Military Review

Russian and German large-caliber naval guns of the First World War

141

A long time ago, in my first series of articles published on "VO" and dedicated to dreadnoughts of the "Sevastopol" type, I suggested that if by some miracle in the Battle of Jutland, four Russian dreadnoughts appeared in place of the battle cruisers Beatty, then the 1st reconnaissance group Hipper would have expected a complete rout. And then, and much later, in a discussion of my other materials on dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts of the First World War, I was repeatedly asked to simulate such a battle. Well, why not?


What is this cycle about?


In the materials offered to your attention, I will try to collect the necessary data to model the possible results of the confrontation between our Baltic dreadnoughts and German battlecruisers.

To do this, it is necessary to understand the capabilities of the Russian and German naval artillery in terms of armor penetration and the power of shells. Compare the quality of Russian and German armor. Compare booking systems in order to assess the free maneuvering zones of ships. Examine the capabilities of the LMS and determine the estimated number of hits. And then just start, actually, to the comparison.

It would be nice, of course, to balance the combat capabilities of the Sevastopol with those of the Kaiser's battleships. But not at this time. Because for this it is necessary to disassemble in detail the design of the German dreadnoughts. By analogy with how I did it in the cycle dedicated to the comparison of battlecruisers in England and Germany. However, this work has not yet been done. So we'll come back to this question sometime later.

I would like to make a special note: I will be extremely grateful to dear readers for any constructive criticism. Please do not hesitate to comment if you find any mistake in my publication.

For my part, I will attach to the main text of the articles the formulas I used and the initial data for calculations. So that those who wish could easily check the data.

Well, I'll start with an assessment of the capabilities of the Russian and German large-caliber naval artillery, which armed the ships of the dreadnought era of Russia and Germany.

Russian empire


It's easy to write about Russian artillery systems. Because it was only one - the famous 305-mm / 52 cannon of the Obukhov plant arr. 1907 year.

Russian and German large-caliber naval guns of the First World War

Of course, the domestic naval thought did not stop at 12 inches. And in the future, 356-mm artillery systems were created for battlecruisers of the Izmail type and 406-mm - for promising battleships. But the fourteen-inch guns did not have time to complete the full course of tests before the end of the First World War and were not installed on warships. And the sixteen-inch cannon did not even have time to be made, although the order for it was issued. Therefore, I will not consider these tools. And the same goes for the older 254mm / 50 and 305mm / 40 guns. Since the last armed squadron battleships and armored cruisers. They were never intended to be installed on dreadnoughts.

The Russian 305-mm / 52 cannon is interesting in that it was originally created according to the concept of "light projectile - high muzzle velocity". It was assumed that a lightweight 331,7 kg projectile with an initial speed of 914 m / s, and then even 975 m / s, would be fired from it.

But already in the process of creating a gun, domestic artillerymen came to the need to switch to the concept of "heavy projectile - low muzzle velocity". Which led to the appearance of arr. 1911, the mass of which was 470,9 kg, but the muzzle velocity dropped to 762 m / s.

Trinitrotoluene (TNT) was used as an explosive, the amount of which in an armor-piercing shell was 12,96 kg, and in a high-explosive shell - 58,8 kg. The sources also mention semi-armor-piercing projectiles, the weight of explosives in which reached 61,5 kg. (But due to some ambiguities, I leave them outside the scope of this article). With a maximum elevation angle of 25 °, the firing range was 132 cables or 24 m.

The Baltic battleships of the "Sevastopol" type and the Black Sea ones of the "Empress Maria" type were armed with just such weapons.

Germany


Unlike Russian sailors, who were forced in World War I to be content with a large-caliber artillery system of one project, the German High Sea Fleet was armed with as many as 4 types of such weapons (not counting those that were installed on pre-dreadnoughts, of course). I will describe them in order of increasing combat power.

The first weapon that entered service with the dreadnoughts was the 279 mm / 45 cannon.


Its shells had a mass of 302 kg, and an initial velocity of 850 m / s. The German ones for all dreadnought guns, like the Russian ones, were equipped with TNT (which greatly simplifies the comparison of ammunition for us). But, unfortunately, I do not have accurate data on the content of explosives in 279-mm shells. According to some reports, the mass of explosives in an armor-piercing 302 kg projectile reached 8,95 kg. But I know absolutely nothing about high-explosives. The firing range of 279 mm / 45 guns reached 18 m at an elevation angle of 900 °. The first German dreadnoughts of the "Nassau" class and the battle cruiser "Von der Tann" were equipped with such weapons.

Further for the needs fleet a more powerful 279 mm / 50 gun was created. She fired the same shells (as the 279 mm / 45), but with an initial speed increased to 877 m / s. However, the maximum elevation angle of these guns in turret mounts was reduced to 13,5 °. Thus, despite the increase in initial speed, the firing range decreased slightly and amounted to 18 100 m. The improved 279 mm / 50 guns were received by the Moltke and Seidlitz battle cruisers.


279 mm / 50 gun "Goebena".

The next step towards improving the armament of German ships was the creation of an artillery masterpiece - 305-mm / 50 cannon. It was an extremely powerful artillery system for its caliber, firing 405-kg armor-piercing and 415 kg high-explosive shells, the content of explosives in which reached 11,5 kg and 26,4 kg, respectively. The initial rate of fire (405 kg shells) was 875 m / s. The range at an elevation angle of 13,5 ° was 19 m. Such guns were used on battleships of the Ostfriesland, Kaiser, and Koenig types and battle cruisers of the Derflinger type.

But the pinnacle of the "gloomy Aryan sea genius" was not this, in every respect, an outstanding artillery system, but the monstrous 380-mm / 45 gun mod. 1913. This "supercannon" used armor-piercing and high-explosive shells weighing 750 kg (possibly, the weight of the armor-piercing shell was 734 kg), containing 23,5 and 67,1 kg TNT, respectively. An initial speed of 800 m / s provided a firing range of 23 m at an elevation angle of 200 °. Such guns received "Bayern" and "Baden", which became the only superdreadnoughts of the Kaiserlichmarine.


We consider armor penetration


To calculate the armor penetration of Russian and German guns, I used the classic formula of Jacob de Marr.

At the same time, for all the guns, I adopted the coefficient K equal to 2000. Which roughly corresponds to the classic cemented Krupp armor of the late 279th century. This is not entirely correct. Since the quality of 305-mm, 380-mm and XNUMX-mm shells could differ slightly. But it can be assumed that this difference was not too great. Thus, the calculations below can be considered as a result of the impact of all of the above artillery systems on the cemented Krupp armor, which it was at the very beginning of the XNUMXth century.

In order to obtain the initial data for the calculations (the angle of incidence and the velocity of the projectile at a certain distance), I used the ballistic calculator "Ball" version 1.0 dated 23.05.2011/XNUMX/XNUMX developed by Alexander Martynov (whom I, taking this opportunity, sincerely thank for creating such useful program). The calculation was simple. Having set the values ​​of the mass and caliber of the projectile, its initial velocity, the maximum elevation angle and the firing range with it, the coefficient of the shape of the projectile was calculated, which was used for further calculations. The form factors are as follows:

Russian 305 mm 470,9 kg shell - 0,6621.
German 279 mm 302 kg shell for 279 mm / 45 guns - 0,8977.
German 279 mm 302 kg shell for 279 mm / 50 guns - 0,707.
German 305 mm 405 kg shell - 0,7009.
German 380 mm 750 kg shell - 0,6773.

An interesting strangeness is noteworthy. This indicator for the 279 mm / 45 and 279 mm / 50 guns is quite different, although the mass of the projectile is identical.

The resulting angles of incidence, projectile velocity on armor and armor penetration at K = 2000 are shown in the table below.


However, it should be borne in mind that the real armor penetration in cases where the armor thickness exceeds 300 mm must be higher than the indicated values. This is due to the fact that with an increase in the thickness of the armor plate, its relative armor resistance begins to fall. And, for example, the calculated armor resistance of a 381 mm plate in practice will be confirmed only by a plate with a thickness of 406 mm. To illustrate this thesis, I will use a table from "The Last Giants of the Russian Imperial Navy" by S. E. Vinogradov.


Let's take a 300 mm armor plate made from Krupp armor of a certain quality, giving a coefficient of K = 2000 in relation to, say, a Russian 470,9 kg projectile. So, armor of 301 mm, made of absolutely the same armor, will have K slightly below 2000. And the thicker the armor plate is, the more K will decrease. over 300 mm thickness, I could not. But the formula I use gives a pretty good approximation:

y = 0,0087x2 - 4,7133x + 940,66, where
y is the actual thickness of the pierced armor plate;
x is the estimated thickness of the penetrated armor plate with constant K.

Accordingly, taking into account the relative decrease in the resistance of the armor plates, the calculation results took the following values.


Important caveat


First of all, I very much ask the dear reader not to try to use the above data to simulate a naval battle between Russian, German and other warships. They are unsuitable for such use because they do not take into account the real quality of Russian and German armor. After all, if, for example, it turns out that the Russian armor will have K <2000, and the German armor, on the contrary, K> 2000, then it is obvious that the armor penetration of shells at different distances will also change.

These tables are only suitable for comparing Russian and German naval guns when firing at armor of the same quality. And, of course, after the author has dealt with the durability of the products of German and Russian armored vehicles, the data on the angles of incidence and the speed of shells on the armor will be very important for further calculations.

Some conclusions


In general, it can be seen that the Russian approach "heavy projectile - low muzzle velocity" was noticeably more advantageous than the German concept "light projectile - high muzzle velocity". So, for example, the German 305-mm / 50 cannon fired a 405 kg projectile with an initial speed of 875 m / s. And the Russian - 470,9 kg projectile with a speed of only 762 m / s. Using the famous formula "mass multiplied by the square of the speed in half", we find that the kinetic energy of the German projectile at the exit from the barrel is about 13,4% higher than that of the Russian. That is, the German artillery system is more powerful.

But, as you know, a lighter projectile loses speed and energy faster in flight. And it turns out that already at a distance of 50 cables, the Russian and German artillery systems are equalized in armor penetration. And then the advantage of the Russian gun goes on increasing. And at a distance of 75 cables, the advantage of the Russian gun is already quite noticeable 5,4%, even taking into account the worst (from the point of view of armor penetration) angle of inclination of the projectile when falling. At the same time, the Russian armor-piercing projectile (being heavier) has some advantage in armor action, since it has a high explosive content: 12,96 against 11,5 kg (again, by almost 12,7%).

