelev]

Enough, or else?

eccentric, the quadraticity of the function is manifested with the constancy of other conditions,
would you go to school, class of commercials in the fifth

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

eccentric, the quadraticity of the function manifests itself with the constancy of other conditions

All the indicators listed by me are constant within one shooting. But some of them give the effect of different strengths at different distances.

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

would you go to school, class of commercials in the fifth

What for? Unlike you, I've already been there

[Andrey Shmelev]

All the indicators listed by me are constant within one shooting. But some of them give the effect of different strengths at different distances.

the fool understands that it won't help you in any way

The CHARACTER of the function will still remain quadratic,
and your theory about the extrapolation of Shantung's accuracy to Tsushima is incorrect,
as well as all the conclusions from it: from good accuracy of 2 TOE to a small number of hits by the Japanese.

in response to your other comment, I will write you an explanation

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

The CHARACTER of the function will still remain quadratic,

Andrey, practice in this case is the criterion of truth. And practice tells us that the Russian ships at Shantung achieved 6 hits with 305-mm shells in the first phase and only 1 in the second. 4 mm hit 2 in the first phase and 254 in the second. And this despite the fact that the distances in the second phase were significantly lower than the first, and there is no data on the drop in the intensity of Russian fire with the main caliber :)))))
So the quadratic function of accuracy in battle is a purely speculative phenomenon.

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

and your theory about the extrapolation of Shantung's accuracy to Tsushima is incorrect,

This is not my theory. But the good accuracy of the Russians in Tsushima is a fact precisely in terms of the concentration of hits in the first hour of the battle - here one can only argue whether the Japanese were better, and to what extent.

[Andrey Shmelev]

But the good accuracy of the Russians in Tsushima is a fact precisely because of the concentration of hits in the first hour of the battle - here one can only argue whether the Japanese were better, and to what extent.

well, I've been writing about this for many years, and not only, I, for example:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_12-40_EOC.php

At the Battle of the Yellow Sea (10 August Battle or Battle of Shantung) the Japanese fired a total of 603 12-inch (30.5 cm) projectiles and made about 30 hits - 4.7%. At Tsushima (Battle of the Japan Sea) the Japanese fired 446 12-in (30.5 cm) projectiles and made about 40 hits - 9%. The increase in hitting was mainly due to the shorter range at the last battle

And practice tells us that the Russian ships at Shantung

this is a strong argument, let's figure it out, it became interesting myself
it's not for nothing that we argue :)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

At the Battle of the Yellow Sea (10 August Battle or Battle of Shantung) the Japanese fired a total of 603 12-inch (30.5 cm) projectiles and made about 30 hits - 4.7%. At Tsushima (Battle of the Japan Sea) the Japanese fired 446 12-in (30.5 cm) projectiles and made about 40 hits - 9%. The increase in hitting was mainly due to the shorter range at the last battle

Taking into account that at least 57 305-mm shells hit the Russian ships in the ZhM, the value of the quote is negative

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

this is a strong argument, let's figure it out, it became interesting myself
it's not for nothing that we argue :)

I tried at one time (the drop in the accuracy of the Russians in the 2nd phase frankly pissed me off), but there only assumptions are possible, without rigorous proof.

[Goldmoskit]

In the last photo, a sheet of metal that is indicated as if from the deck, less than an inch thick

[VohaAhov]

Uv. author - thank you very much for this series of articles. Very interesting and informative. About the effectiveness of Russian shells. But did you consider and do you have any data on the shooting of the cruiser "Ochakov" in the fall of 1905 in Sevastopol (just six months after Tsushima). Then the ship was hit by 64 shells of different calibers, incl. 254 and 152 mm from Rostislav. No matter how hard I tried, I could not find more specific data on the damage to Ochakov, but I would very much like to. These data would help to "shed light" on the effectiveness of Russian shells at the time.

[Andrey Shmelev]

there is a scheme like this:

everyone who proves that Mikasa should have drowned from 40 hits is strongly recommended

Shl. shells exploded)

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

everyone who proves that Mikasa should have drowned from 40 hits is strongly recommended

Are there such people?

[Cyril G ...]

It seems that Melnikov had some description of the damage ... Look

[Comrade]

Quote: VohaAhov

But did you consider and do you have any data on the shooting of the cruiser "Ochakov" in the fall of 1905 in Sevastopol

There is a monograph by R. M. Melnikov "Cruiser" Ochakov "", it says that "Rostislav" from a distance of 5-6 cab fired 2 10 "and 16 6" shells at the cruiser, as a result of which nine holes were formed in the left side ... In total, sixty-three holes were counted in the corps, mainly from 11 '' coastal artillery, hitting with direct fire.
The main damage to the cruiser is described in more or less detail. If you don’t find it on the Internet, let me know.
I can post pictures of the pages here or send you by mail.

[Kostadinov]

No hit analysis of medium caliber shells. There is a reasonable version that they had decisive knowledge in this battle.

[Comrade]

Quote: Kostadinov

No hit analysis of medium caliber shells. There is a reasonable version that they had decisive knowledge in this battle.

This hypothesis untenable.
The battleship "Oslyabya" could be fired about 107 8 "shells and about 790 6" shells, of which a maximum of five 8 "shells and eleven 6" shells would hit the target.
The Vladivostok cruisers were hit by several times more shells of medium caliber, so why didn't they sink?

