Military Review

About the durability of Russian armor during the First World War

168

In this article, we will try to determine the durability of Russian armor of the First World War era. This question is extremely difficult, because it is extremely poorly covered in the literature. And the point is this.


It is well known that at the end of the XNUMXth century, the leading maritime powers in the construction of warships switched to armor made by the Krupp method. But this does not mean at all that since then the armor of the ships of all these countries has become equivalent.

The thing is that the "classic recipe" for Krupp's armor (also known as "quality 420", created in 1894) did not remain unchanged, but improved. At least by countries like England and Germany. But how exactly he perfected himself, and to what results the master armors of various powers came - this, alas, I do not know for certain.

Trial by fire


The projectile resistance of the Russian armor can be determined with acceptable accuracy, thanks to the experimental shelling of the old battleship "Chesma", reclassified as "excluded ship No. 4". An experimental compartment was created on the ship, copying the protection of various parts of the Sevastopol-class dreadnoughts, and for the purity of the experiment it was also equipped with many devices that such parts should have. So, for example, steam pipes (which passed there on battleships), shot guns, fire control devices and electrical wires, etc. were installed in the casemates.


A test compartment simulating a casemate of 120-mm guns of the Sevastopol-class battleships.

Then the experimental compartment was shelled with various ammunition of caliber from 6 to 12 inches, including, of course, the latest 305-mm armor-piercing and high-explosive shells. That said, the test reports are very complete, as it should be in such cases. They contain not only a description of the consequences of a hit, but also the speed of the projectile at the moment it hits the armor, as well as the angle at which the projectile and armor meet.

All this makes it possible to calculate the resistance of Russian armor in relation to the latest domestic 470,9 kg shells, according to the same formula of Jacob de Marr, which I have already cited several times before. But I will cite it again, so that the dear reader does not have to ply through the previous articles. The ratio of the quality of the projectile and the durability of the armor in this formula is described by the coefficient "K". Moreover, the higher this coefficient, the stronger the armor.



A certain difficulty in assessing Russian armor is created by the fact that shells were tested primarily, and not the ultimate armor resistance of the protection of the latest dreadnoughts. It seems to be - what's the difference? But in fact, it is very significant. When projectiles are being tested, it is of interest to reliably hit armor at the main combat ranges. When the armor is tested, there is interest in the extreme conditions in which it can still protect the ship.

Nevertheless, the statistics of hits on the "excluded vessel No. 4" still allows us to draw certain conclusions.

About firing at 250 mm armor


Unfortunately, hits in armor from 125 mm or less are of no interest to us - in all cases it turned out that either the energy of the projectile was more than enough to penetrate it, or the angles of impact were so small that they gave a ricochet. In other words, statistics of hits on armor of 125 mm and below are useless to determine the durability of armor.

A different matter is hitting thick 225 mm and 250 mm armor, which we will consider in more detail.
Let's start with 250 mm of armor, which protected the walls of the conning tower of the "excluded ship No. 4". In total, 13 shots were fired at this wheelhouse, but some of them were fired at its roof, and others were high-explosive shells. Armor-piercing shells were fired at 250-mm armor only 5 times.

The most powerful shot was No. 6 (numbered according to test reports). A 305-mm armor-piercing projectile hit the armor plate at an angle of 80 ° (10 ° from the normal) at a speed of 557 m / s. The projectile would have a similar speed of 470,9 kg at a distance of only 45 cables. True, the angle of deviation from the normal would be less - 6,18 °.

Of course, the shell pierced the armor. To hold it, an armor with a "K" of more than 2 would be required. And this is an exorbitant value, even by the standards of the much more advanced armor of the Second World War. The calculations I made show that at a distance the Russian 700-mm / 305 gun mod. 52 could penetrate 1907 mm Krupp's armor plate "quality 433".

The remaining 4 shots were fired under equal conditions. The speed of the projectile on the armor was 457 m / s, the angles of encounter with the obstacle were about 80 ° (deviation from the normal 10 °). According to my calculations, Russian shells would have such a speed at a distance of 75 cables, but at the same time the angle of encounter with an obstacle would be worse - 76,1 ° (deviation from the normal - 13,89 °). In such conditions, according to the above calculations, 285,7 mm of Krupp armor penetrated (with K = 2000). But in reality everything turned out not so unambiguous.

During shot # 11, everything went smoothly. The armor-piercing one overcame the 250-mm armor plate, hit the opposite wall of the wheelhouse and already then exploded, making a pothole at the point of impact 100 mm deep. When shot # 10, the armor was also broken. But it is not entirely clear when exactly the shell burst occurred - this is not indicated in the report. But, apparently, this happened inside the conning tower, because the force of the explosion tore off the armor plates of the roof, and the adjacent 250-mm plate was simply ripped out of the mountings and deployed.


Thus, with this shot, the clear penetration and passage of the projectile should be counted for the armor protection as a whole.

But when shot # 9, there was a small incident - the shell hit the armor directly opposite the 70-mm floor. As a result, the 250-mm armor plate was pierced, and even its corner broke off, measuring about 450x600 mm, and a pothole 70 mm long was found in the 200-mm floor. Therefore, it can be argued that in this case, too, the projectile did not just pierce the armor, but did it with a decent amount of energy, which was enough to damage a horizontally located 70-mm armor steel sheet.

Accordingly, in four out of five hits, Russian armor-piercing shells showed quite the expected result, confirmed by calculations according to de Marr. But when shot # 7, a strange thing happened - the projectile hit the armor plate in exactly the same way, at the same 80 ° angle and with the same speed of 457 m / s, but did not pierce the armor, exploding during its passage. As a result, a pothole with a depth of 225-250 mm turned out: only "fragments of a shell weighing up to 16 kg."

We see that out of 4 hits of 305-mm armor-piercing shells, which should have penetrated armor over 285 mm thick, only 3 were “clean” penetrations. In one case, the shell exploded while passing through the armor, although it should not have been.

What is the reason for this fiasco? Perhaps it is the shell itself? Let us assume that a defective fuse has worked prematurely. But another interpretation is also possible: the fact is that the penetration of armor by a projectile is of a probabilistic nature. That is, there is no such thing that, for example, if, according to the Jacob de Marr formula, the maximum thickness of the armor pierced by a projectile under certain conditions is 285 mm, then the armor of 286 mm will not be penetrated by the projectile in any case. It may well break through. And vice versa - break under the same conditions against armor of a lesser thickness.

In other words, Jacob de Marr's formula itself (or any other analogous to it) does not at all have pharmaceutical accuracy. In reality, there are whole ranges in which a projectile hitting an armor plate at a certain angle and at a certain speed can penetrate the armor with a certain degree of probability, but this cannot be calculated using generally accepted armor penetration formulas. And it may well be that in the case of shot no. 7, the above-mentioned probability worked.

Thus, in my opinion, the results of shot # 7 are random and should not be taken into account. And the armor of Russian dreadnoughts with a thickness of 250 mm could not withstand the hit of 470,9 kg of a projectile at a speed of 457 m / s and an angle of encounter with an obstacle of about 80 °. According to de Marr, it turns out that the coefficient "K" of Russian armor in this case should be below 2. But how much?

In my opinion, the answer can be obtained by analyzing the consequences of shot no. 11. The round pierced a 250-mm plate, hit the opposite wall and made a 100-mm pothole there. Hence, we can assume that the maximum armor penetration of the Russian 470,9 kg projectile with the above parameters was 250 mm of Krupp's cemented armor. And an additional 100 mm of uncemented, homogeneous armor set apart.

Why is it homogeneous? The fact is that, as you know, cemented armor consists, as it were, of two layers. The upper one is very strong, but also fragile, and then softer, but also more viscous armor begins. The projectile, hitting the 250-mm armor plate, from the inside of the wheelhouse landed precisely in the "soft and viscous" layer, which in its qualities is more similar to homogeneous, rather than cemented armor.

In addition, you should take into account that I am calculating the "K" coefficient for a projectile that passes through the armor as a whole and explodes behind it. But in the case of shot No. 11, this is not what happened - the shell, breaking through 250 mm of Krupp's cemented armor and hitting the back side of the second plate, did not pierce the armor, but exploded, and only taking into account the energy of the explosion managed to make a 100-mm pothole. Thus, the calculation of "250 mm cemented + 100 mm homogeneous armor" can be considered made on assumptions that are obviously unfavorable for the armor. Accordingly, the result obtained can be considered the minimum below which the resistance of the Russian-made Krupp armor will not have.

And then the calculation is very simple. The speed of the projectile, as has been said many times above, is 457 m / s, the angle of deviation from the normal when it hits the 250 mm armor plate is 10 °. When this armor passes, the projectile will "turn" and hit the second plate already at an angle of 90 °, that is, 0 ° deviation from the normal. This follows from diagram No. 9 ““ Course of naval tactics. Artillery and Armor "L.G. Goncharov, given on page 132. Where, in addition to the strengths of the shells on impact, there is a graph of the turn of the shell when passing through the armor, depending on the angle of encounter with this armor.

The ratio of armor resistance of Russian homogeneous and cemented armor is unknown to me. But, according to G. Evers, the German cemented armor had a coefficient "K" 23% higher than homogeneous. And, probably, for the Russian armor, this ratio is also true. In addition, it should be noted that when passing through a 250-mm armor plate, the projectile will lose its armor-piercing cap. That, on the contrary, will lead to an increase in "K" homogeneous armor by 15%.

When calculating the speed of a projectile to penetrate a 100-mm homogeneous plate, the same formula was used as for a 250-mm cemented plate, only the "K" coefficient changed. I know that L.G. Goncharov recommended using a different formula for homogeneous armor, given in his own textbook. But she, according to him, is designed for armor plates thinner than 75 mm. We have, after all, 100 mm. In addition, according to G. Evers, the use of the above formula of Jacob de Marr is also applicable for homogeneous armor.

According to the results of calculating the "K" of cemented Russian armor, 2005 has a value. Now let's see if there were any cases during the shooting that refuted this result.

About firing at 225 mm armor


Only 225 rounds of armor-piercing shells were fired at 2-mm armor. Moreover, the speed of the projectile at the moment of contact with the armor was as much as 557 m / s - such a speed the projectile should have had at a distance of 45 cables. True, the angle of encounter with the armor was very unfavorable - 65 ° or 25 ° deviation from the normal. But even in this case, in order to withstand the impact of 470,9 kg of a projectile, the armor plate should have a coefficient "K" above 2 690. Which, of course, is completely impossible. In other words, when firing with such parameters, even the armor of the World War II era had to be pierced with a huge supply of energy from the projectile.

And with shot # 25, that's exactly how it happened. The shell easily pierced the 225-mm armor plate (it did not even break through, but simply broke a piece of 350x500 mm from it), then hit the bevel, which consisted of 25-mm armor on a 12-mm metal substrate, and made a 1x1,3 hole in it m. The exact location of the burst of the shell has not been established. But it was assumed that he went into the engine room and exploded already there. In other words, the result was exactly what one would expect with such a blow.