The advantages of the Russian artillery system are also visible in comparison with high-explosive shells. First, the Russian high-explosive projectile has the same mass as the armor-piercing one. And therefore does not require separate shooting tables for itself, which is an undoubted advantage. Although, strictly speaking, I do not know how this issue was resolved in the Kaiser's fleet. Perhaps they were able to adjust the powder charge so that the firing ranges of the armor-piercing and high-explosive at all elevation angles were equal? But even if so, the explosive capacity still remains, and here the Russian projectile with its 58,8 kg simply has an overwhelming advantage. The German 415 kg land mine had only 26,4 kg, that is, it was slightly less than 44,9% of the Russian.

And you need to understand that such an advantage of the Russian shell was very important in a duel against armored opponents. At a great distance, where one could no longer expect much from armor-piercing shells, a powerful land mine would easily destroy the relatively thin decks of the enemy. And when bursting about them, with its own fragments and pieces of armor, it could well cause great damage to the compartments in the citadel.

And if it hit the armor, a land mine could do things. In this case, the rupture of its explosives (in combination with the energy of the projectile itself) could still overcome the defense, driving fragments of armor and a projectile into the armor-plated space. Of course, the striking effect in this case will be much weaker than when the armor-piercing projectile passes through the armor as a whole. But he will. And at such distances where an armor-piercing projectile will no longer penetrate the barrier. Russian high-explosive shells managed to penetrate even 250-mm armor at long distances.

In other words, at a distance of up to 50 cables, the Russian gun was inferior to the German one in armor penetration, and then surpassed. Despite the fact that the power of the Russian shells was higher. Let us now recall that the German 305-mm / 50 gun was more powerful, since it reported more energy to its projectile when fired than the Russian one.

If, as a result of this, the German gun provided better armor penetration, this could be considered an advantage. But distances less than 5 miles for dreadnoughts are more likely force majeure. Which can of course happen. Let's say in poor visibility conditions. But still this is an exception to the rule.

The rule will be a fight for 70-75 cables. That can be considered an effective battle distance, with which the LMS of those times could well provide a sufficient number of hits to disable or destroy an enemy ship of the line. But at such distances, the advantage in armor penetration is already behind the Russian gun. And the great power of the German twelve-inch machine no longer turns out to be an advantage, but a disadvantage. Since the stronger the impact on the trunk, the less its resource.

Another credit to the German artillery system could be the flatness of the shooting, which seems to provide the best accuracy (although there is something to talk about). But the fact is that the flatness of the Russian and German artillery systems (12-inch caliber) did not differ too much. On the same 75 cables, the German shell fell at an angle of 12,09 °, and the Russian one - 13,89 °. The difference of 1,8 ° could hardly provide the German cannon with noticeably better accuracy.

Thus, we can safely state the superiority of the domestic 305-mm / 52 artillery system over the German 305-mm / 50.

There is nothing to say about the 279-mm / 50 and 279-mm / 45 German guns. At a distance of 75 cables, they lost more than 1,33 and 1,84 times in armor penetration to the Russian XNUMX-inch machine, respectively.

And although, unfortunately, I could not find out reliably the content of explosives in 302 kg of German shells. But it (obviously) was significantly lower than in the Russian 470,9 kg.

But, of course, no matter how good the Russian twelve-inch gun was at its level, it could not stand comparison with the 380-mm / 45 German artillery system. The concept of "heavy projectile - low muzzle velocity" did not help. Even the relatively light 750 kg armor-piercing projectile "Bayern" or "Baden" had an explosive charge of 81% more. Despite the fact that its armor penetration at a distance of the same 75 cables was 21,6% higher.

What can I say here? Of course, the increase in caliber to 380 mm led the Germans to create a new generation artillery system, with which no 305-mm cannon could ever be close.

That is why the transition of the leading naval powers to guns with a caliber of 380ꟷ410 mm actually canceled the protection of battleships of the era of the First World War and demanded completely different schemes, thickness and quality of armor.

But this series of articles is not devoted to post-Utland superdreadnoughts. That is why in the next article I will try to understand the armor resistance of the Russian armor used in the construction of the Sevastopol-class battleships.

To be continued ...
Author:
141 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. polpot
    polpot 10 December 2020 18: 09
    +9
    Thank you, we look forward to continuing.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 10 December 2020 19: 10
      +6
      Andrey is glad to read you, sincerely Vlad!
    2. Jura 27
      Jura 27 11 December 2020 17: 30
      0
      [/ quote] But the angles of incidence, the speed of the projectile on the armor, I checked - I compared the calculated data with real tables 305-mm / 52. It turned out very close [quote]

      Really ???
      1. Jura 27
        Jura 27 11 December 2020 17: 33
        0
        And even the German caliber of 279mm strains me a lot, I have never met such a strange caliber from the Germans, they always and everywhere wrote - 28cm.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        11 December 2020 21: 12
        +1
        Quote: Jura 27
        Really ???

        Really
  2. SaLaR
    SaLaR 10 December 2020 18: 21
    +1
    Sword and Shield .................... and who will finally win ........... request
  3. NF68
    NF68 10 December 2020 18: 27
    +10
    Good day, Andrey. As far as I know, the initial speed of the German is 305 mm. armor-piercing projectile PMV weighing 405 kg. was equal to 855 m / s, and not 875 m / s. Later, armor-piercing shells of a new type created closer to the beginning of WWII weighed 415 kg. and had an initial speed of 850 m / s.

    And again, with regard to the thickness of the armor pierced by the projectiles, here, too, everything is not unambiguous, since these projectiles could "differently" penetrate the armor, depending on the angle of the projectile hitting the armor. And a lot depended on the armor itself. For example, after WWII, the Americans tested their new 680 kg. 356 mm. armor-piercing shells and English 721 kg. 356 mm. armor-piercing shells and it turned out that the British are not much inferior to the American at a greater angle of encounter of the shell with the armor.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 10 December 2020 19: 22
      +5
      Quote: NF68
      Later, armor-piercing shells of a new type created closer to the beginning of WWII weighed 415 kg. and had an initial speed of 850 m / s.

      According to the 1940 Merkbuch for the 30,5 cm SK L / 50 gun, the armor-piercing shell still weighed 405 kg and had a speed of 855 m / s.
      1. NF68
        NF68 11 December 2020 19: 02
        0
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Quote: NF68
        Later, armor-piercing shells of a new type created closer to the beginning of WWII weighed 415 kg. and had an initial speed of 850 m / s.

        According to the 1940 Merkbuch for the 30,5 cm SK L / 50 gun, the armor-piercing shell still weighed 405 kg and had a speed of 855 m / s.


        There were also 415 kg. shells. Before WWII they were developed for the new 56-caliber 30.5 cm / 56 (12 ") SK C / 39.

        World War II
        APC L / 3,4: 2,805 fps (855 mps)
        APC L / 4,9: 2,789 fps (850 mps)
        http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_12-50_skc12.php


        http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_12-56_skc39.php

        I suppose that the Germans could well have used these shells for firing old 50-caliber guns.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 11 December 2020 19: 26
          0
          Quote: NF68
          I suppose that the Germans could well have used these shells for firing old 50-caliber guns.

          I doubt it ...
          At the end of the war, the "battleships" could not use shells for the 28 cm SK C / 34, but they wanted it very much.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 December 2020 19: 34
      +2
      Quote: NF68
      and as far as I know, the initial speed of the German is 305 mm. armor-piercing projectile PMV weighing 405 kg. was equal to 855 m / s, and not 875 m / s.

      855m / s had guns on all battleships. The guns of the Derflinger-class battle cruisers had an initial projectile velocity of 875 m / s and had high-explosive shells in their ammunition load.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 10 December 2020 22: 28
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        The guns of the Derflinger-class battlecruisers had an initial projectile velocity of 875 m /

        What is it like? With the same guns and charges, then? wink
        "30.5 cm / 50 (12") SK L / 50 - Helgoland, Kaiser, König and Derfflinger Classes "
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 11 December 2020 00: 11
          +1
          what The fact is that most likely, during the tests, such a result as 875ms was obtained. Therefore, in some, the source is given. The author also brought request By the way, EMNIP, for our 180mm cannons the muzzle velocity of the projectile was lowered for greater barrel survivability. Therefore, I consider this a breakdown of 20ms to be unimportant. smile The same goes for high-explosive shells. It seems they were, but in most of the first German LK and LKR, only armor-piercing or semi-armor-piercing shells appear in sets. Something like this repeat
          1. NF68
            NF68 11 December 2020 19: 12
            +2
            Quote: Rurikovich
            what The fact is that most likely, during the tests, such a result as 875ms was obtained. Therefore, in some, the source is given. The author also brought request By the way, EMNIP, for our 180mm cannons the muzzle velocity of the projectile was lowered for greater barrel survivability. Therefore, I consider this a breakdown of 20ms to be unimportant. smile The same goes for high-explosive shells. It seems they were, but in most of the first German LK and LKR, only armor-piercing or semi-armor-piercing shells appear in sets. Something like this repeat


            There were many things during the tests. For example, German experienced 406 mm. with a barrel length of 45 and 50 calibers. So for them, with a shell weight of 920 kg. originally expected to get the initial speed of the shells 890 m / s. for 45 caliber and 940 m / sec. for a 50-caliber, but after testing the Germans realized that they had raised the bars too high and, as a result, instead of 406 mm. GK went to 420 mm. with a barrel length of 45 calibers. The weight of the shells is 1000 kg. and an initial speed of 800 m / s.
  4. Thrifty
    Thrifty 10 December 2020 18: 40
    +1
    Andrei hi Time is short, I'm at work, I won't have time to search the Internet, so I will ask you a question - what kind of explosives were used in shells, both ours and German? Maybe you have not taken into account such a factor as a different type of explosives? And explosive could have different destructive power and because of different technologies for its creation!
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 10 December 2020 19: 16
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      What kind of explosives were used in the shells, both ours and the German ones?

      The Germans used Fullpuler 02 - this is how they "encrypted" TNT.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 06: 53
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      and what kind of explosives were used in the shells, both ours and the German ones? Maybe you have not taken into account such a factor as a different type of explosives?