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

About 107 8 "shells and about 790 6" shells could be fired into the battleship "Oslyabya", of which a maximum of five 8 "shells and eleven 6" shells would hit the target

This calculation is based on the accuracy of one previous battle (by the way, why exactly this battle?) And ignores many objective factors, including eyewitness accounts of actual hits.

Quote: Comrade

The Vladivostok cruisers were hit by several times more shells of medium caliber, so why didn't they sink?

You are refuting yourself here. Just the difference in the condition of the ships says that Oslyabya received much more. And most importantly, in much less time!
By the way, "Rurik" was in a state very similar to the Tsushima one: fires throughout the ship, all artillery was disabled, terrible destruction, many killed and wounded, sank astern. And, the most interesting thing, only two armored decks brought it to its condition with their six-inches !!!

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

This calculation is based on the accuracy of one previous battle (by the way, why exactly this one?)

Please.
a) in battle near Port Arthur the Japanese shot more accurately than in battle at Cape Shantung;
b) the caliber of the overwhelming majority of shells hitting Russian ships, thanks to the courtesy of the American attaché McCoolay, was identified, which, alas, cannot be said about the hits after July 28;
at) identified hits make it possible to more accurately determine the percentage of hits than in the case when a significant part of the hitting shells is not identified, as we can see from the example of the battle at Cape Shantung.

Now I bring to your attention the methodology of how the estimated number of 6 shells hitting Oslyabya was obtained.
The first column is the name of the ship, the second column is the number of 6 "shells fired by this ship during the Battle of Tsushima, the third column is the time during which this ship fired at Oslyab, the fourth column is the estimated number of shells fired during this time in brackets. shells.
(The time during which Togo and Kamimura fired during the Tsushima battle differs, and this is taken into account).

Fuji (532 shells) - ten minutes (~ 23 shells)
"Shikishima" (1 395 "shells) - forty minutes (~ 6 shells)
"Kassuga" (868 shells) - thirteen minutes (~ 50 shells)
"Nisshin" (1 rounds) - twenty five minutes (~ 191 rounds)
"Idzumo" (704 shells) - twenty minutes (~ 57 shells)
"Adzuma" (819 shells) - forty two minutes (~ 140 shells)
"Tokiwa" (719 rounds) - twenty three minutes (~ 67 rounds)
"Yakumo" (677 shells) - eighteen minutes (~ 50 shells)
"Iwate" (805 shells) - seven minutes (~ 23 shells)

So, we came to the next figure: 271 + 182 (Togo) + 337 (Kamimura) = 790
Now take the accuracy of 6 "guns, demonstrated under the the battle of Port Arthur (1,4%), and we estimate how many 6 "shells could have hit" Oslyabya "at the time of its death.
My version - eleven... Going to meet you, I can increase their number to fifteen (2%).

Of course, this is just my hypothesis, and everyone is free to either agree with it or reject it.

Quote: rytik32

You are refuting yourself here. Just the difference in the condition of the ships says that Oslyabya received much more.

I agree.
"Oslyabya" received three to four times more 12 "shells than all three Vladivostok cruisers, hence its condition .

[Andrey Shmelev]

Now we take the accuracy of 6 "guns, demonstrated in battle by Port Arthur (1,4%), and make an estimate,

this is already a malicious flood, it looks fun, but has nothing to do with the search for objective truth

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

Now we take the firing accuracy of 6 "guns, demonstrated in battle by Port Arthur (1,4%), and make an estimate of how many 6" shells could have hit the Oslyabya at the time of its death.
My option is eleven. Going to meet you, I can increase their number to fifteen (2%).

Now let's try to calculate the accuracy for 8 "
Fight with "Ushakov" accuracy (excluding hits in the pipes) for 8 "3,4% for 6" 1%.
Fight with "Varyag" accuracy for 8 "11,1% for 6" 4,4%
Those. 8 "accuracy should be higher than 6" accuracy by about 3,4-2,5 times. Round up to 3 right?

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

Now let's try to calculate the accuracy for 8 "

Let's.

Quote: rytik32

Round up to 3 right?

I do not mind.
Let's move on to prose, let's try to estimate how many shells, according to V. Sidorenko's schedule, could have fired 8 shells into Oslyabya.

"Kassuga" (103 shells) - thirteen minutes (~ 6 shells)
"Nisshin" (181 rounds) - twenty five minutes (~ 20 rounds)
"Idzumo" (166 shells) - twenty minutes (~ 14 shells)
"Adzuma" (173 shells) - forty two minutes (~ 30 shells)
"Tokiwa" (185 rounds) - twenty three minutes (~ 17 rounds)
"Yakumo" (191 rounds) - eighteen minutes (~ 14 rounds)
"Iwate" (205 shells) - seven minutes (~ 6 shells)
Total: 26 (Togo) + 81 (Kamimura) = 107

You suggested 3%, we obtain three shell.
In the battle of Port Arthur, the Japanese from 8 "guns reached accuracy 4,3%, therefore, in my article it is said that the maximum could get into "Oslyabya" five.

My sick leave is over, I am going to work today, so my responses to comments will appear late.