But with the second round (shot no. 27) everything turned out to be incomprehensible. The projectile deviated from the aiming point. And, as the report says, "hit the top edge of the armor." The result of the shot will be easier to quote from the document:

“The projectile made a pothole in the armor about 75 mm deep and about 200 mm wide, and, tearing off the protruding edge of the shirt with a square, exploded without slowing down here, giving off black smoke. Casemate No. 2 was not damaged. "


About the durability of Russian armor during the First World War

It is completely unclear what could have happened here. Primarily because it is not clear exactly where the shell hit. To begin with, “edge” is itself an extensible concept, since it can be used, among other things, to mean “the edge of something”. That is, it is even unclear whether the centerline of the projectile hit the vertical or horizontal surface of the armor plate.

But in the presence of a quality fuse, much more damage would be expected from any of these options. If the projectile hit the vertical plane of the armor, it should have collapsed to its full depth, not by 75 mm. If the impact fell on the horizontal part, then why did the report record the meeting angle of the obstacle of about 65 °? The projectile did not fall from the sky onto the horizontal surface of the 225-mm slab, it was fired at an angle of 65 ° to the vertical surface, which means that it should have been 25 ° relative to the horizontal. In this case, you can expect a rebound. Or (in case of a burst of a projectile) damage to the horizontal 225 mm armored deck adjacent to the upper edge of the 37,5-mm armor plate. But none of this happened.

In my opinion, the fault was a defective shell, which collapsed on impact, which is why the explosion was not at full strength. Or, perhaps, a defective fuse that detonated "high-explosive" at the moment the projectile touched the armor. It is also possible that the projectile was not defective, but collapsed because the angle formed by the two surfaces of the armor plate played the role of a kind of "cleaver". Formally, the projectile did not penetrate the 225 mm plates. But in connection with the extreme unusualness of the consequences of the hit, in my opinion, the reason should not be sought in the ultra-high qualities of the armor plate.

Consequently, the results of shelling the 225-mm armor plates of the "excluded vessel No. 4" do not confirm or refute our earlier conclusion.

However, there were other landmark tests of domestic shells and armor that took place in 1920. Here the goal was completely different. The experimental compartment was built under the Tsar-Father to determine the optimal protection scheme for future Russian dreadnoughts. But in 1917, the autocracy in Russia somehow went wrong. And projects for the construction of dreadnoughts have passed into the category of projecting. Nevertheless, the tests were carried out and including - using 305 mm 470,9 kg shells. The results are very interesting. But we will talk about this in the next article.

But what I would like to note separately is the presence of one glaring oddity in the tests. The fact is that they deliberately overestimated the distance of artillery fire.

So, for example, for shots at 225-mm armor with armor-piercing shells, it is indicated that the distance corresponding to the parameters of the shelling is 65 cables. But this is not true - at a speed of 557 m / s with a deviation from the normal of 25 °, a 305-mm projectile was supposed to penetrate the armor about 8% thicker than when firing at 65 cables, where the projectile speed would be 486,4 m, and the deflection from the normal - 10,91 °.

Of course, one can suspect a banal error in the calculations of the author of the article, that is, me. But how then to understand the firing at the conning tower - here in the documents the projectile speed is indicated all the same 557 m / s deviation from the normal - only 10 °, but the distance is considered the same, that is, 65 cables! In other words, it turns out that the "appropriate distance" was indicated at all without taking into account the angle of incidence, only by the speed of the projectile?

However, this version is easily verifiable. According to my calculations, the projectile speed for 60 cables is 502,8 m / s, and for 80 cables it is 444 m / s. At the same time, the data on the range firing of 305 mm / 52 guns, given by L.G. Goncharov ("Course of naval tactics. Artillery and armor", p. 35), show for these distances 1671 and 1481 ft / s, respectively, that is, translated into the metric system - 509 and 451 m / s.

Thus, we can assume that my calculator still gives a certain error downward, amounting to 6-7 m / s. But it is obvious that 557 m / s for 65 cables and 457 m / s for 83 cables are out of the question.

And one more fact that makes you think. As you can see, a total of 7 rounds of 305-mm armor-piercing shells were fired at 225-250 mm armor. At the same time, the shooting conditions were such that the specified armor had to break through with a considerable margin. Nevertheless, in real shooting conditions, even if at range, only in five cases out of seven shells pierced the armor. And only 4 shells passed inside.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
168 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. polpot
    polpot 18 December 2020 18: 04
    +3
    Thank you very much, an interesting topic, we look forward to continuing.
    1. Jura 27
      Jura 27 19 December 2020 16: 53
      0
      Everything is mixed up in a heap: "horses, people" "penetration and non-penetration, coefficients and distances. Article, you can safely throw out the floppy."
      If the projectile penetrated 250mm of armor, then set is 2000, but if at the same speed it would have pierced 270mm; then what then? 1900? And if it was punched at the same speed of 280mm? Then to-t 1860?
      And what is the set of Russian 225mm armor pierced by a high-explosive shell with 63 kbt?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        19 December 2020 19: 57
        +3
        Quote: Jura 27
        And what is the set of Russian 225mm armor pierced by a high-explosive shell with 63 kbt?

        Earlier you at least tried to squeeze something out of yourself on the merits of the issues raised. The speed of the high-explosive projectile on the armor was 557 m / s, which corresponds to a distance of 45 cables. At an angle of 25 degrees, armor penetration should have been 237 mm at K = 2000.
        Quote: Jura 27
        If the projectile penetrated 250mm of armor, then set is 2000, but if at the same speed it would have pierced 270mm; then what then?

        A hint of Year 20 trials? About them - the next article
        Quote: Jura 27
        Article, you can safely throw out the floppy.

        Specifically to this material (excluding the tests of 1920), are there any reasonable claims?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 December 2020 09: 36
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          At an angle of 25 degrees, armor penetration should have been 237 mm at K = 2000.

          I made a mistake yesterday, put the number in the wrong formula. in fact - almost 345 mm
        2. Jura 27
          Jura 27 20 December 2020 16: 26
          0
          [/ quote] The speed of the high-explosive projectile on the armor was 557 m / s, which corresponds to a distance of 45 cables. [quote]

          This is if the speed is indicated correctly, but if the distance is indicated correctly? In addition, the FS did not have an armor-piercing tip, i.e. to-t is calculated differently.
          1. Jura 27
            Jura 27 20 December 2020 16: 29
            0
            [/ quote] A hint of a 20 year trial? [quote]

            This is not a hint, but a direct explanation that your conclusions regarding the Russian armor are incorrect in this article, from the word at all.
            Which is directly confirmed by the tests of 1920.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              21 December 2020 06: 28
              0
              Quote: Jura 27
              This is not a hint, but a direct explanation that your conclusions regarding the Russian armor are incorrect in this article, from the word at all.
              Which is directly confirmed by the tests of 1920.

              Confirmed, Yura. Only now the analysis of those hits will be in the next article.
              1. Jura 27
                Jura 27 21 December 2020 16: 26
                -1
                [/ quote] Confirmed, Yura. Only now the analysis of those hits will be in the next article [quote]

                Why did you write this meaningless opus? We would go straight to business.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  22 December 2020 06: 23
                  0
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  Why did you write this meaningless opus?

                  Alas, if you are unable to understand something, this only testifies to the limitations of your thinking, and not to the lack of meaning in the subject of your "research"
                  1. Jura 27
                    Jura 27 22 December 2020 16: 48
                    -1
                    [/ quote] Alas, if you are unable to understand something, this only testifies to the limitations of your thinking, and not to the lack of meaning in the subject of your "research [quote]

                    That is, you cannot explain why you sprinkled this stupid opus. CHTD.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      23 December 2020 10: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      That is, you cannot explain why you sprinkled this stupid opus.

                      As usual, 2 mistakes in one sentence
                      1) I did not answer your question. I will answer you only in those cases when the question raised by you will interest the audience. Well, the audience clearly understands why the article was written, so an answer is simply not required.
                      2) Accordingly, my comment concerned only your classification of my material.
                      1. Jura 27
                        Jura 27 23 December 2020 15: 41
                        0
                        [/ quote] Well, the audience clearly understands why the article was written, [quote]

                        For most who are not in the subject, it seems that if a projectile, at a given speed, pierced 250mm of armor, then the armor / projectile quantity calculated by the de Marra formula is 2000, and this is far from the case and therefore your opus does not make sense.
                        The point would be if this opus was reduced to one paragraph in the post about the tests of 1920, indicating that in fact, the armor / projectile was much lower than the 2000 units you repeatedly mentioned.
                        Thus, your message that for calculating the penetration of Russian armor it is necessary to take the set equal to 2000 is fundamentally incorrect.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        23 December 2020 15: 48
                        +1
                        Quote: Jura 27
                        The point would be if this opus was reduced to one paragraph in the post about the tests of 1920, indicating that in fact, the armor / projectile was much lower than the 2000 units you repeatedly mentioned.

                        That's just an erroneous statement, Jura27. However, you can argue in the corresponding article - it will soon be on the main
                      3. Jura 27
                        Jura 27 23 December 2020 15: 51
                        0
                        [/ quote] However, you can argue in the corresponding article [quote]
                        OK.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        21 December 2020 06: 29
        0
        Quote: Jura 27
        This is if the speed is indicated correctly, but if the distance is indicated correctly?

        And the speed is incorrect everywhere? In all or the vast majority of reports? Oh well
  • zenion
    zenion 2 February 2021 20: 26
    0
    What Russian armor could be if all the factories belonged to foreigners. Did Nicholas II have his own steel plant?
  • mark1
    mark1 18 December 2020 18: 29
    +2
    Lord! How dumb I am! I'm waiting for the end of the article with the final conclusions
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 18 December 2020 18: 36
    +3
    Yes Yes. I join. Interesting and informative!
    1. Sergey79
      Sergey79 19 December 2020 21: 10
      0
      Interesting. True, I had to strain my brain. What I didn't want to do on the weekend ...
  • mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer 18 December 2020 19: 08
    0
    Thanks, interesting.
    I want to ask the author if there is a link to the method of measuring the velocity of the projectile at the final section at that time.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 18 December 2020 20: 02
      +1
      I want to ask the author if there is a link to the method of measuring the velocity of the projectile at the final section at that time.

      Of course, I am not an author, but I can say this. A little later, for this, so-called target frames were used, which are a sheet of paper or cardboard with a wire glued to it (options with foil on both sides are possible). The frames are located at a known distance from each other, when a wire breaks by a projectile, an open circuit is recorded, thus there is a distance between the frames and a time interval. Naturally, all this is at a distance of several tens of meters from the armor plate. It is possible that at the beginning of the last century they did it there.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 December 2020 22: 58
      +1
      Quote: mr.ZinGer
      I want to ask the author if there is a link to the method of measuring the velocity of the projectile at the final section at that time.