      Taki wrote the same - TNT, that is, trinitrotoluene
  5. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 10 December 2020 18: 40
    +2
    279 mm / 45

    Not 283 mm?

    And therefore, it does not require separate shooting tables for itself, which is an undoubted advantage. Although, strictly speaking, I do not know how this issue was resolved in the Kaiser's fleet.

    I won't say about the WWII, but in WWII a similar situation was on the Scharnhorst type aircraft: BB weighed 330 kg, land mines 315 kg each. There were no separate tables for firing land mines - the same ones were used as for BB.
    1. Grossvater
      Grossvater 10 December 2020 19: 09
      +2
      Yes, the Germans have 283 mm
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 10 December 2020 20: 16
        +6
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        279 mm / 45

        Not 283 mm? ...

        Quote: Grossvater
        Yes, the Germans have 283 mm

        The author brought to the uniformity the system of gun calibers of Kazer Germany and the Russian Empire. In the first case, the calibers were measured by rifling, in our case, by the fields of the barrel. From here and inconsistencies with the 28 cm. German gun.
        By the way, few people bother prescribing them as an 11 inch or 280 mm gun.
        A classic example is the TT cartridge. We have 7,62x25, the Germans have 7,63x25.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 11 December 2020 00: 14
          +3
          Totally agree yes Personally, I have seen data from 11 to 279mm for 283 "guns. So it is not essential smile
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 11 December 2020 18: 25
            +1
            If you look at the drawings, then along the centering thickening, the diameter of the shell glass of the Russian 12 "shell is from 304 to 304,4 mm
            The German 11 "- from 282,5 to 282,8 mm.
    2. anzar
      anzar 11 December 2020 00: 17
      +2
      BB weighed 330 kg, land mines 315 each. Separate tables for firing land mines was not - used the same as for the BB.

      For Russian shells of "the same weight" such tables would also not hurt, since the weight / beginning. the speed may be the same, but their ballistic coefficient is different due to different lengths (5 and 3,9 klb.) That is 70-90sb. is already significant. And this cannot be fixed.
      The Germans have a difference in length / ball. There is no coefficient, the "fee" for this is some difference in weight ... If you mess with the charge a little, everything is OK
      ps All the same, the tables did not make it possible to hit the first volley)) And during the zeroing, the differences were corrected. And changing the type of projectile is rare
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 11 December 2020 23: 07
        0
        Quote: anzar
        If you play a little with a charge, everything is OK

        There is no place for shamanism. The charge is in two parts, front and main. There is a variant of firing without the front one - the speed immediately drops to howitzer speed, about 600 m / s. Dramatically improves barrel life.
      2. zuleb
        zuleb 9 February 2021 11: 53
        0
        A ballistic tip was placed on the BB
  6. Petro_tut
    Petro_tut 10 December 2020 18: 54
    0
    In the Mounzudon battle, EB "Slava" "had to flood the compartments in order to increase the firing range for the German battleships fired at it from a greater distance
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 10 December 2020 19: 44
      +2
      And what does Glory have to do with it?
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 10 December 2020 20: 23
      +3
      The squadron battleship "Slava" had old 12-inch 40-caliber guns. Our Gangut-class battleships were already armed with long 12-inch guns - 52 caliber.
      However, the old 12 inches did not interfere with driving on the Black Sea of ​​Goeben with the conditionally newer 11 inches.
  7. tasha
    tasha 10 December 2020 19: 07
    +2
    Let's wait and read. Oh, and they chose a difficult topic. Too many different factors ...

    even if so, the explosive capacity still remains, and here the Russian projectile with its 58,8 kg simply has an overwhelming advantage.

    Andrey, according to other sources, the Russian 1911 high-explosive projectile contained 61,4 kg of explosives. "According to this characteristic, he also left far behind similar British and German high-explosive shells. The first was loaded with 48,3 kg of liddite, the second - 27 kg of TNT."

    I will leave a link to an article that is interesting for you, I don’t know if it will remain after moderation.

    http://history.milportal.ru/proizvodstvo-morskix-12-dm-snaryadov-v-rossii-nakanune-pervoj-mirovoj-vojny/
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 10 December 2020 19: 28
      +4
      Quote: tasha
      Andrey, according to other sources, the Russian high-explosive projectile of the 1911 model contained 61,4 kg of explosives.

      There were several designs (drawings) for the 12 "/ 52 high-explosive projectile, and the weight of the explosives in the projectiles ranged from 41,3 to 61,5 kg.
      1. tasha
        tasha 10 December 2020 19: 38
        +3
        I do not argue. I am relying on the article (link in the comment)

        “After a series of intensive experimental firing in 1909 and 1910, a new type of projectile weighing 470,9 kg was put into service on October 18, 1911 under the name“ 1911 model projectile. ”From now on, all 12-inch guns in 52 caliber lengths of dreadnought battleships and the coastal defense were to receive combat supplies only in the form of shells of this promising model. "
        "The main was a high-explosive projectile with a relative length of 5 calibers (the largest in the world) with a content of 61,4 kg of explosive"
      2. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 11 December 2020 14: 32
        +1
        By the way, I will note that there was also a high-explosive shell mod. 1911 with head fuse
    2. stafford41
      stafford41 10 December 2020 20: 07
      +2
      From this article, it can also be cited that the Russian high-explosive 12-inch projectile in 5 calibers arr. 1911 was actually not high-explosive. The bottom fuse and the armor-piercing tip made this projectile a specific armor-piercing projectile for working on not very thick armor.
      1. tasha
        tasha 11 December 2020 04: 48
        +1
        Yes, further the author of the article writes:
        “The new Russian projectile with an armor-piercing tip and a bottom fuse was actually“ moderately armor-piercing ”and was later officially reclassified as“ semi-armor-piercing ”in the Soviet Navy.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 06: 55
      +1
      Quote: tasha
      ndrey, according to other sources, the Russian high-explosive projectile of the 1911 model contained 61,4 kg of explosives.

      Yes, and it is sometimes called semi-armor-piercing.
      1. tasha
        tasha 11 December 2020 07: 18
        0
        Unfortunately, I cannot find the full text of Vinogradov's article. Could it be that at the moment of a probable battle at the "Sevastopol" in the cellars only BB and semi-armor-piercing shells?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 December 2020 07: 51
          +1
          Quote: tasha
          Unfortunately, I cannot find the full text of Vinogradov's article. Could it be that at the moment of a probable battle at the "Sevastopol" in the cellars only BB and semi-armor-piercing shells?

          I doubt it. There is generally a lot of confusion with these high-explosive / semi-armor-piercing ones, so for the purity of the experiment I will leave the high-explosive ones. In the end - the difference is very, very small
          1. tasha
            tasha 11 December 2020 11: 55
            +1
            Indeed, the confusion is great.

            The fact is that while reading the article and working on the comments, I wondered what kind of shells the batteries of Sevastopol and battleships (for example, "Marat") fired at the Great Patriotic War and with what effect ...

            I will share one more Friday thought. Probably, when simulating a battle on the topic of your article, you can collect all the available parameters, their possible values, combine them and set some algorithms on the resulting set (not to mention machine learning, although it would be very interesting :)).
      2. unknown
        unknown 11 December 2020 22: 34
        -2
        I met information, for a long time, now I don’t remember the source that there was also a projectile of the 1912 model, weighing 512 kg.
        Did such a shell really exist?
        If it existed in real life, then why was it not in the ammunition load of Russian battleships?
  8. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 December 2020 19: 18
    +4
    My regards hi
    Shells for 279/45 mm guns.
    But, unfortunately, I do not have accurate data on the content of explosives in 279-mm shells. According to some reports, the mass of explosives in an armor-piercing 302 kg projectile reached 8,95 kg. But I know absolutely nothing about high-explosives.

    I will give a link
    A semi-armor-piercing projectile with a length of 3,2 caliber (896 mm) with a bottom fuse had an explosive charge (2,88) kg (2%). Color: red with black head. The second type with a length of 3 caliber (840 mm) was a solid steel projectile (blank) with an armor-piercing cap. Color: blue with black edging

    And armor penetration
    A solid steel projectile (blank) with a length of 3 caliber at a distance of 1000 m at a meeting angle of 60-90 ° pierced a 600-mm plate of rolled iron armor, a 420-mm plate of compound armor and a 300-mm plate of surface-hardened steel-nickel armor. A 3,2-caliber semi-armor-piercing projectile with a bottom fuse, when hitting a plate of hardened steel-nickel armor at an angle of 90 ° meeting at a distance of 4000 m, pierced a 413-mm plate, at a distance of 8000 m - 319-mm.

    As you can see, the high-explosive shells were not included in the ammunition of this gun. Ammunition was
    The total ammunition (combat stock) of the main caliber artillery was 900 rounds (75 per barrel). According to sources [10] and [11], the Nassau and Posen's standard ammunition included 720 semi-armor-piercing shells [L / 3,2 (Psgr = Panzersprenggranaten)] 3,2 caliber (896 mm) long with a bottom fuse and 180 solid steel shells (blanks) [L / 3 (Stvg = Stahvollgeschossen)] 3 caliber length (840 mm), respectively, 60 and 15 per barrel

    According to one of the sources, the Reyland's ammunition also included high-explosive shells, but I think that this is unlikely, because subsequent battle cruisers with 279mm guns did not have high-explosive shells. And German pedantry will not allow deunification even for ships of the same series. Armor-piercing (semi-armor-piercing) are indicated everywhere.
    http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/schlachtschiff/01_main/20_nassau.html
    High-explosive shells appeared only on "Derflingers" and "Badens".
    On the new cycle - at last we got some interesting material! Plus undoubted good
    I look forward to continuing.
    With great respect, I hi drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 07: 08
      +1
      Thanks! Missed :)
  9. Mark kalendarov
    Mark kalendarov 10 December 2020 19: 30
    0
    I do not understand the other: why, with a weight of 750 kg, the weight is only 23,5 kg?
    In my opinion (not a specialist in centuries) this is very little. It turns out that the main emphasis during defeat was on destruction upon impact, not upon explosion?
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 10 December 2020 19: 36
      +5
      Quote: Mark Kalendarov
      It turns out that the main emphasis during defeat was on destruction upon impact, not upon explosion?