[rytik32]

I wrote about 3 times, and not about 3%))) Therefore, I considered 6% accuracy for 8 "
And the second question. How did you calculate the rate of fire?
8 "Azuma" cannon, which failed on Jackson at 14.47 fired 20 shots in 32 minutes. 0,63 rounds per minute. "Azuma" should fire 98 rounds (taking into account the released gun), not 30. with an accuracy of even 3%, as you thought, one "Azuma" should give 3 hits 8 "
The right bow 8 "Nissin" cannon fired 12 rounds in 25 minutes. 0,48 rounds per minute. The Nissin should then fire 48 rounds, not 20.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

8 "Azuma" cannon, which failed on Jackson at 14.47, fired 20 rounds in 32 minutes. 0,63 rounds per minute. "Azuma" should fire 98 rounds (taking into account the released gun), not 30

And these considerations occurred to me.
98 shells for forty two minutes look logical on the one hand, but, on the other hand, against the background 173 shells fired by the cruiser "Adzuma" during total Battle of Tsushima, 98 shells look very overpriced.
Probably, the other three guns of the cruiser "Adzuma" fired much slower. This also applies to the cruiser "Nisshin".

[Andrey Shmelev]

I have another option: the time that the squadron was led by "Borodino" visibility was much worse, therefore they rarely fired

[rytik32]

The tower must have fired volleys.
On "Nissin" there is data on all three exploded. And their rate of fire is high.
Apparently the reason is that in the second phase of the battle, the rate of fire dropped dramatically. This is confirmed by the data for all ships, wherever the rate of fire to burst and the overall one cannot be compared.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

The tower must have fired volleys.

What do you mean ?

Quote: rytik32

This is confirmed by the data for all ships, wherever the rate of fire to burst and the overall one cannot be compared.

Sorry, what data are we talking about?

[rytik32]

To calculate the rate of fire of the Mikasa, Fuji and Shikishima GCs, you calculated based on the number of shells fired and the time of firing of the damaged gun. To determine the rate of fire from 8 "guns, for some reason you switched to no other method based on the total number of shells fired in the battle and the time of the battle, although there is data on the rate of fire of the guns before damage (4 barrels - we can already draw conclusions).
So, I compared the rate of fire for both methods, and I can say unequivocally that if we count on damaged guns, the rate is much higher, in some places by 1,5-2 times. Thus, we can conclude that at the beginning of the battle the rate of fire was noticeably higher than the average for the battle.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Thus, we can conclude that at the beginning of the battle the rate of fire was noticeably higher than the average for the battle.

suppose that the survivability of the battleships of the first detachment is approximately equal to each other, thus, the lead time of the squadron of each of them will be approximately inversely proportional to the effectiveness of Japanese fire on them in the corresponding periods
(I understand that it is very rude, but there is reason to think)

[Senior seaman]

Quote: rytik32

Thus, we can conclude that at the beginning of the battle the rate of fire was noticeably higher than the average for the battle.

Duc, the Asamoids and Garibaldians have half the ammunition in the towers. Therefore, it is not surprising that at the beginning of the battle they fired faster than when both guns were serviced by one lift.

[Andrey Shmelev]

when both implements were serviced by one lift.

but during a break in the battle, the supply can be replenished for future use

[Senior seaman]

Can. But not a fact.
If the carriers threw 100kg (+ \ -) ​​shells, then during the break they have tongues on their shoulders.

[Andrey Shmelev]

here I would like to see not the means of small mechanization of labor on Japanese ships

[Senior seaman]

I would like to. But most sources stress that the Japanese mechanized a very small part of the operations for the NC guns, in contrast to our fleet, where they did it even to the detriment of the rate of fire.
Generally a strange moment. We somehow traditionally do not like to make life easier for sailors.

[Cyril G ...]

Yeah, and at the same time, such operations are mechanized to this day, even where it is not always reasonable. How, for example, is the ship's GRAD charged in the course? How about OSA-M?
Here's how Sea Wolfe recharges

[Cyril G ...]

And here is the reloading of the torpedo tube

[Cyril G ...]

But reloading the air defense system manually ...

[Saxahorse]

Something you are confusing. Speaking of towers, you are talking about a large caliber, there are usually no carriers there, they will not raise :)

[Senior seaman]

We are talking about eight-inch "Asamoids" and "Garibaldians". Separate loading, projectile weight 95-115 kg. Charge 25. On trays and together will cope, and four of us and on hand.

[Saxahorse]

At Asam, of course, mechanization was greatly simplified, but it is not straightforward to tear the navels of the calculation. The aforementioned traverses for transferring the feed lift from the table to the tool tray are still a crane, albeit a manual one.

One way or another, they fired 8 "two or three times faster than 12" and as we noticed it was not the technical rate of fire that limited it.

[rytik32]

Then everything converges, and we can consider the rate of fire of 8 "Japanese guns in the period up to about 14:50 as 0,5 rounds per minute. And with an accuracy of 6%," Oslyabya "should have received 14 8" rounds.

[Andrey Shmelev]

dear colleagues! do not turn into AiCh in its extreme manifestations

the percentage of accuracy is extrapolated only under equal shooting conditions, if "Ushakov", for example, was actively maneuvering, then it is difficult for him to find analogues in the RYA

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

if "Ushakov", for example, was actively maneuvering, then it is difficult for him to find analogues in the RYA

According to the battle scheme, during the entire battle "Admiral Ushakov" changed course four times. You call it "active maneuvering"?