      Unfortunately no. I used a bulk calculator, checking its values ​​with the actual shooting data, but I can't say how the actual results were measured.
      1. DrEng527
        DrEng527 19 December 2020 15: 19
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but I cannot say how the actual results were measured.

        measurement errors can be estimated - they are hardly better than 1% request those. at 500 m / s this is a range of 495-505 ... in addition, the formula contains other measurable parameters - caliber, weight, armor thickness ... they are all measured with an error as well, which can be estimated from general considerations (even if 0.1 %) ... so there is a total error in the calculation formula ... hi I recommend the book Shchigolev B.M. "Mathematical processing of observations", M., Nauka, 1969, this is chapter 2
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 December 2020 11: 10
          0
          Quote: DrEng527
          measurement errors can be estimated - they are hardly better than 1%

          What's the point? The de Marra formula does not have the character of pharmaceutical accuracy, the armor penetration is of a probabilistic nature. The question is, the formula itself is not physical. That is, it reflects statistics, not a physical process. Well, in statistics, those methods of calculating indicators fit naturally (they were present there) and do not require adjustment.
          If the de Marra formula described the physics of the process, then you would be right, of course
          1. DrEng527
            DrEng527 21 December 2020 11: 43
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            armor penetration is probabilistic.

            of course, but the formula gives for this probability (predetermined, as elsewhere in metrology, but there is 95% or 99) very specific data that can be compared with each other ... Yes, these are probabilistic values, but the distribution density functions are the same and it is quite possible compare their amplitudes ... I will say more, any measurements before rounding are of a probabilistic nature .. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to introduce errors in the measurements of the components and get the scatter field after calculating using the formula ... mm with spread Y% ... hi
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            that is, it reflects statistics, not a physical process.

            I suppose you are methodologically mistaken - the formula reflects physical processes, but not explicitly, but through measurements of penetration with a certain probability ...
            however, I wrote all these things only so that the expression "could penetrate 433 mm Krupp's armor plate" is not understood literally - and 434 mm cannot be penetrated ... bully
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              21 December 2020 11: 53
              0
              Quote: DrEng527
              I suppose you are methodologically mistaken - the formula reflects physical processes, but not explicitly, but through measurements of penetration with a certain probability ...

              I can't agree :))))
              If the formula reflects a physical process, then it is accurate. That is, there really is already "433 mm will penetrate, but 434 mm - no longer." Of course, under the same conditions - caliber, mass, angle of incidence and speed of the projectile, the quality of armor at the point of impact, etc.
              If we take measurements of the breakout, then we have to put up with the fact that all these parameters are somewhat "walking" in nature. The mass of the projectile can vary within certain limits. The quality of the armor can be slightly uneven. The angle of incidence can also be slightly variable. And, of course, the speed of the projectile on the armor too.
              Therefore, if we take exactly the "physical" formula, then we will naturally face the fact that the real armor penetration will differ from the calculated one, since the above deviations can play in one direction or another. In other words, a formula that accurately reflects the physical process will give an understanding of a certain result achieved in an ideal state, and since reality is not an ideal, then appropriate amendments are necessary and will clarify the result.
              But in the statistical formula, these corrections have already "played", since at
              Quote: DrEng527
              penetration measurements

              the speeds, angles, and masses of shells "played". And here an attempt to re-take into account the influence of one factor or another will lead, on the contrary, to a deterioration in accuracy.
              1. DrEng527
                DrEng527 21 December 2020 13: 20
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                That is, here really already "433 mm will break through, and 434 mm will no longer

                This is the essence of your misunderstanding - taking into account errors in measurements of speed, mass, etc. will show the limits of calculation errors ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But in the statistical formula, these amendments have already "played", because

                I think you are mistaken - to obtain the minimum statistics you need at least 5 points for each parameter - this was clearly not done due to the high cost of experiments ... therefore the formula describes the entire array of experimental data for a given criterion ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                a formula that accurately reflects the physical process,

                impossible by definition ... request There are always limits to accuracy when deriving any formula based on experimental data ... if it is derived from theory, then again there are limits due to the inherent "ideality" of the theory - something is always neglected ...
                Okay - I see no point in continuing the discussion in the general forum - we expressed our positions ... hi
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  21 December 2020 14: 15
                  0
                  Quote: DrEng527
                  This is the essence of your misunderstanding - taking into account errors in measurements of speed, mass, etc. will show the limits of calculation errors ...

                  I know that, but I'm afraid you are completely inattentively reading what I have to tell you.
                  Quote: DrEng527
                  I think you are mistaken - to obtain the minimum statistics you need at least 5 points for each parameter - this was clearly not done due to the high cost of experiments ... therefore the formula describes the entire array of experimental data for a given criterion ...

                  Exactly. That is, there were some, unknown to us, tolerances for the speed of the projectile on the armor, the difference in the mass of the projectiles, etc. etc. And the formula was already drawn up taking into account these tolerances.
                  A simple example. Determine with what attempt a hangover alcoholic falls into the sleeve of his jacket, putting it on. Under ideal conditions (when he is not hungover) - with the first, more precisely, with some thread 1,001, since it sometimes happens that a person does not fall into the sleeve, even with absolutely no shaking hands. Accordingly, the question can be answered in two ways
                  1) Determine the deviation of the "hangover" hand and calculate the number of hits through, say, the standard deviation. This is a good option and will give acceptable accuracy. Let's say the calculation shows that somewhere from the second time.
                  2) Do not identify any deviations, but force the alcoholic to wear a jacket many times when he is hungover and use the statistics obtained. If the data on the standard deviation are taken correctly, then the statistics will confirm the conclusion made in paragraph 1 - from the second time.
                  In the first case, we calculate the physics of the process, in the second, we use statistics. So the formula for armor penetration is the second case.
                  You propose to take the statistics according to the second option and ... correct it by the deviation calculated according to item 1. The result will obviously be far from correct.
                  1. DrEng527
                    DrEng527 21 December 2020 14: 35
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And the formula was already drawn up taking into account these tolerances.

                    if not a secret - how? it's impossible! hi they had data on the parameter of the experiments - which they simply took from the tables - speed, mass, thickness ... do you think they measured the speed with each shot? Or was the thickness of the armor at the point of impact of the shell measured? The spread of these parameters was implied ...
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    In the first case, we calculate the physics of the process,
                    you are mistaken, "physics" will appear if we have a model of changing human behavior after taking alcohol ... hi In your case, this is just a different measurement technique, no more - to calculate the average deviation and standard deviation, you will have to do several experiments ... so in fact - you have items 1 and 2 that are the same ... bully
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The result will obviously be far from correct.

                    there is no correct result at all! this is where you have a gag - there are boundaries in which the result is possible with a certain probability ... and these boundaries can be obtained by entering the error in the formula ...
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I know that, but I'm afraid you are completely inattentively reading what I have to tell you.

                    unfortunately you just don’t understand that you don’t know ... and you have confusion about some things ... request
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      21 December 2020 15: 50
                      0
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      you are mistaken, "physics" will appear if we have a model of changing human behavior after taking alcohol ...

                      It looks like I picked up a too complex example.
                      Sergey, let's be quite simple. There is a stove evenly heated to a temperature of, say, 300 degrees. I put on it a mug with 200 grams of water at a temperature of exactly 20 degrees .. Water evaporates in a certain period of time. How do you know which one?
                      1) Use physical formulas and determine the time during which enough heat will come from the plate through the mug material to bring the recommended 200 grams of water to evaporation. But this method, for all its correctness, will give some ideal value for perfectly calibrated 100 grams of water at an ideal temperature of 20 degrees.
                      But in life there will always be a number of errors - and the water in the mug will not turn out to be ideal 200 grams, but 200 + - how much, and the temperature near the water will not be ideal 20 degrees, but 20 degrees + - some. The same measurement deviations you are talking about.
                      Accordingly, we cannot find out the exact time during which the water will boil away. We can only find out the period of time during which the water will boil away, taking into account the errors mentioned above.
                      And if we correctly determine the size of the errors, we will correctly calculate
                      the period of time "from .. to .." which the water will still boil away.
                      2) But we can go the other way. And count nothing. We can pour 1000 cups of water (each of which will have certain deviations in the amount of water, its temperature, etc.) and boil them on a recommended stove, timing the boil-off time.
                      If the deviations are determined correctly, the data of option 1 and option 2 will coincide.
                      The armor penetration formula is option 2. You are now trying to add deviations from option 1 to it, which is fundamentally wrong.
                      If it is not clear now, I give up :) _)))
                      1. DrEng527
                        DrEng527 22 December 2020 11: 55
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        We can only find out the period of time during which the water will boil off, taking into account the errors mentioned above.

                        exactly! that's what I'm writing to you about the formula used in the article ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        If the deviations are determined correctly, the data of option 1 and option 2 will coincide.

                        you forgot about the influence of the mugs (the spread of their mass) on the process request that's what I'm writing to you - there are always simplifications ... request
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        timing the boil off.

                        and thus creating an additional error ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The armor penetration formula is option 2. You are now trying to add deviations from option 1 to it, which is fundamentally wrong.

                        No - this is your mistake ... on the basis of observations, a formula was derived and it is used ... including by you ... you substitute different data into it, and not only those that were used in the experiment ... by others in words, an empirical relationship (black box) is derived, at the input of which there is one data, at the output - others ... the essence of the question under discussion is how much the input data is quantizable - i.e. with what minimum interval they can be changed in order to get a real change in the output ...
                        a) my approach: this is due to a given input data error, on the basis of which the output data uncertainty arises ...
                        b) your approach - there is no input data error and it does not affect the received data ...
                        those. for you, we supply 500 and 501 m / s and consider the obtained data according to the formula different ... for me - within the specified error in the range of 495-505 m / s, the output data does not change ... repeat
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        If it is not clear now, I give up :) _)))

                        I have a lot of experience explaining ... hi
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        22 December 2020 12: 31
                        0
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        you forgot about the influence of mugs (spread of their mass) on the process

                        I forgot a lot, including the ambient temperature, etc. etc. But, as I thought, my thought from the context is more than clear
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        and thus creating an additional error ...

                        But eliminating errors in the empirical determination of other errors
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        No - this is your mistake ... based on observations, a formula has been derived and it is used ... including by you ... you substitute different data into it, and not just those that were used in the experiment ...

                        This data is from one array. Shooting shells of those years on the armor of those years :))))
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        those. for you, we supply 500 and 501 m / s and consider the obtained data according to the formula different ... for me - within the specified error in the range of 495-505 m / s, the output data does not change ...

                        What are we talking about. You do not own the values ​​of the errors made when deriving the formula, and you do not own those that were admitted during the shelling. Accordingly, your errors in determining the errors can easily exceed these errors themselves :)))) I make the assumption that the shooting I studied had errors, within the limits of those that were allowed when deriving the formula. And even if not, then the chances that this error will not exceed the errors when you derive errors are more than great :))))))
                      3. DrEng527
                        DrEng527 22 December 2020 12: 55
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You do not own the values ​​of the errors made when deriving the formula, and you do not own those that were admitted during the shelling. Respectively

                        then the logic changes you ... request although you admit the obvious - the data used in the derivation of the formula had an error ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Your errors in determining the errors can easily exceed these errors themselves

                        there is no bad thing in this - it is much worse to make the errors smaller than the real ones - and the data will become unreliable ... request
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I make the assumption that the shooting I studied had errors, within the limits of those that were allowed when deriving the formula.

                        but refuse to study the effect of variance in input data on output? bully
                        that is why you give data like 435 mm, seemingly not realizing that this is a conditional figure of a certain range of thicknesses, which can be obtained by examining the input errors and output uncertainty ...
                        It's like the thickness of armor - let's say it is 9dm with a spread, therefore, according to modern GOST 26645-85 Castings from metals and alloys for grade 12 are 229 + -7mm, and if rolled, then according to GOST 19903-74 Hot-rolled sheet metal is + 2-4mm.
                        Well, what's the point of specifying armor thickness up to 1 mm? And even more so to compare them with a difference in tolerance?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But, as I thought, my thought from the context is more than clear

                        You don't even realize that you are refuting yourself with this example ... request
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        22 December 2020 13: 18
                        0
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        although you admit the obvious - the data used in the derivation of the formula had an error ...