      To break apart in the volume of armor inside the ship, the armor must first be pierced, and in order to pierce it, you must have a VERY strong hull. Durable means thick-walled.
      Therefore, relatively little space remains for the explosives.
    2. Split
      Split 10 December 2020 23: 20
      +3
      The density of TNT is almost 5 times less than steel, respectively, it occupied 1/4 of the volume of the entire projectile. It is impossible further - the integrity of the BB is violated upon impact. The meaning of the BB shells is to pierce, and then the fuse with a delay initiates the explosion of the explosive itself and the destruction of the armor space by fragments of the shell itself. Additionally, there was a defeat by fragments of the armor itself (including even if there was no penetration)
    3. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 11 December 2020 14: 42
      +2
      The purpose of the armor-piercing explosives (namely, armor-piercing!) Does not detonate when penetrating thick armor, but when passing through the armor and (preferably) the bulkhead, break the projectile into a warhead and a fragmentation cone, acting due to kinetic energy. It is the large fragments of an armor-piercing projectile that inflict the main damage on mechanisms and pipelines. The warhead often pierces the ship right through (if it does not meet a solid obstacle in its path). The impact of radiation and shock wave of the explosion of an armor-piercing projectile is insignificant relative to a high-explosive one.
  10. BAI
    BAI 10 December 2020 19: 49
    +2

    Do what you want with me, but the shells in the photo are not from these guns. They will fit into the barrel if only made of rubber.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 December 2020 19: 58
      +7
      The shells are positioned much closer to the camera in space. That's why they seem bigger smile
  11. Undecim
    Undecim 10 December 2020 19: 52
    +4
    279 mm / 45 cannon
    But I know absolutely nothing about high-explosive
    However, such a projectile, apparently, was, since it is in the British directory Notes on German Shells, edition of 1916.

    True information is minimum. Perhaps there is more of it in the 1918 edition, but I don't have it yet.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 11 December 2020 02: 47
      +4
      An interesting strangeness is noteworthy. This indicator for the 279 mm / 45 and 279 mm / 50 guns is quite different, although the mass of the projectile is identical.
      Such a difference suggests that there is an error in the original data.
      There is a nuance for the 28 cm / 45 SK L / 45 gun.
      Projectile weight - 302 kg.
      The initial speed is 855 m / s, the elevation angle is 20 degrees, the maximum firing range at this elevation is 20500 m.
      With these parameters, the aspect ratio is 0,77.
      At an elevation angle of 16 degrees, the firing range was 18 meters.
      Data from http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-45_skc07.php#ammonote1
      NAVAL WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR ONE by NORMAN FRIEDMAN.
      Accordingly, for 28 cm / 50 SK L / 50 with the same projectile, muzzle velocity 880 m / s,
      at an elevation angle of 13,5 degrees - 18100 m,
      16,0 - 19100 m,
      22,5 - 21 m
      The form factor is in the range from 0,707 to 0,81
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        11 December 2020 13: 18
        0
        Such a difference suggests that there is an error in the original data.

        I agree. But which one?
        There is a nuance for the 28 cm / 45 SK L / 45 gun.
        Projectile weight - 302 kg.
        The initial speed is 855 m / s, the elevation angle is 20 degrees, the maximum firing range at this elevation is 20500 m.

        The problem is that, according to my data, this is not 20500, but 18 m. And not 900, but 855 m / s. I took the data from an imported source with which I worked when I wrote a series about battle cruisers. He's not at hand, it seems like Staff, I'll check myself in the evening and unsubscribe for sure.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 11 December 2020 13: 37
          +4
          I agree. But which one? Yes, that's the one not 20500, but 18 m. and not 900, but 855 m / s.
          I indicated my sources. I will try to find more.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            11 December 2020 13: 50
            +1
            Quote: Undecim
            I indicated my sources.

            I see. And I agree that your source is somehow more similar to the truth, the figures he cites are clearly better suited than those that I have. But Staff (if I'm not confusing anything) ate the dog on German ships and I must confess that I am in difficulty. If he was any Russian-speaking, he would take it into your numbers without objection, we have a lot of dreamers or incorrect translations, and so - doubts gnaw.
            I would be very grateful if you can find something else, especially since you have no language barrier
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 11 December 2020 14: 52
              +3
              Let's approach the question technically. We have an array of uniform results with insignificant deviations, which, moreover, does not contradict theory (for shells of those years and that shape with a radius of the ogival part of 2-4 caliber and a flat bottom). And there is one result that does not fit into this array. By checking, we have determined that there are parameters (valid) that bring it (the checked value) into the desired range. We consider the issue resolved and proceed to the next stage.
              Is it logical
              And I'm still trying to look for sources. I'm just now on my smartphone. So sorry for the clues.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                11 December 2020 15: 08
                +1
                Quote: Undecim
                Is it logical

                Absolutely. I am confused only by one thing - the repeatedly justified wisdom, which says:
                Logic is the enemy of the historian

                That is why I am asking you to see more. And yes - even if you don’t find it, I will still make the appropriate recalculations, but - with appropriate reservations.
    2. Undecim
      Undecim 11 December 2020 02: 53
      +4
      Here I was mistaken, this is a 28 cm Haubitze L / 12 shell, which was used in coastal defense.
      Found Notes on German Shells in the 1918 edition, so I'm fixing the error.


    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 07: 07
      +2
      As I have said many times, if I don’t know something, it doesn’t mean that there is no such thing :))))) Thank you for the interesting materials!
  12. Taoist
    Taoist 10 December 2020 20: 22
    +1
    It is very interesting ... Although (IMHO, of course) the real effectiveness of fire on an armored target in a real sea battle is impossible to simulate ... There are a lot of random factors.
  13. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 10 December 2020 20: 33
    +2
    Finally! New series of articles!
  14. Constanty
    Constanty 10 December 2020 20: 42
    +4
    I assumed that if by some miracle in the Battle of Jutland, four Russian dreadnoughts had appeared on the site of Beatty's battlecruisers, then Hipper's 1st reconnaissance group would have expected a complete defeat.


    An interesting concept - it is enough to replace Beatty's ships with the Sevastopol and one Empress. I just don't understand why there are considerations of different distances at which Russian and German guns are better or worse.
    The distance is precisely known, the angles and position relative to the fire are also known.
    Likewise, I don't know what the German 38cm SK from Baden is doing here - she did not participate in this match.

    I look forward to continuing the article and comparing enemy artillery resistance in this battle - remembering that the Hipper battleships also received 15-inch "chests" from the Evans-Thomasa ships, and they survived it. And they were definitely more powerful than the "twelve" Obukhovs.
    On the other hand, the Sevastopol was not a well-armored ship, as the tests with the Chesma showed.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 10 December 2020 20: 58
      +4
      Quote: Constanty
      that the battleships Hipper also received 15-inch "chests" from the Evans-Thomasa ships, and they survived this.

      1. British shells were prone to premature detonation (before armor penetration).
      2. There were no hits in really vital parts, such as BC cellars.
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 10 December 2020 23: 02
        0
        Ad.1) And how can we be sure that in the case of Russian shells everything would have been different - we are considering a hypothetical situation with the replacement of Big Cats with Sevastopol and personally I think that although the 305/52 were really successful guns they would have done less damage to Hipper's ships than the British 381mm or 343mm
        1. bayard
          bayard 11 December 2020 05: 54
          +1
          And if we consider that "Sevastopoli" went out to fight not against the Germans, but just against the British?
          If Nicholas had not blown the Russian-Japanese, it would have happened.
          And in this case, comparing the effectiveness of the fire of German and Russian ships on British armor ... just an honest refereeing is possible. After all, we need a comparison for use against the same armor.
          I think Andrey, in the continuation of the article, will consider just such a situation.
          In general, I prefer alternative history. repeat , when having defeated Japan and making it their protectorate, Russia and Germany are crushing the Anglo-Saxons together ... Moreover, the French in this mess would sooner be on our side ... Or they would be very quickly defeated.
          Japan, Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet are the targets of Russian politics and military intelligence, bequeathed to the unlucky son of Alexander-3.
          ... In the Atlantic, the Baltic Fleet, together with the German, would smash the Grand Fleet ... The Pacific Fleet, together with the German squadron, would drive the British around Southeast Asia, smoking from the colonies ... Turkey would surrender the straits without a fight ... And the victorious The Russian Army through Persia and the Hindu Kush would have entered India. yes
          Had Alexander-3 been alive, it would have happened, but ... the outstanding king had a son of a fool. request
          ... And yet such a WWI, where Russia and Germany are allies, and Austria-Hungary is on the dance floor ... I like it much more ...
          All that was necessary was to win the RYAV.
          And to save the koliny dad from an untimely illness.
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 11 December 2020 13: 38
            0
            I will reiterate how the author justifies this series of articles.
            I assumed that if by some miracle in the Battle of Jutland in place of the battlecruisers Beatty, four Russian dreadnoughts appeared, then Hipper's 1st reconnaissance group would have expected a complete defeat


            So, we are talking about the so-called "Battlecruiser Action" on May 31, 1916 and the battle of the 1st and 2nd line squadrons of adm Biti with the 1st reconnaissance group of Hipper.
            We know the course of both groups, time of hits, distances, etc.


            So, before us, as the author wrote, a problem that needs to be solved - how would "Sevastopol", Gangut "," Poltava "," Petropavlovsk "cope with instead of" Lion "," Princess Royal "," Queen Mary "," Tiger " , "New Zealand" and "Indefatigable"

            Would the Sevastopol, struck by the Von der Tan by two missiles in the stern and bow turrets, take off into the air, as Would the Sevastopol, struck by the Von der Tan by two shells in the stern and bow towers, take off into the air, as HMS Indefatigable,
            Would the Gangut have been blown up after being hit at 16.25:XNUMX pm by at least one large-caliber shell fired by the Derfflinger's gunners in the vicinity of the bow artillery towers?
            How will the Sevastopol's armor cope with German 283 and 305 caliber shells in this particular reality of this particular battle - when hit from the same distance and in the same places of the ship as the English cats?

            And vice versa whether in place of the battlecruisers Beatty, four Russian dreadnoughts appeared, then Hipper's 1st reconnaissance group would have expected a complete defeat How will German battlecruisers withstand hits from Russian 305/52 shells?

            For example, will the Seidlitz survive at 16.58 after being hit by 4 shells from Russian battleships, rather than the 305mm Queen Mary shell, or will it take more damage and sink?
            Here it is appropriate to compare the Russian 305/52 and English 343-mm shells weighing 562 and 567 kg.