[Andrey Shmelev]

Striving to maneuver against the background of the low sun, the Japanese at the same time did not want to reduce the distance. This, on the advice of the senior artilleryman, took advantage of V.N.Miklukha: the battleship constantly turned to the right - to the west, approaching the enemy. X. Shimamura was forced to retreat. At the same time, the "Admiral Ushakov" knocked down the Japanese zeroing by turns, but this also worsened the conditions of their own shooting.

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

This, on the advice of the senior artilleryman, took advantage of V.N.Miklukha: the battleship constantly turned to the right - to the west, approaching the enemy.

Is this a fragment of an alternative? Not bad.
And in "Tsushima" another alternative description of the battle is given, it says that there were hits from "Ushakov" on Japanese cruisers.

[Andrey Shmelev]

V.Yu. Gribovsky, I.I. Chernikov. Battleship "Admiral Ushakov"
Chapter IV. Hike to the Far East and the Battle of Tsushima

[Comrade]

Neither Gribovsky nor Chernikov, unlike the Japanese, could see Ushakov's maneuvering. If on the Japanese map he changed course only four times, and not at all in the direction that these authors write about, then it was so.

[Andrey Shmelev]

not at all, individual lapels are not reflected on the strip - the scale is not the same, only general course changes are reflected on the strip

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Comrade

Fuji (532 shells) - ten minutes (~ 23 shells)
"Shikishima" (1 395 "shells) - forty minutes (~ 6 shells)
"Kassuga" (868 shells) - thirteen minutes (~ 50 shells)
"Nisshin" (1 rounds) - twenty five minutes (~ 191 rounds)

Forgive me of course dear Comrade, but this is complete nonsense .. And who, according to you, shot at Suvorov all these forty minutes! ??

[Comrade]

Quote: Saxahorse

And who, according to you, shot at Suvorov all these forty minutes !?

Exit to the board and list the composition of the 1st combat detachment (flag of Admiral H. Togo). Class, do not prompt!

[Andrey Shmelev]

I apologize for the sarcasm, they fired Mikasa and Asahi, giving out 187% percent of hits from the number of shells fired :)

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Comrade

Exit to the board and list the composition of the 1st combat detachment (flag of Admiral H. Togo). Class, do not prompt!

Our dear Comrade, with this answer you finally finished off your article about some kind of accuracy and rate of fire ..

It looks like it's time for you to move to ZhZheshechka, where you can immediately ban everyone who asks uncomfortable questions, and calmly enjoy the praise and applause of your fans.

[Comrade]

Quote: Saxahorse

with this answer, you finally finished off your article about some kind of accuracy and rate of fire

Quote: Andrei Shmelev

fired "Mikasa" and "Asahi", issuing 187% of hits from the number of shells fired

[Andrey Shmelev]

I, again I apologize for the sarcasm, but this is how YOU succeed :)
well, even with a slight hyperbole

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Comrade

The Vladivostok cruisers were hit by several times more shells of medium caliber, so why didn't they sink?

Maybe because their armor belt was higher than the waterline? And in order to drown the ship must be filled with water first. After all, they did not have ZPR in the commanders.

[Comrade]

Quote: Saxahorse

Maybe because their armor belt was higher than the waterline?

The answer is wrong. There were hits in the area of ​​the waterline, water penetrated through the holes onto the living deck. On "Russia" one waterproof compartment was flooded.
"Russia" with "Thunderbolt" received 30-35 hits by 6 "- 8" shells, but they did not even think of sinking, but even failing.

[Andrey Shmelev]

but they did not even think that they would sink, but even fail.

Just about, there are clear examples: "Peresvet", "Tsarevich", "Russia", "Thunderbolt", there is an example of "Eagle"

and EVERYTHING makes it ludicrous to say that EBR will certainly sink from multiple hits

and there is also "Ochakov" :)

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

make the statements ridiculous that the EBR will certainly drown from several hits and there is also "Ochakov" :)

In "Ochakov" shells flew flat trajectory, there the distance was about one kilometer. Did the shells hit Oslyabya from five cables too?

[Andrey Shmelev]

Did the shells hit Oslyabya from five cables too?

and in "Mikasa" many shells dived under the belt?

[Cyril G ...]

The hits in Vladivostok were greatly extended in time, in contrast to the same Oslyabi. This factor must also be taken into account.

[27091965]

Quote: Comrade

There were hits in the waterline area,

The hits were in different parts of the ship. There is, in my opinion, an English edition, with photographs of the VOK cruisers after the battle, some of them are displayed on the Internet.

[Saxahorse]

Great photo by the way. An example of the same "radiance" from a land mine hitting the armor. By all indications, the Japanese clearly did not take into account the hits when calculating damage, for example, the Eagle.