                        I never denied it
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        there is no bad thing in this - it is much worse to make the errors smaller than the real ones - and the data will become unreliable ...

                        You have not read what I wrote to you. This is bad.
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        but refuse to study the effect of variance in input data on output?

                        Naturally. Because, read again
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Accordingly, your errors in determining errors can easily exceed these errors themselves :))))


                        Quote: DrEng527
                        that is why you give data like 435 mm, seemingly not realizing that this is a conditional figure of a certain range of thicknesses, which can be obtained by examining the input errors and output uncertainty ...

                        I understand that you want it so much, but it is not so. The problem is that you (and I) do not and cannot have data to correctly determine
                        input errors and output uncertainty.

                        As a result, you either go into unconfirmed data, at the "I think so" level. And I tell you that in this case you run the risk of getting a result that is much further from the real one.
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        You don't even understand that you are refuting yourself with this example ..

                        I'm afraid you are not talking to me right now. And with a certain opponent convenient to you. You don’t hear my arguments and don’t answer them
                      5. DrEng527
                        DrEng527 22 December 2020 15: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I understand that you want it so much, but it is not so

                        What I want is something else ... but I did not see the arguments, although I brought it myself ...

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        As a result, you either go into unconfirmed data, at the level "I think so"

                        no, this is a generally accepted formal approach to dealing with inaccurate data ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And I tell you that in this case you run the risk of getting a result that is much further from the real one.

                        you still do not understand what is real, "correct", etc. there is no result - there is a conditional figure with a certain probability ... the most correct entry is XX + -yy mm they break through with 80% probability at a distance of ZZ m ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You don’t hear my arguments and don’t answer them

                        in the conventional sense, you have no arguments ... request you have faith in the formula and the resulting figure .. okay - I already wrote above - I don't see any reason to debate - you just don't understand the subject of discussion - the use of empirical formulas ... hi
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        23 December 2020 10: 19
                        0
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        you still do not understand what is real, "correct", etc. no result

                        I knew this long before the discussion.
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        in the conventional sense, you have no arguments ...

                        You just don't see them. They do not fit into your evidential scheme, and do not exist for you.
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        you have faith in the formula and the resulting figure ..

                        The most complete nonsense, excuse me. My argument has nothing to do with faith.
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        you just don't understand the subject of discussion

                        I'm afraid it's exactly the opposite.
                        You see, a professional differs from an amateur in that he can clearly explain the latter's delusions. Our situation is the opposite - you do not perceive the argumentation, you do not answer it, getting off with general words like those quoted by me above
                      7. DrEng527
                        DrEng527 23 December 2020 13: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        a professional differs from an amateur in that he can clearly explain the latter's delusions.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You just don't see them. They do not fit into your evidential scheme, and do not exist for you.

                        hi
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        you do not perceive the argumentation,

                        you don't have it ... request I already wrote to you above - that the positions are clear - you don't want to learn a priori - see the example about the spread of armor thickness ... request
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        you just do not understand the subject of discussion - the use of empirical formulas.

                        this is the point ... if a formula is derived, this does not mean that it is absolutely accurate - the criterion for its accuracy is the scatter of the output from the scatter of the input ... request
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        23 December 2020 14: 22
                        0
                        Sergei, the conversation is useless. You can't hear me, from the word "at all"
  • Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 18 December 2020 19: 12
    +1
    well, even if the projectile does not enter the conning tower, it will do all one thing: concussion (at best) to everyone inside, a high proportion of the likelihood of failure of "thin" devices such as a compass, optical instruments, possibly a machine telegraph and ... more a lot of "interesting" things. As a result, there was a temporary loss of control of the ship (or even a squadron, as in 1904 in the Yellow Sea) with the corresponding consequences. Thanks to the author! Especially for the photo!
    1. mr.ZinGer
      mr.ZinGer 19 December 2020 13: 44
      +1
      There is a medical term, deck fractures, damage to the ankle from the shock of the deck when hit by a shell.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 19 December 2020 15: 38
        0
        Quote: mr.ZinGer
        There is a medical term, deck fractures, damage to the ankle from the shock of the deck when hit by a shell.

        Rather, it refers to underwater explosions - when hit by a torpedo, undermining on a mine.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 18 December 2020 19: 23
    +6
    To be honest, it is not clear what information the author received from his calculations?
    If we are talking about the durability of Russian armor, then the calculations should include German and British shells of the corresponding calibers and parameters. If we assume that Russian armor in its qualities did not differ much from German and British (which also requires at least some confirmation), then from these calculations one can judge the durability of German or British armor, but not Russian.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 December 2020 23: 01
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      If we are talking about the durability of Russian armor, then the calculations should include German and British shells of the corresponding calibers and parameters.

      I believe that the quality of the German and Russian shells was roughly equivalent. The considerations on the strength of which I came to this conclusion will be stated a little later.
      Quote: Undecim
      If we assume that the Russian armor in its qualities did not differ much from the German and British (which also requires at least some confirmation)

      so I'm going to demonstrate it. The next article is about the trials of 1920, then - German armor
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 18 December 2020 23: 31
        +3
        I believe that the quality of the German and Russian shells was roughly equivalent.
        And what about the calibers, weights, and initial speeds?
      2. Undecim
        Undecim 19 December 2020 03: 48
        +6
        And instead of a hard-to-read text, it was impossible to do the same in the form of a graph and a short commentary?

        Estimated data.
        Projectile caliber - 305 mm
        Projectile weight - 470.9 kg
        The maximum firing range at an elevation angle of 25 degrees is 23 meters (data from the Tables of firing 228/12 inch guns).
        The armor is vertical and parallel to the diametrical plane. Heading angle of the target is 90 degrees.
        The calculation was carried out according to Jacob de Marr's formula for armor penetration of cemented armor plates with a thickness of more than 75 mm and Martynov's ballistic calculator.
        The calculation results are in the table.

        Next, we compare the available practical data with the calculated in the form of a table.
        If you make a graph for all the weapons under consideration, it will be clearly visible which ones have the advantage and at what distances.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 19 December 2020 04: 02
          +5
          Yes, I forgot to indicate.
          Initial speed - 762 m / s
          Ballistic coefficient of the projectile - 0,7395
          At a course angle of 90 degrees, the meeting angle is equal to the angle of incidence.
          1. Andrey152
            Andrey152 27 December 2020 11: 39
            +1
            Tell me, where does the ballistic coefficient come from?
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 27 December 2020 11: 49
              +1
              In this case - from a ballistic calculator - a special program that is designed for such calculations. You can count according to the appropriate formulas, but this is not for everybody. There are sites where fanatics of such a pastime discuss such issues.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 December 2020 13: 44
          +1
          Quote: Undecim
          I believe that the quality of the German and Russian shells was roughly equivalent.
          And what about the calibers, weights, and initial speeds?

          I'm afraid you misunderstood. Calibers, weights and initial speeds, of course, are taken into account by the formula (including through the angle of incidence and speed on the armor). But there are also concepts of the quality of the projectile, since the K coefficient, strictly speaking, describes not only the quality of the armor, but the ratio of the qualities of the projectile and the armor. So, by default, I will consider it equal. And calibers and so on - they, of course, are taken into account in the formula separately
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 19 December 2020 20: 10
            +4
            I'm afraid you misunderstood.
            If I didn't understand, how would I count and plot the curve?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              20 December 2020 09: 18
              0
              Quote: Undecim
              If I didn't understand, how would I count and plot the curve?

              You took K = 2134. Alas, this is wrong.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 20 December 2020 11: 03
                +1
                Justify why?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  20 December 2020 11: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Undecim
                  Justify why?

                  Article above :)))) The Russian armor did not show when exposed to the Russian 305-mm K shells in size 2134.
                  1. Undecim
                    Undecim 20 December 2020 11: 18
                    +1
                    Your calculations in the article are not the basis for any fundamental statements and conclusions. In this regard, for me Goncharov, excuse me, is more authoritative.
                    By the way, where did you get the data from, where can you see it?
                    If there is reliable data on the quality of the reservation, recalculation will take one minute. This is a spreadsheet. Substitute any values ​​- you get the result.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      20 December 2020 11: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Undecim
                      Your calculations in the article are not the basis for any fundamental statements and conclusions. In this regard, for me Goncharov, excuse me, is more authoritative.

                      My calculations are easy to verify. If we know the thickness of the penetrated armor, the speed, caliber and mass of the shells, then K is calculated automatically. It's just simple math.
                      Goncharov took K = 2134. But this - K - recommended for calculations in the artillery textbook of the early 30s, when the armor case had already stepped forward compared to the armor of the WWII era. His examples of calculations on British battleships may well be explained by the best quality of British armor of those times. Thus, I have no contradiction with Goncharov.
                      Quote: Undecim
                      By the way, where did you get the data from, where can you see it?

                      What data you are interested in, I do not understand. Specify, please
                      1. Undecim
                        Undecim 20 December 2020 11: 34
                        +1
                        Those that you cite in the article on shelling the compartment.
                        And about the thirties - look when this textbook was published for the first time. Even the latest edition was being prepared in the late twenties. There were no revolutionary achievements in armor back then. But this is all theory. There are no specific figures, therefore the overwhelming majority generally considers the armor of the beginning of the century with K = 2200.
                        I sent you in PM an example of such a calculation. And the data of the experimental shelling are not absolute and the basis for categorical conclusions.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        20 December 2020 15: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Undecim
                        Those that you cite in the article on shelling the compartment.

                        The speeds and angles of incidence are Galkevich, who in his book laid out scans of reports of real tests. The mass and caliber of the shells are generally known.
                        Quote: Undecim
                        There are no specific figures, therefore the overwhelming majority generally considers the armor of the beginning of the century with K = 2200.

                        Most are not an argument.
                        Quote: Undecim
                        And the data of the experimental shelling are not absolute and the basis for categorical conclusions.

                        They are exactly - much more than "the opinion of the majority, which does not have specific numbers"
                      3. Undecim
                        Undecim 20 December 2020 15: 49
                        +1
                        You know, to my shame I don't have Galkevich, will you give me a link?
                        As for the discussion of technical issues, I remember that this is not very promising with you due to the fact that you part with your delusions very painfully.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        21 December 2020 06: 35
                        +1
                        Quote: Undecim
                        You know, to my shame I don't have Galkevich, will you give me a link?

                        I'll try to drop it on your box. If it doesn’t work, let me know, I’ll think about how to convey it, you must have such things.
                        Quote: Undecim
                        As for the discussion of technical issues, I remember that this is not very promising with you due to the fact that you part with your delusions very painfully.

                        Oh, thanks...
                2. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 20 December 2020 12: 00
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Goncharov took K = 2134. But this - K - recommended for calculations in the artillery textbook of the early 30s, when the armor case had already stepped forward compared to the armor of the WWII era.