            This version of the alternate history can be judged. In a broader context, this is only a curtain for the laurels of Obukhovsky's cannon (as for the mentioned article).
            These guns at that time, undoubtedly, were one of the best in their caliber, but here they did not mean a comparison of the guns themselves, but the idea cited in the author's introduction - "what if"
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              11 December 2020 13: 58
              +1
              Quote: Constanty
              I will reiterate how the author justifies this series of articles.

              I don’t think that the idea to create a device for correct comparison requires special excuses :)
              Quote: Constanty
              How will the Sevastopol's armor cope with German 283 and 305 caliber shells in this particular reality of this particular battle - when hit from the same distance and in the same places of the ship as the English cats?

              Let's see - how :))) With a calculator in hand
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 11 December 2020 14: 46
                0
                I would love to read your next articles, because they always contain a lot of interesting information.
                Here, however, I have referred to your own words from the introduction, as well as requests for comments and comments.

                Hence my comments - based on your own assumption from the introduction to the article, I find the comparison of the Russian 305 guns with the German ones, on the one hand, interesting and informative, undoubtedly, but not making a significant contribution to such an alternative version.
                It doesn't matter if the Russian guns are better than the German ones, how they affect the enemy ships, whether they are alternatively more effective than the English guns, and whether the Russian ships prove to be more resistant to German artillery fire.

                Leaving aside the comparison of Royal Navy and Russian fire control systems for the time being - will the system from Sevastopol be able to allow the same large number of hits?
                Or will such a meeting take place at a low speed of the Russian dreadnoughts, and will the Germans, not having an advantage of several knots, create more favorable conditions for battle?
            2. Victor Leningradets
              Victor Leningradets 11 December 2020 14: 59
              +2
              Tactically, Sevastopoli could not maintain contact with Hipper's ships. The move would not have been enough, they have parity with the Kaiser-Koenig. The result would be a classic Crossing "t ', and here Scheer's figure eight would be drawn. Our ships have a favorite linear-monotonous arrangement of towers, which sharply limits the possibility of firing on a collision course.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                15 December 2020 07: 04
                0
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Tactically, Sevastopoli could not maintain contact with Hipper's ships.

                In practice, when Hipper was "run over" by Evan-Thomas's battleships, his LCR reached a speed of as much as 23 knots
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 10 December 2020 23: 09
      +4
      On the other hand, the Sevastopol was not a well-armored ship, as the tests with the Chesma showed.

      The shooting of Chesma can be understood in two ways - either cardboard armor, or the uberpushka of the Obukhov plant
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        11 December 2020 08: 34
        +2
        Quote: Engineer
        The shooting of Chesma can be understood in two ways.

        This is the next article :)
      2. fone
        fone 23 December 2020 23: 20
        0
        Cardboard armor.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 07: 06
      +4
      Quote: Constanty
      The distance is precisely known, the angles and position relative to the fire are also known.

      Unfortunately no.
      Quote: Constanty
      Likewise, I don't know what the German 38cm SK from Baden is doing here - she did not participate in this match.

      If we were to take all the guns, why not grab her?
      Quote: Constanty
      remembering that the battleships Hipper also received 15-inch "chests" from the Evans-Thomasa ships, and they survived it.

      Yes. But they survived solely because of the quality of the British shells, but the 305-mm shells of the British inflicted decisive damage on Luttsov
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 11 December 2020 15: 09
        +2
        Quote:
        "Yes. But we survived solely because of the quality of the British shells, but the British 305-mm shells inflicted decisive damage on Luttsov."

        Here it is!
        Thank you, of course, for the excellent article, but who has what advantage up to 50 cab. and after - it doesn't matter. The enemy must be killed once - not riddled, cut to the saddle, smeared on the asphalt. You just need to get to the right place with a sufficiently lethal shell. Of course, with the growth of the power of the shells, the probability of this event increases, but to a large extent this advantage is leveled out by the accuracy of the fire and the rate of fire.
        1. Constanty
          Constanty 11 December 2020 15: 38
          0
          Let me remind you that two hits by 305-mm shells from HMS "Invicible", tragic for Lutsov, occurred much later than the battle with the battleships Beatty, and by that time SMS "Lützow" had received 16 hits with heavy shells, seven of which exploded on the line. water or lower.

          According to the article's assumptions, before meeting with HMS "Defense" and "Invicible" "Lutzow" should have been lying at the bottom, destroyed by Russian dreadnoughts. lol
        2. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 11 December 2020 18: 31
          +3
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          The enemy must be killed once - not riddled, cut to the saddle, smeared on the asphalt.

          That is why "Luttsov" sank at midnight ... :)
          It seems to me that there would be someone like Look on the Lyuttsov, and he would have gotten to Yade ...
          But there are only a few officers with the head.
  15. 27091965
    27091965 10 December 2020 20: 44
    +6
    But, as you know, a lighter projectile loses speed and energy faster in flight. And it turns out that already at a distance of 50 cables, the Russian and German artillery systems are equalized in armor penetration. And then the advantage of the Russian gun goes on increasing. And at a distance of 75 cables, the advantage of the Russian gun is already quite noticeable 5,4%, even taking into account the worst (from the point of view of armor penetration) angle of inclination of the projectile when falling. At the same time, the Russian armor-piercing projectile (being heavier) has some advantage in armor action, since it has a high explosive content: 12,96 against 11,5 kg (again, by almost 12,7%).


    ... At a great distance, where one could no longer expect much from armor-piercing shells, a powerful land mine would easily destroy the relatively thin decks of the enemy.


    Good evening.
    Dear Andrey. Thank you for continuing to write articles.
    The data you provided is very interesting, similar calculations on the effect on armor have already been made for 305 mm / 52 guns. The British battleship Queen Elizabeth was used for the calculation, not a large fragment from this edition. I don't know if you have it or not, but I think that it will be of interest to fans of the history of the Navy.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 10 December 2020 20: 59
      +1
      Quote: 27091965i
      not a large fragment from this edition.

      And what kind of book?
      1. 27091965
        27091965 10 December 2020 22: 32
        +4
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        And what kind of book?

    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 07: 00
      +3
      The data you provided is very interesting, similar calculations on the effect on armor have already been made for 305 mm / 52 guns. The British battleship Queen Elizabeth was used for the calculation.

      Dear Igor, I have a handbook for Goncharov :)))) But there are certain questions to him (including the K coefficient), so I don't use it directly. At the same time, I checked my calculations for 305 mm / 52 with his tables - it turned out very close, that is, the calculator is more or less fair
    3. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 11 December 2020 15: 11
      0
      It is important to note that when shooting at a reduced charge at high elevation angles, accuracy drops dramatically.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        12 December 2020 09: 52
        0
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        It is important to note that when shooting at a reduced charge at high elevation angles, accuracy drops dramatically.

        Why?:)
        1. Victor Leningradets
          Victor Leningradets 14 December 2020 12: 08
          0
          The scatter ellipse increases with the steepness of the trajectory. In addition to the influence of all aiming errors and taking into account the corrections, the inhomogeneity of the atmosphere in height and the precession of the "sluggish" projectile at the upper point of the trajectory affect. In fact, in this way it is good to fire at a target such as a city or an airfield, which the Americans practiced in 1944-1945.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            14 December 2020 12: 18
            0
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            The scatter ellipse increases with the steepness of the trajectory.

            The ellipse grows with the firing range. Look at the real data - for the same 305-mm / 52, the increase in dispersion with increasing range grows by 3-4 fathoms for every 10 cables up to 150 cables when the projectile falls at an angle of almost 55 degrees.
            1. Victor Leningradets
              Victor Leningradets 14 December 2020 13: 29
              0
              On the same charge, the parameters are related.
              The flatness of the gun, with sufficient barrel survivability, is the sister of accuracy. By the way, for 305-mm / 52 all parameters are quite balanced, and up to 100 cab shares the palm with the German 305-mm / 50.
              Another thing is a shell. The dense heavy shell of the Russian cannon works great on armor up to 406 mm! A German with a whole shell of no more than 350 mm will overcome. The most powerful 305-mm gun of the WWII era was designed by the Austrians (or Czechs) 450-kg / 800 m / s, however, with a barrel length of 45 calibers, they probably had problems with survivability.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                14 December 2020 13: 53
                0
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                On the same charge, the parameters are related.

                The reduced charge is also the same :)))) Accordingly, this also applies to him
  16. Comrade
    Comrade 10 December 2020 21: 12
    +5
    Dear Andrey, bravo!
    Frankly, I miss your work.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 07: 01
      +2
      Good day, dear colleague! Glad to see you hi
  17. faiver
    faiver 10 December 2020 21: 29
    +1
    We are waiting for the continuation of another interesting reading from the namesake from Chelyabinsk good
  18. D-Master
    D-Master 10 December 2020 21: 59
    +1
    Excellent article, we look forward to continuing!
  19. Split
    Split 10 December 2020 23: 04
    +1
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    A classic example is the TT cartridge. We have 7,62x25, the Germans have 7,63x25

    There, the difference is not in the fields and grooves, even in smaller calibers the difference, for example .15mm. In both cases, the field caliber! and really differs by one hundredth, 7.8mm EMNIP grooves.
    But 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 have exactly the same barrel (only the length of the rifling is different, and we measure it by the fields, they have it by the rifling)
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 December 2020 05: 23
      0
      And here the length I write about the diameter (from one barrel field to the opposite) or (from one rifling depth to the opposite).
      The M-16 and AK-74 barrels are also different. They have 6 rifling, we have 4, and the rifling (left and right). You probably had a diameter (caliber)? Alas, no, it is also not identical. As in artillery 152 and 155, but the difference with equal approaches to measurement is less than on paper.
      1. Split
        Split 11 December 2020 07: 43
        +1
        Initially, in the first paragraph smile I was talking about the diameter, I am aware that now the caliber always means the geometry of the cartridge itself. By the way, the enemy's cartridges were used by both the Germans and us, although this influenced the operational qualities
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        And here is the length

        I talked about the length of the rifling. and then already at the end as a comment.
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The M-16 and AK-74 barrels are also different. They have 6 rifling, we have 4, and the rifling (left and right)

        I didn’t say that the barrels can be changed, I was talking about the caliber in terms of the diameter of the barrel.
        By the way, the rifling of the M16 is right-handed hi, left-handed people used France, England and their colonies. And the direction has not influenced anything for a long time! It mattered when the barrels were screwed into the receiver and the movement of the bullet created a torque. Now the trunks are usually pressed and counter
        It only affects the derivation of the bullet in the appropriate direction.