[Andrey Shmelev]

The Vladivostok cruisers were hit by several times more shells of medium caliber ... they did not sink

it is a fact

maximum five 8 "rounds and eleven 6" rounds.

this is a version that refutes the fact

[Narak-zempo]

Pictured: a fragment of the upper deck of the battleship "Mikasa", made of harveyenickel steel 51 mm thick, with traces of multiple hits, received, according to information from the information stand, during the battle of Tsushima. Attention is drawn to the accuracy of hits

Something doesn't seem to pull the slab by 51 mm. Rather 5.1 mm.
And then, if this is a deck, then at those combat distances, shells at such an angle to hit the deck were unlikely to come.
It seems that the leaf was cut by large fragments from the rupture of one shell.

[Constanty]

I met such numbers when it comes to hits in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and in the Battle of Tsushima.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

The numbers, alas, are completely fantasy. How do the compilers know about the hits on the dead Russian ships?

[Comrade]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

How do the compilers know about the hits on the dead Russian ships?

It's just IMHO of a certain (obviously "taken on the chest") Polish author.
One five hits of 12 '' shells in "Sisoy the Great" are worth something. This is against the real one.

[Constanty]

I met such numbers when it comes to hits in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and in the Battle of Tsushima.

"Morza, Statki i Okręty" 1 and 2/1996, "Artyleria w wojnie rosyjsko japońskiej 1904-1905", Piotr Olender

The same author in a wonderful book: Wojna rosyjsko-japońska 1904-1905. Działania na morzu ", Kraków 2010, page 394, emphasizes the high rate of fire and accuracy of Russian fire in the first stage of the battle with 7-8% hits!

The very good accuracy of the Russians in the first 15-20 minutes of the battle was confirmed by reports from both Japanese and British observers. The first Suvorov shell fell just 20 meters behind the battleship Mikasa, which received 15 hits of 5-mm and 305 14-mm hits in the next 152 minutes.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Constanty

Morza, Statki i Okręty "1 i 2/1996," Artyleria w wojnie rosyjsko japońskiej 1904-1905 ", Piotr Olender

This is not bad, but the reports of the commanders of Russian ships are still more reliable :))))

[Constanty]

The author of the work relied on a solid archival inquiry - including for Russia, and using many Russian sources - for example, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 by Lebedev, Novikov's organization of artillery service on ships 2 Eskadry of the Pacific Ocean Fleet, Art. Petersburg 1912, and much more. The work of the commission .... The book, unfortunately, came out with a circulation of 300 copies, but I succeeded.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Constanty

The author of the work relied on a solid archival inquiry - including for Russia, and using many Russian sources - for example, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 Lebedev, Novikova organization of artillery service on ships 2

No offense, but on my propeller and by reference to the RSL - the most that neither is the most original source, that is, the reports of the commanders of the ships. This is much more important than Lebedev and Novikov

[Constanty]

I congratulate you and envy you ;-)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Constanty

I congratulate you and envy you ;-)

In the evening I will send you a link to the electronic library, where you can familiarize yourself with all this :))))

[Constanty]

With pleasure. thank

[rytik32]

Valentin, one more comment to the article on Eagle shells.
The current data are as follows:

12 "shells
When leaving Libava: 72 armor-piercing, 144 high-explosive, 24 segment and 45 cast iron.
The Japanese received: 70 armor-piercing, 52 high-explosive, 22 segment and 44 cast iron.
In Madagascar, Eagle used up 27 12 "shells

6 "shells
When leaving Libava: 1055 armor-piercing, 1123 high-explosive, 417 segmental, "about 100 cast iron"
The Japanese received: 102 "Russian-style armor-piercing grenades", 930 "armor-piercing grenades with a tip", 790 "new-model armor-piercing grenades", 411 "segment steel grenades" and 102 "training grenades".
During the Hull incident, 10 high-explosive, 2 segmental and 1 cast-iron projectiles were used up.
Madagascar has 104 6 "shells.

Accordingly, in battle, Oryol, presumably, fired 70 12 "shells (66 high-explosive, 2 armor-piercing, 2 segment) and 246 6" shells (23 armor-piercing, 219 high-explosive, 4 segment).

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

To calculate the rate of fire of the Mikasa, Fuji and Shikishima GCs, you calculated based on the number of shells fired and the time of firing of the damaged gun. To determine the rate of fire from 8 "guns, for some reason you switched to no other method, based on the total number of shells fired in the battle and the time of the battle.

Dear colleague, let me draw your attention to the fact that you used two methods in your article (the screenshot opens on click).

Quote: rytik32

one more remark to the article on "Eagle" shells

You have been given a link to A. Danilov's article, we will open it in the right place.

Yes, what about your claim that the Azuma towers were firing volleys? I asked you to clarify what you mean. Didn't find the answer in the mass of comments, or there is no answer yet?

[Comrade]

From yours "remarks"it follows that Danilov misled his readers?
And another question, with your permission. Why are you in your article when calculating the number of shells that could get into "Oslyabya", "allowed", what "rate of fire is uniform throughout the battle"?
After all, here you do not get tired of repeating that this is far from the case.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

Dear colleague, you used two methods in your article.

Dear Valentine.
Firstly, according to claim 2, I adhered to one technique, i.e. the total number of projectiles fired / total firing time. According to clause 5, I physically could not calculate the time of release of 6 "guns, because there was not all the data. For example, the Mikasa guns temporarily stopped firing due to the hits of our shells, but for how long? And in an amicable way, each ship should be counted separately, but it is very laborious. Although the failure of 8 "guns could be taken into account - I repent.