                  I am plagued by vague doubts that at the time of this writing, Goncharov had data on new types of armor, for example, KC n / A arr. 1928, Post-1930CA arr. 1933 or Terni TC arr. 1929 g.
                3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  20 December 2020 15: 27
                  +1
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  I fidget with vague doubts that at the time of this writing, Goncharov had data on new types of armor

                  Well, in due time (to be precise - through the article) I will give the reasons for this opinion
                4. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 20 December 2020 15: 54
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I will give reasons for this opinion

                  Will wait...
  • Denis Oleynikov
    Denis Oleynikov 16 February 2021 15: 22
    +1
    Thank you very much for the simple visual tables and armor penetration graph. It turns out that the German "Bayerns" with a relatively identical main armor belt (350mm to 368-305mm) were penetrated by "Sevastopol" with no more than 40 cab. , and "Sevastopoli" "Bayerns" according to the calculation formula of de Marr - from 60-65.
  • lucul
    lucul 18 December 2020 19: 44
    0
    The projectile resistance of the Russian armor can be determined with acceptable accuracy, thanks to the experimental shelling of the old battleship "Chesma", reclassified as "excluded ship No. 4".

    This had to be done 5 years before Tsushima, then there would be no such losses. And then they saved on ancient battleships (as a target) and lost a whole fleet (they saved a penny, but lost a million).
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 18 December 2020 20: 12
      +4
      Quote: lucul
      This had to be done 5 years before Tsushima, then there would be no such losses.

      How does the organization of damage control affect the quality of armor?
      1. lucul
        lucul 18 December 2020 21: 03
        0
        How does the organization of damage control affect the quality of armor?

        They would have had an idea of ​​the nature of the damage and the capabilities of artillery, which could change the design of the ship, otherwise they would only shoot at the shields, and this is far from the same thing.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 18 December 2020 21: 23
          +6
          Quote: lucul
          They would have an idea of ​​the nature of the damage and the capabilities of artillery, which could change the design of the ship

          Taking into account the fact that the main damage was caused by land mines, which caused hard-to-control fires (in the OBZh they were able only on the "Eagle"), and there were no penetrations of the belt armor, your assumptions are somewhat far-fetched.
          Actually "Tsushima syndrome" became the reason for such a peculiar design of "Sevastopol" and the appearance of very amusing "high-explosive" shells with an armor-piercing tip.
          1. lucul
            lucul 18 December 2020 21: 40
            -5
            Taking into account the fact that the main damage was caused by land mines, which caused hard-to-control fires (in the OBZh they were able only on the "Eagle"), and there were no penetrations of the belt armor, your assumptions are somewhat far-fetched.

            If the firing revealed an increased fire hazard of the ship, then the following ship designs could have a much higher fire resistance to fire.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 18 December 2020 21: 47
              +2
              Quote: lucul
              If the shooting revealed

              Shooting would definitely not reveal this ...
              In general, read V.P. Kostenko "On the Eagle in Tsushima".
              Many questions will disappear.
            2. rytik32
              rytik32 18 December 2020 22: 37
              +4
              Both the British (repeatedly) and the French conducted large-scale tests. There were no such fires as under Tsushima. Even the tree on the targets did not burn.
              So I attribute the Tsushima fires to a combination of two factors:
              1. Incomplete explosions of Japanese shells and afterburning of shimosa on flammable materials as a source of ignition, which was not in the tests of the British and French.
              2. A large number of fires in a short period of time as a result of the high intensity of hits, primarily with medium caliber, which was not the case in other battles of the RYA.
              1. unknown
                unknown 19 December 2020 08: 18
                -1
                Add the construction overload of the "Borodino" -type battleships, which, according to Kostenko's description, consisted of thermal insulating materials to facilitate the crew's living conditions when sailing in the tropics, and heavier floating craft. That is, from obviously combustible materials. The second factor was that part of the uncontrollably loaded coal remained on the ships in the form of coal dust, not only in coal pits, but also on the battery deck.
                1. rytik32
                  rytik32 19 December 2020 09: 20
                  +1
                  The battleships Belleisle and Swiftsure (read about their shooting!) Also had a lot of flammable materials on board, but no fires broke out. The French generally fired at the wooden ship with melinite - and without fires.
              2. lucul
                lucul 19 December 2020 10: 45
                -1
                Both the British (repeatedly) and the French conducted large-scale tests. There were no such fires as under Tsushima. Even the tree on the targets did not burn.
                So I attribute the Tsushima fires to a combination of two factors:
                1. Incomplete explosions of Japanese shells and afterburning of shimosa on flammable materials as a source of ignition, which was not in the tests of the British and French

                It is likely that coal dust interacted well with shimosa and contributed to the fire. Below, the person described that, according to the testimony of the Japanese, the captured Russian ships were simply all black from coal dust, as a result of overloading the ships with coal.
          2. Engineer
            Engineer 18 December 2020 21: 47
            0
            By the way, is it true that during the war these semi-armor-piercing land mines were on the crops as much as 80% of ammunition?
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 18 December 2020 22: 11
              0
              Quote: Engineer
              By the way, is it true that during the war these semi-armor-piercing land mines were on the crops as much as 80% of ammunition?

              In general, BC is such a thing ... floating.
              The ratio can vary widely.
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 18 December 2020 22: 14
                0
                There is a full-time BC. There is the composition of the BC, established by special orders. There are simply facts of loading certain types of ammunition. I have at least some clue.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 18 December 2020 22: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: Engineer
                  There is a full-time BC.

                  Yes, but in fact they loaded what is needed for the current operation and in the required quantity. I am interested in PMV optional, but according to WWII there are a lot of examples.
                  "Hipper" during the raiding, "didoshki" in the Mediterranean ...
          3. unknown
            unknown 19 December 2020 08: 12
            0
            Both the British and the French tested shells filled with liddite (melinite).
            And on battleships.
            There were no fires.
            There were no fires on the ships of the Port Arthur squadron during the battle in the Yellow Sea.
            And there were fires on the ships of the Second Squadron.
            You brought Kostenko. He very well described the construction overload of the Borodino-class battleships. Most of it is thermal protection of residential premises.
            apparently it was made of flammable materials.
            Second point. For most of the voyage, the ships were simply filled up with coal.
            The Japanese, while repairing the "Eagle", faced the problem of coal dust, which was everywhere in incredible quantities.
            Rozhestvensky did not take any measures to prepare the ships for battle.
            During this preparation, the construction overload had to be removed. Most of it. This was not so difficult to do. To remove all floating crafts to the auxiliary vessels of the squadron. Disassemble the thermal insulation of residential premises. Take measures to clean coal dust from ships. At least partly. Additionally, clean the bottom.
            Thus, the fire hazard of the ships would be significantly reduced, and their speed, for the most part, would be at the level of the Japanese. 14 knots. More Japanese, overloaded with coal, if I am not mistaken, Andrey wrote about three thousand tons of Mikasa's total overload in battle (900 tons of construction, the rest is operational), and having Fuji and Azuma as part of the slow-moving ships, they could not give ...
            1. lucul
              lucul 19 December 2020 10: 41
              0
              Second point. For most of the voyage, the ships were simply filled up with coal.
              The Japanese, while repairing the "Eagle", faced the problem of coal dust, which was everywhere in incredible quantities.
              Rozhestvensky did not take any measures to prepare the ships for battle.

              This version has a very, very right to life - if coal dust was all over the deck, then it could ignite from shimosa, and it is much more difficult to extinguish coal than wood.
              1. rytik32
                rytik32 19 December 2020 21: 36
                0
                Are there eyewitness memories who talk about the ignition of coal dust?
                1. Comrade
                  Comrade 20 December 2020 05: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: rytik32
                  Are there eyewitness memories who talk about the ignition of coal dust?

                  There are recollections that the ships were removed before the battle, but a lot of coal dust remained in the crevices and grooves. When the Japanese shells began to detonate, the shaking caused the dust to rise into the air. There was so much of it that the light of the lanterns could hardly get through in the rooms.
                  The assumption that this dust could flare up and even explode is self-evident. The benefit of incidents involving fires or coal dust explosions is a dime a dozen.
                  1. rytik32
                    rytik32 20 December 2020 10: 26
                    0
                    Valentine, good afternoon!
                    I know about a huge number of fires and explosions of coal dust. But the mechanism is incomprehensible to the ship. A Japanese projectile hits, breaks the board, behind which the coal dust stands in a column in the room. The shock wave will drive this dust back into the cracks, won't it? And there will be no oxygen for the reaction - everything will burn out an explosion.
                    So I am interested in the testimony - who saw the ignition of coal dust. It turns out no one has seen. And a lot has been written about fires in bed protection, for example.
                    1. Comrade
                      Comrade 21 December 2020 04: 18
                      0
                      Hello, Alexey!

                      Quote: rytik32
                      I know about a huge number of fires and explosions of coal dust. But the mechanism is incomprehensible to the ship. A Japanese projectile hits, breaks the board, behind which the coal dust stands in a column in the room. The shock wave will drive this dust back into the cracks, won't it?

                      Not necessarily.
                      In mines, a methane explosion raises a cloud of coal dust, which also explodes. The shockwave from the explosion of coal dust, in turn, kicks up more coal dust, causing subsequent explosions.


                      Not being a specialist in the field of volumetric explosions, I am posting a fragment of the article "Dust explosion process".

                      Experience and many laboratory experiments have shown that the dust of almost all combustible materials, under certain conditions, can cause an explosion or very rapid combustion. At the same time, the following elements must be present: a mixture of combustible dust with air in suspension, an ignition source of sufficient energy, a temperature and time conducive to an explosion, and an amount of oxygen (more than 8%) sufficient to maintain rapid combustion. These elements together form the well-known "fire (explosion) triangle".

                      Grain dust is highly flammable, and when mixed with air at a certain concentration, the dust / air mixture tends to form an explosive gas. A dust / air mixture is explosive if it can explode at a certain concentration while in suspension. A dust / air mixture appears to be explosive when this reaction can start slowly and develop very violently.

                      When listing the conditions for an explosion, some additional factors are sometimes mentioned:
                      a) fuel (dust) must be well mixed with the oxidizing agent. Laboratory experiments have shown that the more intense the mixing of dust with air, the stronger the explosion.
                      b) the mixture must be in a confined or limited volume. If the dust cloud is in a closed volume, the pressure arising from the explosion will increase, thereby increasing the destruction.



                      Quote: rytik32
                      So I am interested in the testimony - who saw the ignition of coal dust. It turns out that nobody saw

                      Witnesses to this phenomenon may not have survived.
            2. Narak-zempo
              Narak-zempo 19 December 2020 15: 43
              0
              Quote: ignoto
              Most of it is thermal protection of residential premises.
              apparently it was made of flammable materials.

              And why was it impossible to put mineral wool and asbestos?
          4. lucul
            lucul 19 December 2020 10: 33
            -1
            Actually "Tsushima syndrome" became the reason for such a peculiar construction of "Sevastopol"

            As if the Dreadnought had a better layout)))
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 19 December 2020 11: 04
              0
              Quote: lucul
              As if the Dreadnought had a better layout)))

              The question is not in the layout, but in the booking scheme.
              "Dreadnought" has a pronounced citadel that protects HHF (cellars and cars)
              On the Sevastopol, relatively thin armor (at the LKR level) is "smeared" all over the board.
              1. lucul
                lucul 19 December 2020 11: 12
                0
                The question is not in the layout, but in the booking scheme.
                "Dreadnought" has a pronounced citadel that protects HHF (cellars and cars)
                On the Sevastopol, relatively thin armor (at the LKR level) is "smeared" all over the board.