        Well, about the number of grooves and what is better ... so many copies are broken that I will not speak, although it plays rall in the difference between the diameters of the fields and grooves.

        The French and British probably have left-handed for shooting in the southern hemisphere and to account for the Coriolis force laughing Joke of humor
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 December 2020 07: 50
          +1
          In the end, we talked about the same thing.
          1. Split
            Split 11 December 2020 08: 10
            +1
            Well, in principle, yes, just a colleague, I corrected you a little when you talked about the difference in diameters - here TT / Mauser is not entirely correct to give, because in wartime, cartridges were essentially interchangeable, the resource of weapons did not bother anyone.
            Yes, and most likely most of the machine tools for the production of sleeves were purchased in Germany, we were then, as it is customary to say "partners" right now, and even at the beginning of the century we had C96 Mauser no less than revolvers. but 7.62, not 3 - most likely due to the fact that our barrels were produced of exactly this caliber, and the bullets themselves. But this is not accurate, technical standards are needed, but I already have no crying
            Have a nice day drinks

            ZY By the way, at 5.45, as far as I heard, and in the tolerances - 5.4mm is indicated, 0.05 is the maximum tolerance, but I cannot vouch
  20. Engineer
    Engineer 10 December 2020 23: 31
    0
    The calculations are good, but it should be checked by comparing with other sources

    The Germans for their 305/50 indicate slightly lower data on penetration of 229 mm for 80 cabs (it is in Wiki with a link to Groener), but this is not important.
    It is clear that it is hardly possible to say for what quality of armor these data are given. But at least it is clear that the calculator does not count from the bulldozer. As a first approximation.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 07: 03
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      The calculations are good, but it should be checked by comparing with other sources

      The de Marra formula is used everywhere, there is no need to check it especially, especially since you are right - the sources indicating the armor penetration do not write for what armor it was calculated.
      But the angles of incidence, the speed of the projectile on the armor, I checked - I compared the calculated data with real tables 305-mm / 52. It turned out very close
  21. anzar
    anzar 11 December 2020 00: 45
    +1
    +++ bravo uv. Andrey, finally)) And then they finished off articles like "does the Russian fleet need an esmin - without him in the middle of the Atlantic"))
    if by some miracle in the Battle of Jutland, four Russian dreadnoughts had appeared in place of the battlecruisers Beatty, then Hipper's 1st reconnaissance group would have been completely defeated

    The miracle should include replacing the Russian CMU with German ones of the same weight, but with greater power. Otherwise, Hiper will not catch up with "running south"))
    By the way, why Hipper? Indeed, in Russian, names are always distorted with X (Hamlet, Hitler, Hanover, Hesse ...) And here is an exception laughing
  22. Potter
    Potter 11 December 2020 10: 45
    +1
    From the first words it became clear who the author is! Thanks for the article, I look forward to continuing.
  23. CTABEP
    CTABEP 11 December 2020 11: 51
    +1
    Finally, I have been waiting for this cycle for more than one year! I hope you will write a couple more articles on this topic before the New Year :).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 12: 41
      +3
      2 of them have already been written and all of them will be posted in December, It's just that there is very little time for writing lately, so I created a big backlog on several topics, and now I will post it :)
  24. DrEng527
    DrEng527 11 December 2020 15: 15
    +1
    "Although, unfortunately, I could not find out reliably the content of explosives in the 302 kg of German shells. But it (obviously) was much lower than in the Russian 470,9 kg."
    I recommend it as an analogue of the 1st approximation ... hi
    "base- and nose-fused HE shell with ballistic cap (Sprgr L / 4.4 m. Bdz. u. Kz. (mit Haube)) 284 kg (626 lb) 18.7 kg (41 lb) (TNT)" https: // en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_SK_L/40_gun
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2020 15: 23
      0
      Quote: DrEng527
      I recommend it as an analogue of the 1st approximation ...

      I'm not sure here - after all, the data for WWI and WWII could differ very decently. But thanks anyway!
  25. Scaffold
    Scaffold 11 December 2020 18: 40
    +1
    Welcome back! drinks
    But to start a new cycle ... I don't even know. Several old ones are not finished ... repeat
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 December 2020 07: 23
      +1
      Maxim, welcome!
      Quote: Scaffold
      some old ones are not finished ...

      Yes, except for the tanks (which I resumed) everything seems to be closed
      1. Scaffold
        Scaffold 14 December 2020 15: 54
        +1
        I could be wrong, but about the anti-aircraft guns of battleships and the USSR 2.0. Remained uncovered.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 December 2020 16: 06
          +3
          Quote: Scaffold
          I could be wrong, but about the anti-aircraft guns of battleships and the USSR 2.0. Remained uncovered.

          No, I closed the anti-aircraft guns, but everything is cunning there. To go further along the USSR LC, I just need armor penetration calculations - that is, I need this cycle in order to return to the USSR LC in the future :)))
          I myself did not expect this, honestly laughing crying I didn't think about when I took up our LCs
          "I'll take everything for blame,
          Link, hard labor, prison!
          But!
          I would like in July
          And preferably in Crimea ... "
          1. Scaffold
            Scaffold 14 December 2020 18: 26
            0
            The cycle of the USSR 2.0 is not over either. But he is very interesting.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              15 December 2020 05: 42
              +2
              Quote: Scaffold
              The cycle of the USSR 2.0 is not over either. But he is very interesting.

              Dragging it was psychologically difficult enough - no my cycle collected so much dirt in the comments. Nevertheless, I continue it implicitly - de-dollarization, after which I am again going to steer the economy of the country as a whole.
  26. ecolog
    ecolog 13 December 2020 00: 35
    +1
    In general, it is more fair to oppose battleships with battleships rather than with German battlecruisers. Although not everything is smooth here. The Derflinger has the main armor belt of 300 mm, while the Sevastopol has as much as 225 mm. There is nothing to say about the meeting with the German battleships. In addition, the "Sevastopol" has a low side, and as a result - disgusting seaworthiness and lower speed. This was not important for the Baltic, for which they were built, and the North Sea is a completely different story. In addition, visibility in this theater of operations is usually not high and the battle is likely to be at a sufficiently close distance, which will not allow the advantage of the Obukhov gun to materialize.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2020 10: 05
      0
      Quote: ecolog
      In general, it is more fair to oppose battleships with battleships, and not with German battle cruisers.

      Someday I will do this too. As I pointed out in the article, for this you need to analyze in detail the booking systems of German battleships, and I have not done this yet. But I have already posted such materials on battle cruisers.
      Quote: ecolog
      Although not everything is smooth here. Derflinger's main armor belt is 300 mm, while Sevastopol's is 225 mm.

      Here are just the height of Derflinger's armor belt was 5,75 m, of which the 300 mm section was only 2,2 m, the rest was 270 mm, and the thickness of the armor dropped to 150 mm from below, from above to 230 mm. At Sevastopol, the entire five-meter belt was 225 mm thick.
      Quote: ecolog
      In addition, the "Sevastopol" has a low side, and as a result - disgusting seaworthiness and lower speed.

      The battlecruisers of Germany had a very low side. At Derflinger, at full speed, the upper deck of the stern went under the water up to the barbet inclusive

      And nothing, did not interfere with the war.
      Quote: ecolog
      and the speed is lower.

      During combat, Hipper usually walked between 18 and 23 knots.
      Quote: ecolog
      In addition, visibility in this theater of operations is usually not high and the battle is likely to be at a fairly close distance.

      Jutland started at about 83 cables, but it was shot at long distances
      1. ecolog
        ecolog 13 December 2020 22: 30
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Here are just the height of Derflinger's armor belt was 5,75 m, of which the 300 mm section was only 2,2 m, the rest was 270 mm, and the thickness of the armor dropped to 150 mm from below, from above to 230 mm. At Sevastopol, the entire five-meter belt was 225 mm thick.

        This citadel is 225 mm, and the bow is 125 mm, aft or 125 or nothing at all. And this is still a battleship. And his armor is sharpened for medium artillery. As if a repetition of Tsushima is expected.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        During combat, Hipper usually walked between 18 and 23 knots.

        Usually it doesn't mean always. Having a high passport speed can always leave the battle if something goes wrong.
        Shl then my grandmothers on the bench at the entrance whispered to me that "Sevastopol" did not have a central guidance system. Go and lie.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 December 2020 06: 52
          0
          Quote: ecolog
          This citadel is 225 mm, and the bow is 125 mm, aft or 125 or nothing at all

          Like absolutely all other battleships of that time. For example, the same Queen Elizabeth had 102 mm in the bow and stern, or nothing at all :)
          Quote: ecolog
          And his armor is sharpened for medium artillery.

          Yes, at one time such an erroneous point of view was widespread
          Quote: ecolog
          Usually it doesn't mean always. Having a high passport speed can always leave the battle if something goes wrong.

          Yes. But, in our case - having managed to snatch off the not weak lyulya and disrupting the fulfillment of the combat mission.
          Quote: ecolog
          Shl then my grandmothers on the bench at the entrance whispered to me that "Sevastopol" did not have a central guidance system. Go and lie.

          You'd better ask the attendants what they mean by central guidance systems. I hunt to laugh
      2. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 14 December 2020 13: 31
        0
        Not only in Derflinger, but also in the later Rhinaun and Hood.
        However, this did not interfere with either maneuvering or firing.
    2. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 14 December 2020 12: 26
      0
      I will join.
      If you are an alternative - so at least plausible.
      If we consider the Baltic dreadnoughts in action against the ships of the Kaiser, then it is more reasonable to consider the first squadron of battleships Hochseeflotte plus Seidlitz in 1915 carrying out something like Operation Albion - a landing in the Baltic in the rear of the Northern Front with an attack on Petrograd. In short, the Kaiser, full of afterthought, went to-for-a-bank with the aim of eliminating the Eastern Front.
      Since the morale on both sides is still high, a decisive battle can be expected.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        14 December 2020 13: 17
        +1
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        I will join.
        If you are an alternative - so at least plausible.