In your article, the method for determining the rate of fire is described only for 12 ". And for the rest? In the comments, for some reason, you are talking about a completely different method. Next.% Accuracy for 12" is sounded, but% accuracy is not sounded for 8 "and 6 "shells and why you chose these values. I didn’t hide these% in my article.

Quote: Comrade

You have been given a link to A. Danilov's article, we will open it in the right place.

Since then a lot of water has flowed under the bridge and Arseny himself wrote:

In my article, based on Shvede's assertions that all practical 12 "shells were used up in Madagascar, I assumed that 44" cast iron grenades "found by the Japanese were our landmines. This was the worst mistake in my writing career.

Quote: Comrade

turrets "Azuma" fired volleys

I meant that usually the turrets fired in volleys, and, accordingly, the rate of fire of one turret gun cannot differ from the rate of fire of another.

PS 2 hits in "Azuma" at 14:47 and 14:50 from your article are the same hit. It is enough to compare the damage.

[Comrade]

[quote = rytik32]In your article, the method for determining the rate of fire is described only for 12 ". And for the rest?[/ Quote]
They are not interesting to me.

I counted them out of theoretical interest in order to confirm or refute my feeling that the figures you mentioned, illustrating the number of medium-caliber shells hitting Oslyabya, are greatly overestimated.

[quote = rytik32]Since then, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge and Arseny himself wrote[/ Quote]
In that case, thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that. Apparently, someone read the documents translated by the Japanese from the "Eagle".

[quote = rytik32]PS 2 hits in "Azuma" at 14:47 and 14:50 from your article are the same hit. [/ Quote]
Great news, it gives rise to doubt about the reliability of the Japanese data and the rest of the hits and to assume that at the time of the sinking of the battleship Oslyabya, more than 12 '' shells had hit the Japanese ships than it follows from their documents.
For example, hitting the "Fuji" stern board could not have occurred at the time indicated by the Japanese.

[quote = rytik32]I meant that usually the turrets fired in volleys, and accordingly, the rate of fire of one gun of the turret cannot differ from the rate of fire of another. [quote = rytik32]

Maybe the two guns of the same turret did not always fire in turn.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

Great news, it gives rise to doubts about the reliability of the Japanese data and the rest of the hits, and to assume that at the time of the sinking of the battleship Oslyabya, more than 12 '' shells had hit the Japanese ships than it follows from their documents

And what is the reason? It's just that the captain and Jackson dated the same event 3 minutes apart.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

And what is the reason? It's just that the captain and Jackson dated the same event 3 minutes apart.

This hit - yes, and the rest? And on other ships?
There, on the Japanese side, there could be an even more serious error.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

This hit - yes, and the rest?

So Jackson noted 2 hits and fragments of a large projectile that flew over the stern (he himself does not claim that it was a hit).
These hits are perfectly identified. I will give a brief description of them. Time according to Krestyaninov.
14.32 - hit by a 305-mm projectile into the barrel of the right stern 203-mm gun.
According to the medical description, the time is 14.50
Jackson's hit time is 14.37

14.37 - breaking through the casemate of the right stern 152-mm gun with numerous victims.
By honey. description time 14.55
As described by Jackson 14.27

In the diagram, both hits are marked.
Valentine, so what's not going? So far, I only see an insufficient study of the issue on your part.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

Valentine, so what's not going? So far, I only see an insufficient study of the issue on your part.

What to do, there is no perfection in this world.
So it’s impossible to rely on the "Chronology of hits on Japanese ships" now, the Japanese let us down, which is a pity.
1) In your commentary, you gave hits of two shells and indicated the options when these shells could hit.
2) In both cases, the official Japanese time is later than the time of the English observer.
3) The conclusion suggests itself that the Japanese, for objective reasons, did not accurately record the time immediately at the time of the shell hit, but wrote it down after the battle, retroactively.
4) It was a widespread practice on the 1st Pacific Squadron, now it turns out that the Japanese also sinned.
5) Thus, we have a good reason to suspect that, since the hit time of a number of Russian shells in Japanese sources is significantly ahead of the time indicated by an English observer, the actual accuracy of the Russians during the first forty minutes of the Tsushima battle was higher than it was believed.
6) Let me explain my idea with an example.
The Chronology of Hits on Japanese Ships indicated that a 12 '' shell hit Mikasa at 15:18, but in fact the shell could have hit many minutes earlier.

Quote: rytik32

So Jackson noted ... fragments of a large projectile that flew over the stern (he himself does not claim that it was a hit).

a) Russian shell hit "Azuma" and exploded,
b) The Russian shell exploded on impact on the water, the fragments flew to the cruiser.
Which option do you like more?

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

Which option do you like more?

Both options are not very pleasant, tk. in the first case, the hit would most likely have been recorded; in the second, the probability of detonation of the fuse from hitting the water is not great (although a land mine with a Baranovsky pipe could probably be). I will add another option for just a flight.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

Valentine, so what's not going? So far, I only see an insufficient study of the issue on your part.

Is it, Alexey, your comments can boast "elaboration of the issue"?

Quote: rytik32

hitting a 305-mm projectile into the barrel of the right stern 203-mm gun.
According to the medical description, the time is 14.50
Jackson's hit time is indicated as 14.37

Actually 14:47, look at the report.