                Pffff ......
                Are you aware of the difference between Harvey armor and Krupp's armor? On Sevastopol there was excellent Krupp armor, in the equivalent of Harvey's armor, it is more than 400 mm. So the 225 mm of Sevastopol were no worse than the 279 mm of the Dreadnought.
                For its years, Sevastopol is a very breakthrough ship, it is not his fault that it was launched 5 years later than they could.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 19 December 2020 11: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: lucul
                  Are you aware of the difference between Harvey armor and Krupp's armor? On Sevastopol there was excellent Krupp armor, in the equivalent of Harvey's armor, it is more than 400 mm. So the 225 mm of Sevastopol were no worse than the 279 mm of the Dreadnought.

                  And where did you get the idea that the "Dreadnought" had armor hardened by the Harvey method?
                  The British abandoned the Harvey armor on the Canopuses, and this is 1896-97 ...
                  1. lucul
                    lucul 19 December 2020 11: 45
                    -4
                    And where did you get the idea that the "Dreadnought" had armor hardened by the Harvey method?
                    The British abandoned the Harvey armor on the Canopuses, and this is 1896-97 ...

                    I mean, each country understood and smelted Krupp's armor in its own way, and the spread in the characteristics of Krupp's armor in different countries reached 20%. Krupp's armor on Sevastopol was excellent. No wonder Goeben did not get involved in a battle with Empress Maria, although their booking is comparable.
                    1. Macsen_wledig
                      Macsen_wledig 19 December 2020 12: 08
                      +2
                      Quote: lucul
                      I mean, each country understood and smelted Krupp's armor in its own way, and the spread in the characteristics of Krupp's armor in different countries reached 20%.

                      Can you see the comparative characteristics of Izhora armor and British VC?

                      Quote: lucul
                      No wonder Goeben did not get involved in a battle with Empress Maria, although their booking is comparable.

                      You are confusing warm with soft: the German Turks simply did not want to risk the only dreadnought they had, no more, but no less ...
                      1. Potter
                        Potter 20 December 2020 18: 09
                        0
                        The advantage of any of the Empresses in artillery power was overwhelming. To get involved in a battle when the 11-inch of the Germans most likely simply will not penetrate the armor, and the Russian cannon will penetrate at any distance, and the firing range is 30 kb longer, the mass of the volley is twice as large - this is most likely a fatal outcome for the Germans. If only the Empresses had a speed knot, the trap would slam shut.
                2. fone
                  fone 23 December 2020 13: 53
                  0
                  Who told you that she was "great"?
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 18 December 2020 20: 14
    +1
    Armor-piercing overcame 250 mm armor plate
    Armored plate, not a sheet! The author below wrote correctly, but it seems unconsciously. ))
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 December 2020 23: 02
      +1
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Armored plate, not a sheet!

      Agas, there is some liberty in the presentation. Sinful :)
  • 27091965
    27091965 18 December 2020 21: 09
    0
    The thing is that the "classic recipe" for Krupp's armor (also known as "quality 420", created in 1894) did not remain unchanged, but improved. At least by countries like England and Germany. But how exactly he perfected himself, and to what results the master armors of various powers came - this, alas, I do not know for certain.


    One of the reference books indicated that Krupp's armor by World War 1 was improved by approximately 10% of the "classic recipe". It specifies two types of armor "Krupp cemented" and "Krupp non-cemented".
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 18 December 2020 21: 46
      +1
      We also improved. But it is unclear whether they managed to do this before making Seva's armor.
      The technical process at the Izhora plant before the war is even described. But I am not a metallurgist, I cannot give an opinion.
      Comparative characteristics of armor, at least qualitatively, is hardly possible. At least for the First World War.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 18 December 2020 22: 14
        +2
        Quote: Engineer
        But I am not a metallurgist, I cannot give an opinion.

        Based on the description of those. process and the metallurgist will not give (or rather can give, but only purely theoretical), it is necessary to take a finished plate and carry out tests in a specialized laboratory (mechanics, chemistry, metallography, hardness testing and so on ...).
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 18 December 2020 22: 31
          0
          The chemical composition of Krupp's Izhora armor is just known
          carbon 0,3%, manganese 0,4%, nickel 3,7%, chromium 1,8%, silicon 0,04%, phosphorus not more than 0,04%
          In the cemented layer - 1% carbon
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 19 December 2020 11: 05
            +1
            Quote: Engineer
            The chemical composition of Krupp's Izhora armor is just known

            But other?
            Chemistry is not everything.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 December 2020 23: 03
      0
      Quote: 27091965i
      One of the reference books indicated that Krupp's armor by World War 1 was improved by approximately 10% of the "classic recipe". It specifies two types of armor "Krupp cemented" and "Krupp non-cemented".

      So it is cemented and homogeneous. But the question is, whose armor has improved by 10% :)))) English? French? Germanic? Our? Together?
      1. 27091965
        27091965 18 December 2020 23: 55
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So it is cemented and homogeneous.


        Yes it is, but I used the terminology from the reference book.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But the question is, whose armor improved by 10% :)))) English? French? Germanic? Our? Together?


        There is no country indication, the answer is generalized. I'll see if there is more accurate information.
  • Vitaly Pogrebnyak
    Vitaly Pogrebnyak 18 December 2020 21: 17
    0
    And then it is clear why we surrendered.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 18 December 2020 21: 22
    +3
    Well, you can't present technical information like that
    The previous article had tables all readable. There is torture in this place.
    Make the columns of the table Shot number - impact speed - meeting angle - simulated distance - armor thickness - result briefly (expanded in the body of the text).
    In the end, the author gives a very important information - according to his calculations, the angle of encounter and the impact speed differ for the simulated distance - it means to enter it into the table. Everything will be clear and clear
    Such a table can be compared with the calculation tables in the previous article. Plus again
    Structure the article so that there is at least an intermediate conclusion. And give it at the end. Otherwise, everything is instantly forgotten and before reading the next one, the previous one will have to be re-read
    PS Specify the source. As I understand it, in this case it is Galkevich
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 18 December 2020 21: 41
    +1
    You can clink glasses! Steamers dragged 225 mm sheets each!
    And one devil - all this "kitchen" - punched and drowned.
    How much senseless iron went to the bottom ...
    Iron, to hell with it. And the people?
    Some kind of nightmare. I never wanted to serve in the navy. From the word at all.
    Although the form during the Soviet Union was beautiful! You look at the sailor and admire!
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 18 December 2020 21: 48
      +2
      Quote: Benzorez
      Steamers dragged 225 mm sheets each!

      Some also had 410 mm towers, and some had frontal armor of 650 mm.
      But that was 25 years later ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 19 December 2020 14: 40
        +1
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Some also had 410 mm towers, and some had frontal armor of 650 mm.
        But that was 25 years later ...

        Yes, and there were also examples before, yes ... 20 years before "Sev", some in the RIF pulled an armored belt 406-457 mm thick. smile
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 19 December 2020 15: 25
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Yes, and there were also examples before, yes ... 20 years before "Sev", some in the RIF pulled an armored belt 406-457 mm thick.

          Prastiti ...
          Senile. wassat
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 18 December 2020 22: 20
    +2
    Let's start with 250 mm of armor, which protected the walls of the conning tower of the "excluded ship No. 4". In total, 13 shots were fired at this wheelhouse, but some of them were fired at its roof, and others were high-explosive shells. Armor-piercing shells were fired at 250-mm armor only 5 times.

    Our friend from Chelyabinsk does not seem to have taken into account one plump nuance. In these tests, not only were used new shells of the 1911 model (470.9 kg), but also old, still Tsushima, weighing 331.7 kg. Moreover, the IMHO tests were rather stupidly organized and the firing of different shells was mixed. In addition, Chesma was drowned too quickly without having time to experience everything they wanted.

    However, each hit was documented, and the book listed the type of projectile for each of these hits. Unfortunately, I only have a bad scan, and I'm just too lazy to leaf through it manually. However, at least one or two shells that penetrated the 250 mm wheelhouse were old, that's for sure. drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 December 2020 23: 06
      +4
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Our friend from Chelyabinsk does not seem to have taken into account one plump nuance.

      Saksakhors, you again confused me with yourself. I have data on all hits in Chesma, and, of course, I only use shells from 1911. Actually, the article contains all the data according to which you can check this, just - you are too lazy, as usual :)
      1. unknown
        unknown 19 December 2020 08: 23
        0
        Andrey, could you give information on the 1912 model shells in the articles of this cycle. Weighing 512 kg., And shells of the 1915 model. Weighing 581 kg.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 December 2020 09: 27
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          Andrey, could you give information on the 1912 model shells in the articles of this cycle. Weighing 512 kg., And shells of the 1915 model. Weighing 581 kg.

          There are no such shells :)))) I quote "The main caliber of battleships":
          "The Special Projectile Bureau of the People's Commissariat of the Defense Industry (SSB NKOP) tested three types of promising 30-mm shells in the 305s. First of all, these were armor-piercing and high-explosive shells of improved aerodynamic shape (the so-called" shells of the 1915/28 model "). the same mass (470,9 kg). They were worked out in the ammunition of both new and existing 305-mm guns. Shells of this type made it possible to increase the firing range by 15-17% and significantly increase the armor-piercing effect, especially at distances over 75 cables, but it seemed possible to achieve its radical growth only in the new weapons of forced ballistics. The second and, as it seemed, the most promising type of projectiles was the so-called "semi-armor-piercing projectile of the 1915 model of drawing No. 182", created in 1932 and tested until 1937. Its feature was an unusually large mass - 581,4 kg, in connection with which the initial speed was reduced to 690-700 m / s, nevertheless, compared to standard shells, the firing range increased by 3%. But the most important gain was the decisively increasing armor-piercing action at the most probable combat distances of 75-130 cable cables and especially along horizontal armor barriers. Tests at the Scientific Testing Marine Artillery Range (NIMAP) near Leningrad confirmed the great potential of the new projectile; for example, the defeat of 330-mm vertical armor became possible up to a distance of 90 cables. However, there were problems with the longitudinal strength of the shells, splitting when penetrating through the armor, their accuracy, as well as with the strength and power of the feed and loading mechanisms in turret gun mounts. As a result, this type of ammunition was abandoned. "
          That is, we are talking about a projectile, which was developed much later and which did not go into production.
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 19 December 2020 21: 13
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I have data on all hits in Chesma, and, of course, I only use shells from 1911.

        I've been swearing with you for so long that of course I won't even think of taking your word for it. laughing

        If you can, please provide data on the weight of each of the 13 shells hitting the wheelhouse. I remember very well that among them there were shells weighing 331,7 kg. Moreover, such shells were also among those that pierced the armor.

        Good luck in your battle with statistics!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 December 2020 09: 17
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          I have been swearing with you for so long that of course I don’t even think of taking your word for it.

          It makes no difference to me whether you believe me or not.
          Quote: Saxahorse
          If you can, provide data on the weight of each of the 13 shells that hit the wheelhouse.