        And it is plausible that the Russian dreadnoughts had combat contact with the battle cruiser of Germany. In addition, if in the 15th our dreadnoughts risked going to sea, when the Germans were pounding into Riga, contact with a high probability would have been with Hipper's group.
        1. Victor Leningradets
          Victor Leningradets 14 December 2020 14: 24
          -1
          Hardly!
          Most likely it was the dreadnoughts of the first squadron. Posen - against battleships, Helgoland - against Sevastopol. Well, Moltke (or Von der Tann) versus Rurik. The Royal Nine and the latest battlecruisers would remain guarding the Skagerrak. Not the theater to maneuver widely and arrange races. The maximum stroke at these depths is 18 -19 knots. Plus mine danger for the Germans and underwater - for us. And most importantly - the conditions of visibility (distance) and the training of the crews. Let's not forget about the night battle and the actions of cruisers (alas) and destroyers (alas, alas). So in a day's battle, having lured the enemy into shallow water, substituting old battleships, it is necessary to attack the German dreadnoughts from the west with a four of Sevastopol.
          By the way, the booking of the first two series of battleships is quite consistent with the booking of Seydlitz and Derflinger.
          But the contacts of Moltke's sister ship - Goeben with quite Tsushima battleships showed that only speed is salvation from Russian shells. So the Germans would not risk their intelligence forces.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            14 December 2020 14: 53
            +2
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Hardly!
            Most likely it was the dreadnoughts of the first squadron. Posen - against battleships, Helgoland - against Sevastopol.

            It's fantastic.
            The following could be real. The rate at one time allowed the use of 2 dreadnoughts without agreement with it, but closer to the invasion, this order was canceled. If it had not been canceled, then, in principle, while ours did not know the real German forces of 2 Sevastopol, they could leave Riga. With a high degree of probability, they would have met with 3 Hipper's LCR, after the battle they would definitely have retreated, since it would have become clear that the main forces of the Hochseeflotte were in the sea.
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            By the way, the booking of the first two series of battleships is quite consistent with the booking of Seydlitz and Derflinger.

            Seydlitz was much weaker than Derflinger.
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 14 December 2020 20: 57
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              With a high degree of probability they would have faced Hipper's 3 LCR,

              Von der Tann, Moltke and Seydlitz?
              For purely paper performance characteristics, the Germans should be shocked at the most, do not spoil, but how it really is ... Valentine is right, it all depends on skill and ... luck :)
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                15 December 2020 07: 01
                0
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                For purely paper performance characteristics, the Germans should be shocked at the most, do not spoil, but how it really is ... Valentine is right, it all depends on skill and ... luck :)

                Without a doubt:)))
            2. Victor Leningradets
              Victor Leningradets 15 December 2020 11: 16
              -3
              And where does Seydlitz / Derflinger?
              Posen's booking is in principle consistent with Seydlitz;
              Heligoland's booking is in principle the same as Derflinger's.
              Seydlitz Reservation:
              belt - 300 mm; main guns turret - 250 mm; barbets - 230 mm; cabin - 300 mm.
              Derflinger's reservation:
              belt - 300 mm; main guns turret - 270 mm; barbets - 260 mm; cabin - 300 mm.
              Well yes! - SIGNIFICANTLY weaker!
              Nassau (Posen) Reservations:
              belt - 290 mm; main guns turret - 280 mm; barbets - 280 mm; cabin - 400 mm.
              Heligoland Reservation:
              belt - 300 mm; main guns turret - 300 mm; barbets - 300 mm; cabin - 300 mm.
              I understand. An article is ready, comparing the battle cruisers of Germany with the battleships of Russia, probably interesting. Well, God is with her, with historical reality. We teleport the Baltic four to the North Sea. If you need to pull an owl onto a globe, take a globe with a billiard ball.
              And who commands the brigade of Russian battleships?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                15 December 2020 11: 34
                +2
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Well yes! - SIGNIFICANTLY weaker!

                Yes. Much weaker. You just do not know how, excuse me, to analyze the security of ships. In order to do this, three digits from the reference book are not enough. It is necessary to analyze the booking SCHEMES.
                You looked at your numbers - and found a 20 mm difference in the towers and 30 mm in the Derflinger's barbets. You have not seen ANYTHING, and you still have the audacity to speak maliciously about this.
                А see on the same armor belt that both Seidlitz and Derflinger have 300 mm each?

                And look at everything else vertical and horizontal booking?
                So I analyzed everything in detail on battle cruisers in the corresponding series of articles. Using English-language sources, which is generally difficult for me to work with due to lack of knowledge of the language. And I directly wrote that in order to make a comparison on battleships, you need to do the same work on the German LC, which is long and difficult, although I will do it someday
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                I understand. An article is ready, comparing the battle cruisers of Germany with the battleships of Russia, probably interesting. Well, God is with her, with historical reality.

                The historical reality is that almost the only chance of the Baltic battleships to meet with heavy enemy ships looks like this
                2 Sevastopol - from our side
                "Von der Tann", "Moltke" and "Seydlitz" - from the German.
                Your fantasies
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Posen - against battleships, Helgoland - against Sevastopol. Well, Moltke (or Von der Tann) versus Rurik.

                They have NOTHING to do with reality. There could not be such a fight in principle.
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                We teleport the Baltic four to the North Sea. If you need to pull an owl onto a globe, take a globe with a billiard ball.

                If you don't like it - do your own series of articles, what are the problems? :) What kind of sore spot do you have - "or are Sevastopoli fighting with German LKs, or is it all wrong?" The question here is not an owl or a globe, but the fact that in one of my first materials on the resource I allowed myself to write
                In general, if an alternative historical miracle happened, and the commanders of the German battlecruisers suddenly saw not six huge, high-breasted English battlecruisers, but low, four-sided Russian dreadnoughtt silhouettes flying over the waves, I was afraid that the Kaiser would reward Admiral Hipper posthumously. Yes, and the British certainly would not rejoice in replacing the German battle cruisers with Russian battleships.

                And since then I have been constantly reminded of this, offering to confirm this statement with the appropriate calculations.
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                And who commands the brigade of Russian battleships?

                I compare ships, not their crews
                1. Victor Leningradets
                  Victor Leningradets 15 December 2020 14: 55
                  +1
                  Andrew!
                  Sorry, I see - offended.
                  It is extremely interesting to read you, and I conscientiously studied the previous series about "Sevastopol". Well, this is the lot of creative individuals - to be the target of envious and proud impotent people (in the sense of publishing articles).
                  Now on business:
                  I studied the armor protection schemes for dreadnoughts in 1987 - 1990. together with a group of enthusiasts in the history of the fleet, including specialists from the allied KB-3 KZ Leningrad. We simulated everything: the internal ballistics of the guns, the external ballistics of the projectile over the sea, the interaction of the projectile with a monolithic and multi-layer barrier, the impact of the explosion and fragments on structures. A bunch of computer models were built, "ALL guns of the 380 - 460 mm caliber were shot, and some of the 280 - 356 mm caliber.
                  The general conclusion from the whole mountain, which never gave birth to a computer game, is as follows:
                  Models must be approached with extreme caution. All the arguments about the ZSM that prevailed before WWII are based on a simplified model, which is correct for the given projectile-armor meeting angles of 0 - 35 degrees along a monolithic barrier. A meeting on a sliding shell relative to life, biting on an armor-piercing tip, a break from a blow, a break from a high-explosive action are not described by primitive formulas. The inevitable detonation of an armor-piercing projectile on the second solid barrier, etc. is not taken into account.
                  By the way, such a simplified approach greatly let down in principle the conscientious researcher N. Okun in determining the interaction of the projectile with the screen and the platoon deck.
                  In fact, the battle between Hipper's group and the brigade ... (in vain they did not appoint a commander, for such a desperate task a hero is needed) will be reduced to a repetition of the Tsushima battle plot. The Russian brigade will try to line up, and the German detachment will sweep the head. I understand that the material (extremely interesting!) Is already ready, but you, as a creative person, could assess the chances of opponents when maneuvering (I remember your articles on the influence of the relative speed of the move on the ability to perform coverage) in the next iteration.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    15 December 2020 15: 28
                    +1
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    Sorry, I see - offended.

                    Apologies are accepted! hi And you will forgive me - for the fervor. repeat
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    A meeting on a sliding shell relative to life, biting on an armor-piercing tip, a break from a blow, a break from a high-explosive action are not described by primitive formulas.

                    But how to say :))))) In my opinion, there are still ways, although, of course, certain simplifications are necessary
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    In fact, the battle between Hipper's group and the brigade ... (in vain they did not appoint a commander, for such a desperate task a hero is needed) will be reduced to a repetition of the Tsushima battle plot. The Russian brigade will try to line up, and the German detachment will sweep the head.

                    It will not differ from what actually happened in Jutland. Hipper did not feel able to fight one-on-one even with Beatty's LCR squadron, but led her to his battleships, and the same will happen with us.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    I understand that the material (extremely interesting!) Is already ready

                    Not ready :))) There are two articles on assessing the durability of Russian armor, I posted one, and should be on the main page this week. And one more article on German armor is in the process of writing.
  27. Comrade
    Comrade 14 December 2020 05: 16
    0
    if by some miracle in the Battle of Jutland a four Russian dreadnoughts had appeared on the site of Beatty's battlecruisers, then Hipper's 1st reconnaissance group would have been completely defeated. And then, and much later, in a discussion of my other materials on dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts of the First World War, I was repeatedly asked to simulate such a battle.

    Dear colleague,
    Of course, "iron" and "rivets" in battle are extremely important, but even more important, in my opinion, is the level of combat training.
    In the sources available to me there is no information about the combat training of Russian dreadnoughts in 1915-1916, at the same time Tsvetkov was not too lazy to describe a lot of details from the life of the crews of battleships of the "Petropavlovsk" type - from drunken fights to a riot on the "Gangut" in 1915, provoked by an angry protest against the issuance of buckwheat porridge to sailors instead of pasta and meat.
    There is a suspicion that combat training as such was not there, otherwise how to explain the lack of information about this? We have all heard about how persistently over the years we have been improving combat training on the Black Sea battleships, and then there is silence ...
    IMHO, this is not casual, so they better not shove against Hipper. Yes, the Russian guns were good, and the shells were excellent, but what was the level of training of our gunners, rangefinders, without whose professionalism the best systems would be useless in the Battle of Jutland?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 December 2020 07: 03
      0
      Quote: Comrade
      Of course, "iron" and "rivets" in battle are extremely important, but even more important, in my opinion, is the level of combat training.