Quote: rytik32

breaking through the casemate of the right stern 152-mm gun with numerous casualties.
By honey. description time 14.55
As described by Jackson 14.27

Actually 14:37, look at the report.

Quote: rytik32

since in the first case, the hit would most likely have been recorded.

It depends on wherever it goes.

Quote: rytik32

I will add another option for just a flight.

Several small projectiles flew at the same time so close to each other that they were mistaken by the English observer for fragments of a large projectile, or did Captain Jackson have triple eyes?

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

Is it, Alexei, your comments can boast of "elaboration of the issue"?

I beg your pardon, I confused the time.

Quote: Comrade

Several small projectiles flew at the same time so close to each other that they were mistaken by the English observer for fragments of a large projectile, or did Captain Jackson have triple eyes?

Two shells from a volley - why not an option?

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

Two shells from a volley - why not an option?

According to the entry in the report, at about 14:27 on the starboard side, a 6 '' deck gun was disabled, and Captain Jackson admitted that this was the result of a shell hit, the fragments of which he saw in 14:27:30.

Now let's take a look at the "Timeline of hits on Japanese ships", which of the hits on the cruiser "Azuma", appearing there, can be attributed to this shell?

If you find this, please let me know. This will be further evidence that the Japanese could indicate the time of the shell hit retroactively.

[rytik32]

It was a 100% barrel break.
Arguments:
1. The shrapnel could not completely break the barrel of the 152-mm gun. There were already hits in the barrels and the results were known.
2. Why is there no other damage?
3. And from the photo it is a gap.

In the list you have given, this hit number 11 at 14:20

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

In the list you have given, this hit number 11 at 14:20

Captain Jackson waited seven minutes to find out about this event?

Quote: rytik32

Two shells from a volley - why not an option?

Option, if there is evidence that the towers of "Borodino" fired with two-gun volleys. I personally don’t believe that.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

Captain Jackson waited seven minutes to find out about this event?

So Jackson only suggests a connection between these events. Moreover, he clearly says, taking into account the afterthought from the Japanese report that a shell hit the 6-inch.

Quote: Comrade

Option, if there is evidence that the towers of "Borodino" fired with two-gun volleys. I personally don’t believe that.

Yes, this is a debatable question. If firing with volleys from the main battery is recognized, then from the towers of the SK is in doubt.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

Jackson only suggests a connection between these events. Moreover, he speaks clearly taking into account the aftermath from the Japanese report

The Japanese did not let the English observers read their reports. Evidence of this is in the reports of British observers.

Quote: rytik32

If firing volleys from the main battery is recognized

In the Japanese navy, the main caliber barbet launchers fired with single-gun volleys, if you have proof of the opposite, it will be curious to look at.
The same goes for our battleships.

[rytik32]

I found a couple of indirect facts on the UK.
1. Double hit of 152 mm at 14:23 in Mikasa, just a couple of meters away.
2. Evidence of the "last salvo" of Borodino. But here the cannons may have just been defused.

[rytik32]

Quote: Comrade

if you have evidence to the contrary, it will be curious to take a look

Read Cherkasov, Lutonin, Kostenko. There is information there.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

Read Cherkasov, Lutonin, Kostenko. There is information there.

My time is precious to me, so before I start looking, please confirm.
Kostenko says in plain text, clearly and unequivocally, that medium-caliber turrets of the battleship "Eagle" fired two-gun in volleys?

[rytik32]

Valentine, I beg your pardon, but I also have no time to look for this information for you.

[Comrade]

Quote: rytik32

I beg your pardon, but I also have no time to look for this information for you.

Not scary, there is no such information there.

[Comrade]

But I found evidence that "Asama" in two battles could and fired from 8 "guns, including single-gun volleys.

[rytik32]

Welcome to a new topic
https://topwar.ru/174418-cusima-snarjadnaja-versija-snarjady-i-opyty.html

[Saxahorse]

Quote: rytik32

Yes, this is a debatable question. If firing with volleys from the main battery is recognized, then from the towers of the SK is in doubt.

Shooting from the towers one by one looks questionable. The reloading of the second gun will be hampered by waiting for the first shot. In some cases, this is constructively impossible (for Asam, for example). And even if it is possible, it is still clearly not safe to overload the projectile at the moment the adjacent gun is fired.

[Andrey Shmelev]

In addition, Swede introduces "additional obscurity":

"Standing in Nossi-be," Eagle "went three times to the shooting; here, for these shooting, 12 pieces were made for each 10" gun. shots. They did not manage to shoot the total stock of practical (cast-iron) shells on our battleship, some of them, about 1/3, remained. "

That is, if you literally read the Swede, then in Libau "Eagle" received 60 cast-iron shells, which the Swede refers to as "practical" and about 20 of them were supposed to be captured by the Japanese on the morning of May 15. Where are they? - lift my eyelids.