          I have nothing else to do? You accused me of negligence? You. In my article, the numbering is given - that is, I indicated the official numbers of shells hitting the conning tower. So confirm my negligence - tell the world which of the hits I have listed was made by the Tsushima shell. And in response I will give a scan of the tests, and it will become clear to everyone that there is a hu out of us.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 20 December 2020 22: 20
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            I have nothing else to do? You accused me of negligence?

            Indeed .. Why understand the topic "sloppy" author. wassat

            Andrei is in trouble with technical materials. For what you do not undertake, you will certainly confuse.


            Shell number 44, weight 331,7 kg. armor-piercing, shell # 42 is also 331.7 kg. high-explosive. Not surprisingly, the results of the hits are different since the shells are different. And this is described in the book. And even the reasons are explained.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              21 December 2020 06: 26
              +2
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Andrei is in trouble with technical materials. For what you do not undertake, you will certainly confuse.

              laughing fool
              The trouble with you, Saksakhors, is that you have not mastered mathematics within the 1st grade, but you climb into some calculations.
              I wrote the numbers of the shell hits in the 250 mm armor in Russian in white
              No. 6; 7; 9; 11
              You cite reports on the shot to refute my words № 44. wassat
              You this ... first study the numbers, pzhalsta
              1. Comrade
                Comrade 21 December 2020 19: 51
                +1
                You will ... study the numbers first

                It seems, dear Andrei, the poor fellow in a hurry took the number 44 for 11. He really wanted to argue, so the embarrassment came out.
                I went to fetch some wool, and came back trimmed.
              2. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 22 December 2020 00: 32
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You this ... first study the numbers, pzhalsta

                Well, you weren't too lazy to mention 13 shots. Only four of them decided to select for the article. Meanwhile, you did not see exactly what in this well-known test, which caused a wide resonance among the specialists of that time. For Sevastopol, it was no accident that they made a 250 mm cut. It was believed that this is a 100% guarantee against 12 "shells. This shot with an old light BB shell confirmed that the old method of calculating armor resistance was wrong. And the penetration of large caliber shells is much higher than expected.

                The conclusion made by the experts, I hope you remember - the protection of the new battleships of the Sevastopol type is completely insufficient. The same applies to all previously built battleships, they all turned out to be vulnerable to the armor-piercing shells of their own main battery.
                1. Comrade
                  Comrade 22 December 2020 05: 12
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  For Sevastopol, it was no accident that they made a cut of 250 mm. It was believed that this is a 100% guarantee against 12 "shells. This shot with an old light AP round and confirmed that the old method of calculating armor resistance is wrong.

                  Dear colleague,
                  here is the result of your favorite shot # 44 (increases by "click").

                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  I remember very well that among them there were shells weighing 331,7 kg. Moreover, such shells were also among those that pierced the armor.

                  Since you have such an excellent memory, it will not be difficult for you to emphasize the place in the document where it is said that the shell from shot no. 44 struck, I emphasize, struck 250 mm armor?
                  Thank you in advance.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 22 December 2020 18: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: Comrade
                    Wouldn't it bother you to emphasize the place in the document where it says that the shell from shot # 44 pierced, I emphasize, pierced 250 mm of armor?

                    And what does the Russian word do not suit you - broke? The Russian BB did not break through the forehead of Mikasa's tower either, a plate of the same 250 mm split in the middle and parted.

                    Do not immediately take the position of armor manufacturers. Once they hit the edge, it means they don't count. It is unlikely that those who at this moment suddenly find themselves on the other side of the armor will agree with this.
                    1. Comrade
                      Comrade 22 December 2020 18: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      And what does the Russian word do not suit you - broke?

                      By the fact that his no in the report.
                      А comment numbers from the description of the hit no desire?
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      Good luck in your battle with statistics!

                      laughing
                      Don't try to look for Sun spots anymore, old buddy. You can’t handle such things.
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 22 December 2020 21: 27
                        0
                        Quote: Comrade
                        And there is no desire to comment on the numbers from the description of the hit?

                        And what did you displease with the figures given in the protocol? It looks like you're just trying to find something to complain about. wink

                        The last shell that hit this part of the conning tower was an old-style 12 ”armor-piercing shell. With the same meeting angle and calculated distance of 51 cab. it exploded on impact on the armor and the force of the explosion broke it, tearing out a piece of armor in the area of ​​the embrasure.

                        As you can see, Galkevich gives the word "broke" in plain text. He also has no doubts about the defeat of the armor. Humble yourself! hi
                      2. Comrade
                        Comrade 22 December 2020 22: 18
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        what did the numbers given in the protocol displease you?

                        1) You insist that a 305 mm projectile struck 250 mm armor.
                        2) According to the report, as a result of the hit of a shell from shot # 44, a "hole" was formed with dimensions from one to twelve millimeters by 250 millimeters.
                        3) Attention, question.
                        How is a 305 mm projectile, from your words supposedly pierced 250 mm armor, could you squeeze into a 1-12 mm gap?
                        In modern terms, as a result of the hit of your favorite projectile, a crack has formed in the armor plate, which gave you a reason to say that in this case the armor plate was pierced.
                        It follows from your words that cracked stove and pierced the plate is the same thing.
                        4) To give you an idea of ​​what an armor plate looks like, really pierced shell, I present to you the image of the plate from the cruiser "Nisshin". As you can see, there is a round through hole, and not a 1-12 mm wide slot.
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 22 December 2020 22: 44
                        -1
                        Quote: Comrade
                        How could a 305 mm projectile, which, according to you, allegedly pierced 250 mm armor, could squeeze into a 1-12 mm slot?

                        Well that is I'm right and you are really looking for something to find fault with. :)

                        Why would a projectile squeeze through a finger-thick hole if the goal is to disable people and equipment? The cork measuring 375x300 mm and 250 mm thick does not attract your attention at all? I write about the armor being hit, and the gap confirms that the armor is broken. And the defeat of personnel and equipment - it will be inflicted directly by the projectile head or secondary fragments - is not so important. Inside, after such a hit, hardly anyone survived. The cork, plus fragments scattering from its edges, will mow down everyone at this level of the armored cabin.
                      4. Comrade
                        Comrade 22 December 2020 23: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        The cork measuring 375x300 mm and 250 mm thick does not attract your attention at all?

                        What is it about? Please explain in detail.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        I write about the armor being hit, and the gap confirms that the armor is broken.

                        I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of the word "punch". A narrow slit, dear colleague, and a through hole in the armor plate, the diameter corresponding to the hitting projectile, are not the same thing.
                      5. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 23 December 2020 00: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Comrade
                        What is it about? Please explain in detail.

                        I forgot. You are our main lover of cons in the topic laughing

                        In addition, apparently suffering from selective vision.

                        You were able to consider the size of the gap. And the size of the knocked-out cork indicated right there, well, we can't see it in any way? wassat
                      6. Comrade
                        Comrade 23 December 2020 01: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        I forgot. You are our main lover of cons in the topic

                        Think Saxahorse, Think!
                        If this were so, then all your comments would have "minuses", which is obviously not the case.
                        There is one even with a "plus", while without a "minus".
                        So take it easy and let's continue the conversation.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        the size of the knocked-out cork indicated right there, well, we can't see it?

                        The "external break", as stated in the report, has dimensions of 375 x 300.
                        You think this is a "traffic jam". So the question is, does this "plug" have a thickness? If the answer is yes, please indicate it.
                      7. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 23 December 2020 10: 31
                        0
                        Aren't you tired of trolling yourself? I have no questions about this episode. Everything is obvious. And what about:

                        "I will blink and you guess" (c) this is for you to Academician Lysenko. laughing
                      8. Comrade
                        Comrade 24 December 2020 04: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Aren't you tired of trolling yourself?

                        And you wriggle like a snake, dodging uncomfortable questions?
                        Slightly wrong to admit it? It is their own fault, no one forced you to be called a load, so get into the back.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        I have no questions about this episode. Everything is obvious.

                        What exactly ?
                        What "Outside breakout"And"cork" It is the same ?
                        Then please explain how a 305 mm projectile knocked out the "plug" with dimensions 375 x 300 mm. This "plug" must have two sizes, inner and outer. Here's a cork knocked out by a Japanese shell in the 8 '' armor of the Pobeda battleship.

                        You see, the diameter of the projectile is 12 ", and the sizes of the plug knocked out by it are 22" and 16 ".
                        So explain, since everything is obvious to you, where and what dimensions your "cork" has. Personally, I do not see them point-blank, therefore I ask you to provide specific numbers - outer size, inner size. Everything is as in the attached diagram.
                      9. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 24 December 2020 09: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Comrade
                        So explain, since everything is obvious to you, where and what dimensions your "cork" has. Personally, I don't see them point-blank,

                        For the umpteenth time, stupidly, you repeat the question, the answer to which was repeatedly asked. And you yourself quoted him. Actually, this is called pure trolling.

                        Exclusively from the remnants of respect for you, I will remind you of these numbers for the fourth time. The size of the plug is clearly indicated in the documents:
                      10. Comrade
                        Comrade 27 December 2020 04: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        this is called pure trolling.

                        Don't try to manipulate my mind, it's useless.

                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Once again, you stupidly repeat the question, the answer to which has been repeated several times .... I will remind you of these numbers for the fourth time. The size of the plug is clearly indicated in the documents:

                        Since you are so confident that you are right, I suggest you put an end to our discussion.
                        Do not consider it too difficult, please put these dimensions on the attached plug diagram.

                        Introductory.
                        a) We have a "broken hole" 1-12 mm on 250 mm.
                        b) There is also an "external break", dimensions 375 mm on 300 mm.
                        c) The vertical arrow indicates the direction of flight of the projectile.
                        Task.
                        Arrange the above dimensions on the diagram so that it is clear, it is clear that yes, indeed, a plug, knocked out by a 305 mm projectile.

                        Good luck in your fight against common sense.
                      11. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 27 December 2020 22: 21
                        0
                        Let's stop this ridiculous discussion. fool
                      12. Comrade
                        Comrade 29 December 2020 19: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Let's stop this ridiculous discussion.

                        "Take it by yourself, so as not to fall when walking."
                        (Film "Brother")
  • Engineer
    Engineer 18 December 2020 23: 57
    +1
    Your comment can be fruitful in terms of discass
    .
    However, at least one or two shells that penetrated the 250 mm wheelhouse were old, that's for sure

    The pages are further given according to Galkevich. He has scans of documents
    I found only one shot - # 44 - with an old-style armor-piercing shell page 141 - 250 mm armor pierced
    What remained behind the scenes of the article is the action of land mines. And they, at the suggestion of a well-known resource, are considered wunderwaffe at least part of the local establishment.