      Dear colleague, I am comparing ships, and only ships, that is, iron and rivets. Of course, such a comparison will be correct only assuming an equal level of combat training of the parties. And that a real clash in specific conditions will be determined by the training of the crews - I know very well, it was not for nothing that I pointed out the lack of training of the crews as one of the most important reasons for our failure in the battle at Shantung, etc.
      Quote: Comrade
      In the sources available to me there is no information about the military training of Russian dreadnoughts in 1915-1916, at the same time Tsvetkov was not too lazy to describe a lot of details from the life of the crews of battleships of the "Petropavlovsk" type - from drunken fights to a riot on the "Gangut" in 1915,

      There is a feeling that Tsvetkov simply did not focus on combat training. Although at the same Bazhanov we can read the eyewitness testimony (1915)
      "Hikes, trips unnecessary to anyone ... only at the end of September the battleship stood in the roadstead for several days"
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 15 December 2020 04: 10
        0
        Dear Andrey!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I compare ships, and only ships, that is, iron and rivets.

        The idea is very interesting. The British have six ships, we have four. The total number of guns - 48 - is the same.
        It turns out that the fundamental questions here are the number and distribution of hits of our shells.
        Thank you very much for the topic, I will read it with pleasure.
        By the way, it would be great if you, deeply respected colleague, analyzed several hits on German ships from position, but what would be the effect there if a Russian shell hit this place instead of an English shell?

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        that Tsvetkov simply did not focus on combat training. Although at the same Bazhanov we can read the eyewitness testimony (1915)
        "Hikes, Hikes Nobody Needs

        Alas, these are not shooting exercises.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 December 2020 05: 45
          +1
          Good day, dear Valentine!
          Quote: Comrade
          By the way, it would be great if you, deeply respected colleague, analyzed several hits on German ships from position, but what would be the effect there if a Russian shell hit this place instead of an English shell?

          This is very possible. And I was going to do it.
          Quote: Comrade
          Alas, these are not shooting exercises.

          And what do we know about them? Tsvetkov focuses on drunken fights, but the same Bazhanov mentions that the sailors from the battleships fled to the front, as they wanted to. It seems to me that the history of the combat training of our LK is not disclosed in historiography, because no one was particularly interested, and that in order to deal with it, you need to sit down in the archives.
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 15 December 2020 05: 56
            0
            Dear Andrey!

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            it seems that the history of the combat training of our LK in historiography is not disclosed, because no one was particularly interested, and that in order to deal with it, you need to sit down in the archives.

            There was an impression (I hope, erroneous) that the Baltic dreadnoughts mentioned firing was carried out for the sake of testing artillery, and they conducted combat training about the same (or slightly more intensively) as in Port Arthur after the start of the siege.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Tsvetkov focuses on drunken fights. The history of the combat training of our LK in historiography has not been disclosed, because no one was particularly interested, and that in order to deal with it, you need to sit down in the archives.

            Uncle Tsvetkov is more meticulous than Melnikov, and a big fan of rummaging through the archives. I cannot imagine that this question would not interest him.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              15 December 2020 06: 50
              +1
              Dear Valentine!
              Quote: Comrade
              There was an impression (I hope, erroneous) that the Baltic dreadnoughts mentioned firing was carried out for the sake of testing artillery, and they conducted combat training about the same (or slightly more intensively) as in Port Arthur after the start of the siege.

              I reread Bazhanov again. From his words, it turns out that in 1914-1915 combat training was carried out extremely intensively (including numerous firing both caliber and "bullet") and the same can be said about the first half of 1916, to July, but then the pace of combat training decreased (from August to the end of the year - only 2 shooting)
              1. Comrade
                Comrade 15 December 2020 07: 13
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I reread Bazhanov again.

                Thank you interesting. Sorry, there are no details.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  15 December 2020 07: 20
                  0
                  I'll send you Bazhanov tonight :) hi
                  1. Comrade
                    Comrade 15 December 2020 15: 52
                    0
                    Thank you in advance.
  28. Andrey152
    Andrey152 19 December 2020 21: 24
    +1
    Good day, Andrey!
    You wrote an article on a topic that interests me very much.
    I would like to discuss a few points.
    1. Assortment of Russian 12-inch shells mod. 1911, in fact, was initially very limited, there were only 2 types of warheads - high-explosive with two tips of drawing 254 and armor-piercing drawing 253. Both shells weighed 470,9 kg, both had armor-piercing and ballistic tips, both had bottom fuses. The weight of TNT in the first was 61,5 kg. The second was equipped with an armored alloy - phlegmatized TNT, weight 12,84 kg. Pure TNT explodes when passing through armor, so it is not suitable for equipping armor-piercing shells.
    2. Our high-explosive shells had serious armor penetration - during firing at the Chesme they penetrated 225-mm armor, and worked even better than armor-piercing shells on deck armor. In 1942, these shells were renamed semi-armor-piercing.
    3. During the 1st WW, Japan and the USA ordered high-explosive projectiles with two tips with a slightly smaller explosive charge, as well as purely high-explosive projectiles without tips for firing at every little detail. In addition, shrapnel shells (weighing 331,7 kg) were ordered in the United States. 4. For training purposes, there were practical steel shells (in the form of high-explosive) and cast iron cannonballs, all weighing 470,9 kg.
  29. Andrey152
    Andrey152 19 December 2020 22: 15
    +1
    And now my questions:
    1. You wrote that the form factors are:
    Russian 305 mm 470,9 kg shell - 0,6621.
    German 305 mm 405 kg shell - 0,7009.
    Tell me how they were calculated and what do they affect?
    2. Do the shape factors take into account actual test projectiles? For example, British armor-piercing shells, tested in 1910 at an angle of 20 degrees, could not penetrate 6-inch armor, splitting. And their liddite equipment gave an explosion when the armor passed, which is why the British continued to equip the armor with black powder. Even "greenboys" on trials in 1918 proved to be worse than our armor-piercing shells mod. 1911, without even penetrating 8-inch armor. And the Japanese armor-piercing in 1904, because of their shimose equipment, did not penetrate the armor of our battleships at all. Is this taken into account in the coefficients?
  30. Andrey152
    Andrey152 19 December 2020 22: 32
    +1
    German 305-mm shells in 1940 had the same weight of 405 kg, they were armor-piercing (10,785 kg of tol) and high-explosive (24,805 kg of tol), an initial speed of 855 m / s. In addition, there were lightweight long-range and practical shells.

    By the way, if we compare the German 380-mm cannon with its 750-kg projectile, 23,5 kg charge in armor-piercing shells and 67,1 kg in high-explosive shells, then it is logical to do this with the Russian 14-inch cannon. That projectile has 747,7 kg - similar to the German one, the armor-piercing projectile has 20,2 kg of armored alloy, and the high-explosive one already has 81,9 kg of TNT.
  31. Andrey152
    Andrey152 19 December 2020 22: 37
    +1
    Quote: anzar
    For Russian shells of "the same weight" such tables would also not hurt, since the weight / beginning. the speed may be the same, but their ballistic coefficient is different due to different lengths (5 and 3,9 klb.) That is 70-90sb. is already significant. And this cannot be fixed.

    Can you please tell me what the ballistic coefficient means and how does it affect the firing of projectiles of different lengths?
  32. Andrey152
    Andrey152 19 December 2020 22: 41
    +1
    Andrey, when comparing the armor, do not forget that on the Sevastopol, behind the main 225-mm armor belt, there was also a rear 50-mm longitudinal bulkhead. And behind the upper 125 mm is an armored 37 mm longitudinal bulkhead.
    And the British had nothing behind the 229-mm belt.
    1. fone
      fone 23 December 2020 23: 24
      0
      This does not play a big role, since the quality of Russian armor was about 25% worse than British.
      1. Andrey152
        Andrey152 24 December 2020 10: 51
        0
        And where does this information come from?
        1. fone
          fone 24 December 2020 15: 24
          0
          There was a great thread on the Tsushima forum http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10181
  33. yehat2
    yehat2 30 January 2021 17: 05
    +1
    it would be nice to see an article about Russian disk guns.
  34. Ilya Shikhailo
    Ilya Shikhailo 3 March 2021 10: 07
    0
    New 350 and 420 mm German and Russian 356/52, 406/45, 406/50, 406/52, 406/54 and 457/45, no? The Germans seemed to have made a 350-mm drin, our sample 406/45 was about half ready for the NEO - moreover, all work went on until February 17, and proceeded slowly, due to the overload of the NEO with army orders. I heard that 406/50 was made, but I did not find confirmation of this. 350/45, 356/52 and 406/45 are not "paper". In addition, coastal artillery also belongs to naval artillery. We designed a gun separately from the ship's 356/52 with a different barrel, projectile and charge, plus a coastal 406/20 mortar (rather a howitzer) with a range of 16 km with a heavy projectile.
    Plus different types of shells for guns. For the 305/52, by the way, they developed a super-heavy projectile, EMNIP, in 545 kg. Plus early work on the gun. Plus, work on shells with improved ballistics - they were at least used in the project 406/45 guns, by the way, similar ammunition was developed for army artillery (see "3-inch long-range steel grenade model 1917", aka "OF- 350 "). I don't have data on similar shells for 305/52 and 356/52, but it seems like the range should have increased by about 25% when switching to an improved form. Plus the loading system. On the "Sevastopol" the rate of fire was 1,8 w / m, on the "Maria" they achieved 3 w / m, due to the improved loading system, on the "Izmail" it was also planned 3 w / m, and for the new battleships a loader was designed, with a rate of 4 v / m, "without significant overload", for 356-406 mm. There were proposals for the use of sub-caliber and active-rocket projectiles, but, as far as I know, things did not progress beyond the projects there. The FCS does not apply to the guns themselves, although it is of great importance. On gwar.mil.ru there is documentation on the topic of remote control of the GC, with plans for work at Sevastopol for the implementation of the system. Plus, there is also a project of an automatic main battery turret, with a projectile weight of 500 kg (that is, at least 305 mm). One thing is the basic "Sevastopol" with 305/52 with 1,8 rpm, and another thing is the “Sevastopol” with automatic turrets with 4 rpm or higher, and with longer-range projectiles.