But it almost perfectly fights with the STANDARD ammunition load:
320 rounds of the main caliber, including:
18 armor-piercing + 36 high-explosive + 6 segment = 60 shells of the main ammunition + 20 cast-iron shells to full ammunition ("Eagle" shot about 10 shells per gun and about 10 cast-iron shells per gun were captured by the Japanese)

[Andrey Shmelev]

Dear colleague, help me out, I have a very important question for you:
is there a specific DOCUMENT confirming that the "Eagle" received only 40 cast-iron shells of the main caliber, otherwise it turns out not very well, since all forty of them were shot at the Swede, and the Japanese found 44 more in the cellars

well, or a DOCUMENT confirming that the "Eagle" in Madagascar spent not forty iron shells of the main caliber

simply, if the FULL ammunition load of the "Eagle" is not 60 shells per gun, but 80 (as Klado writes), then the "Eagle" fired more than 130 shells of the main caliber during the battle and this leads us to the following thoughts:
the artillery overload indicated by Kostenko is correct, but yours is not (as I understand it, yours is in any case incorrect, because you simply forgot about the weight of the cases, for example)
Your numbers on the accuracy of shooting at Tsushima need to be corrected approximately 2,5 times

[Andrey Shmelev]

When leaving Libava: 72 armor-piercing, 144 high-explosive, 24 segment and 45 cast iron.
The Japanese received: 70 armor-piercing, 52 high-explosive, 22 segment and 44 cast iron.
In Madagascar, Eagle used up 27 12 "shells

Clado wrote that the full ammunition load is 80 rounds per gun, half, respectively 40
As I understand it, the standard: 24 armor-piercing + 24 high-explosive + 24 cast iron + 8 segment / buckshot = 80
The materials of the commission of inquiry, however, give the following figures:
27 armor-piercing + 27 high-explosive + 6 segment = 60
In your opinion, "Eagle" took on 1 gun:
18 armor-piercing + 36 high-explosive + 11,25 cast iron + 6 segment = 71,25

that is, in Madagascar, the "Eagle" spent BATTLE FUGASES to keep the TRAINING IRONES?
this is not very friendly with common sense, so you have to look for another version

Perhaps, the data on the RELEASE to the "Eagle" of ammunition in the port are incorrect / incomplete?
Perhaps, 320 rounds of the main caliber were loaded into the Oryol:
18 armor-piercing + 36 high-explosive + 6 segment = 60 shells of the main ammunition
and 15 cast iron + "5 training per gun" = 20

Then "Eagle" really shot all the training shells in Madagascar
Firing during the battle 2 armor-piercing, 92 high-explosive and a dozen cast-iron "for zeroing" "Eagle", firstly, showed the expected rate of fire from it, and secondly, acted strictly according to the instructions

[rytik32]

As far as I understand, the cast-iron shells with black powder were removed from service, but some of their reserves remained. Therefore, they were used in Port Arthur (Cherkasov writes about them and Packinham gives a diagram of their structure). And at 2TOE they were given as training.
According to this respected participant of the Tsushima forum, in those testimonies of the Eagle artillerymen, which were not included in the collection, the presence of a significant number of cast-iron shells at the time of delivery is confirmed. So the Japanese were not wrong.

[Andrey Shmelev]

So the Japanese were not wrong.

then my version that "Eagle" fired not 52 shells (obtained by subtracting from 240), but more than 130 shells of the main battery (obtained by subtracting from 320) becomes quite viable :)

[Saxahorse]

Quote: rytik32

in those testimonies of the "Eagle" artillerymen, which were not included in the collection, the presence of a significant number of cast-iron shells at the time of delivery is confirmed

I involuntarily recall the testimony of the commander Pearl. He claimed that most of the practical shells received in the 20% overload were taken to Tsushima. They simply did not shoot them in reality near Madagascar, the shooting there seemed to be the most minimal, more maneuvering and swearing ZPR.

[Kayuk]

in battle, Eagle presumably fired 70 12 "shells

And after that, trust Battalier Novikov about the remaining 2 shells in the aft main turret. Although, most likely, the artillerymen had in mind high-explosive shells. But now very often you come across exactly 2 (Two) remaining shells.

[Trapperxnumx]

As always, lucid and detailed. Thank!
If you open your site or publish on your page anywhere please inform)

[Comrade]

Quote: Trapper7

As always, lucid and detailed. Thank!

And thank you for your kind words and support.

Quote: Trapper7

If you open your site or publish on your page anywhere please inform

Required.

[nnz226]

If the newest Russian battleships (except for the "Eagle") gurgled like irons in the sea, and none of the Japanese were drowned, then: 1) our shots fired badly and hit a little (the Japanese fell, the Russian battleships drowned); 2) ours hit well, the shells were crappy (they did not cause fatal damage to Japanese ships); 3) the design of our ships and armor were shitty and were struck by the Japanese shimosa so that the fatal result was inevitable. Delete the unnecessary. The heroism of Russian sailors is not questioned and not discussed!

[BorisN]

1st Pacific was probably better prepared

[Biodred]

It's a strange logic to calculate the rate of fire without considering the situation. Say, if a sniper was in ambush and fired two shots in a day, the author would come to the conclusion that shitty sniper training and a shitty rifle provide a one-shot rate of fire in 4-5 hours? But the sniper is not engaged in stupid ammunition consumption! So the Japs did not shoot evenly for some time, but as the situation allowed. And to say with a clever air that in 40 minutes they could fire 10 shells is utter nonsense. They could be over 40 and not release a single one - you never know how the situation will turn out.