    So
    Shot No. 24 against 225 mm armor, high-explosive with a tip - not pierced - page 95
    shot 26 against 225 mm armor high-explosive with a tip - pierced p 101
    shot ?? (protocol 29) on armor 225 without tip - armor pierced p 137

    On the little things
    shot # 10 against armor 250 armor-piercing with penetration - page 126. Such shots must be cited with the proviso that the projectile hit very close to the embrasure. I worked for an armor company and we excluded such shots from consideration altogether - nobody canceled stress concentrators.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 19 December 2020 00: 17
      +1
      PS
      I forgot to mention the most delicious fact.
      No. 6 High-explosive with a tip on armor 250 mm armor pierced p 117
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        20 December 2020 09: 43
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        I forgot to mention the most delicious fact.
        No. 6 High-explosive with a tip on the armor 250 mm armor pierced page 117

        Uh-huh. But what is delicious in it?
        Projectile speed on armor - 607 m / s This corresponds to a distance of 33 cables! Taking into account the angle of impact 80 (deviation 10 from the normal) at K = 2000 - armor penetration is almost 438 mm!
        A high-explosive shell differs from an armor-piercing shell only in its weakened hull. If the steel is good enough to withstand the load from the impact, then its penetration will be very, very significant. Again, our tubes, even on landmines, did not always work right at the moment of detonation, sometimes a little later, so that the shell exploded behind the armor
  • rytik32
    rytik32 19 December 2020 09: 30
    +1
    Andrei, good afternoon!
    Thank you very much for the interesting article!
    But there is a question. How, having only the data on the actions of Russian shells on Russian armor, can we get conclusions about the durability of the armor? After all, "K" in the formula of Jacob de Marr is not a property of one armor, but of a pair of armor-shell.
    Therefore, it is difficult to determine on the basis of the described shooting whether the armor is bad or the shells are good.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 December 2020 09: 47
      0
      Quote: rytik32
      But there is a question. How, having only the data on the actions of Russian shells on Russian armor, can we get conclusions about the durability of the armor? After all, "K" in the formula of Jacob de Marr is not a property of one armor, but of a pair of armor-shell.

      I suppose, nevertheless, to consider the quality of Russian and German shells approximately equal. There is evidence that German 380 mm shells in this parameter may have been even worse, but this is such an assumption.
    2. fone
      fone 23 December 2020 13: 56
      0
      The British also tested Russian shells against their armor. Here is the possibility of comparison.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 24 December 2020 17: 15
        0
        Very interesting!
        I was not interested in this time in detail. Can you ask where you can read about them?
        1. fone
          fone 24 December 2020 18: 10
          0
          Check out the very last, bottommost comment here. I already spammed everything with this link to Tsushima here, the moderator will still rise ((
          1. rytik32
            rytik32 25 December 2020 15: 57
            +1
            Thanks for the link.
            It turns out a picture for PMA.
            The shells were:
            1. Russia (even better than the next generation English shells (greenboys).
            2. Germany.
            3. England.

            By armor:
            1. England.
            2. Germany.
            3. Russia.

            In general, the picture is natural. Our Tsushima conclusions leaned on the shells and stepped forward. But there were no complaints about the armor in Tsushima, so they forgot about it ...
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 19 December 2020 10: 12
    +3
    In principle, of course, interesting. Somewhere somehow. However, the abundance in the text "according to my calculations", "my calculator" begins to raise doubts about the reliability of the results. The author is not a specialist in the design of armor, shells, calculations of their strength, armor penetration, etc. Without a specialized education, work experience, one can hardly claim a professional level of knowledge and skills. And even the results of a professional's work will greatly depend on the test methodology, calculation methodology, formulas used, etc. etc. If the author gave a link to the book, the work from which he took the information and the results of the calculations, it would be possible at least to estimate what kind of source, whether he can be trusted.
    And so - yes, it seems a little interesting. Well, to what extent this corresponds to reality is a question.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2020 13: 47
      0
      Quote: sevtrash
      if the author gave a link to the book, the work from which he took information

      Gave the same. Formulas - Goncharov, the rest is a bulk calculator, the calculation results of which I compared with real shooting for verification
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 19 December 2020 14: 17
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Gave the same. Formulas - Goncharov, the rest is a bulk calculator, the calculation results of which I compared with real shooting for verification


        This is this Goncharov - Goncharov L.G. Artillery and Armor Naval Tactics Course. Leningrad: Publishing house of the Naval Academy of the RKKA named after Comrade Voroshilov. 1932 s? And what about the calculator from the playmarket?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 December 2020 16: 08
          0
          Quote: sevtrash
          This is this Goncharov - Goncharov L.G. Artillery and Armor Naval Tactics Course. Leningrad: Publishing house of the Naval Academy of the RKKA named after Comrade Voroshilov. 1932 s?

          Yes
          Quote: sevtrash
          And what about the calculator from the playmarket?

          ballistic calculator "Ball" version 1.0 from 23.05.2011 developed by Alexander Martynov
  • bk0010
    bk0010 19 December 2020 13: 50
    0
    I wonder if such a projectile would have pierced the frontal armor of a modern tank (I'm not asking about the state of the tank after being hit, I'm talking about penetration)? There, the equivalent resistance for sub-caliber shells is about a meter, and for cumulative ones - about 1.4 m. But these are not sub-caliber or cumulative ones, these are armor-piercing shells, for them the resistance is higher or lower? Yes, I understand that we are talking about a wild, for landowners, caliber of shells, but with armor-piercing shells of sane calibers, everything was clear at the end of the Second World War.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 19 December 2020 15: 30
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      I wonder if such a projectile would have pierced the frontal armor of a modern tank (I'm not asking about the state of the tank after being hit, I'm talking about penetration)?

      It seems to me that in this case it would not be a breakdown, but a destruction of the plate from a kinetic impact.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 19 December 2020 15: 44
        0
        So something like that seems to me. Durability resistance, K1 at least 4000, but there is no reception against scrap, most likely.
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 19 December 2020 21: 22
        0
        Well, how would they experiment in Berlin. A direct hit of a 152 mm howitzer projectile into the Royal Tiger leads to the separation of the Tiger tower from the hull, or to a break in the frontal plate with the death of the crew and the ignition of the tank from the fuel lines destroyed as a result of the impact.

        In general, a northern fluffy animal in any scenario and angle.
        1. Victor Leningradets
          Victor Leningradets 21 December 2020 11: 01
          +1
          Here is our labor teacher (he managed to fight in 1945 in East Prussia) told in a completely different way:
          “Tiger ambushes didn’t give life to our tanks, they would let the column go and start firing. The rate of fire due to the stowage in the aft niche is high, they managed to burn ten tanks each, and - they change their position. But they also found an antidote on them. The Zveroboev battery (he said SU-152) was camouflaged not on direct fire, but gunners-spotters were sent with tanks. As soon as the "King Tigers" opened fire, the thirty-fours scattered, and the battery of "St. John's Hunters" covered the ambush. Then we looked at these tigers. The frontal armor was never broken, only potholes - and the crews are dead. Blood from the nose, ears and the watch on the hand goes on.
    2. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 19 December 2020 16: 06
      0
      And you check.
      Announce a fundraiser, order a frontal part simulator, say, a T-90.
      The guns were preserved on the BB-30 battery in the Crimea - agree on reactivation for testing.
      And shoot yourself to your health if you can pay for it all.
      The show will turn out to be more abrupt than "Mythbusters", maybe you will also make a profit.
  • Elturisto
    Elturisto 20 December 2020 01: 48
    -3
    The author is a little tight with physics. The topic is worn out to holes. Russian dreadnoughts were shit. It is clear - admirals, as usual, were preparing for the last war. I don’t even want to write about 120-mm cap-loading and the absence of PTZ.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 December 2020 09: 57
      +1
      I guess this nonsense needs no comment.
      Quote: ElTuristo
      The topic is worn out to holes.

      The topic is extremely poorly studied
      Quote: ElTuristo
      Russian dreadnoughts were crap.

      Were not.
      Quote: ElTuristo
      It is clear - the admirals were preparing for the last war as usual.

      Another delusion
      Quote: ElTuristo
      About 120 mm with caps loading

      Yes, with caps. Exactly like British LCs like Queen Elizabeth, for example
      Quote: ElTuristo
      and lack of PTZ

      Which was common to most dreadnoughts of that era.
      Quote: ElTuristo
      I don't even want to write.

      so do not write what you don’t know about
      1. Elturisto
        Elturisto 20 December 2020 13: 36
        -1
        Yeah, the FE had 152 mm, from which the separate loading is a heavy projectile. And 120mm, in Sevastopol, the result of kickbacks and cuts - Vickers brought in whoever needs a 305 mm gun, then Vickers developed :) so I had to buy all kinds of technical assistance shit, and install on old galoshes such as BKr Russia and Sevastopoli. In general, modern Russian naval commanders have someone to learn from. Thus, degenerates and degenerates for kickbacks heaped devils that, and as a result, resources, and so insufficient, were wasted. And then the Russian army washed in blood at the front. PTZ were already on the Borodino-type EBR, as well as for the Germans and Austrians, with the British. The Germans have a system that has shown its effectiveness, while others have not.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 December 2020 15: 16
          +1
          Quote: ElTuristo
          Yeah, the EC had 152 mm, from which the separate loading-projectile is heavy

          And who interfered with making separate loading with a sleeve? Before you criticize, you will learn to distinguish at least separate loading from the cartridge case / cap.
          Quote: ElTuristo
          ikkers brought a 305 mm gun to anyone, then Vickers developed :)

          laughing fool
          Don't talk nonsense, it hurts. What other Vickers? :))) Obukhovsky plant.
          Quote: ElTuristo
          so I had to buy all kinds of shit at the expense of technical assistance, and install it on old galoshes such as BKr Russia and Sevastopoli.

          Uh-huh. That is, they did not hesitate to overwhelm the Vickers project at the three-gun mounts competition for new guns, but did they buy the "old guns"?
          And where does such a wonderful herb grow, I hesitate to ask?
          1. Elturisto
            Elturisto 20 December 2020 17: 33
            -1
            Yes, stop that already. Separate loading, especially caps, for 120 mm is idiotism, since the caliber of the main advantage is the rate of fire. It is that the line of guns -356, -305,254,203,152,120 all the developments of Vickers (Obukhovtsy manufacturers) are Nikolashka's august relative screwed up ... 100 years have passed and the same thing is visible :), that's why the caps. By the way, the shaves then flew and fried great with these caps, Malaya for example. I don't know who was filling up what.
            1. Potter
              Potter 20 December 2020 18: 27
              +2
              The so-called "Vickers guns for Rurik", 254, 203 and 120mm, were made on Vickers according to Russian drawings. In this regard, there was a big scandal at the State Duma level - the transfer of secret blueprints to the British. The last series of English 12-inch dreadnoughts had 50-caliber guns with wire barrels that had disgusting accuracy, which caused the transition to a 13,5-inch caliber. So don't juggle.
              1. Elturisto
                Elturisto 21 December 2020 01: 40
                -2
                It began, according to the drawings, once again, the Vickers guns, enough to fantasize. Accuracy was disgusting since the lengthening of the barrels led to vibration when firing. The British could well make ordinary barrels. The risk was great, since the FE were built for the projected weapons.
            2. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 20 December 2020 22: 50
              +1
              Quote: ElTuristo
              Separate loading, especially caps, for 120 mm is idiocy, since the caliber of the main advantage is the rate of fire.

              Forgive me, but have you lifted anything heavier than a spoon in your life?

              Quote: ElTuristo
              Namely, that the line of guns -356, -305,254,203,152,120 all the developments of Vickers (Obukhovtsy manufacturers) -August relatives of Nikolashka mistook ... 100 years have passed and the same thing is visible :), that's why the caps.

              Can you list who at that time had large-caliber artillery systems with separate cartridge case loading (well, except for the Germans, of course)?
              1. Elturisto
                Elturisto 21 December 2020 01: 44
                -4
                I charged, charged, calm down ... that's why I say. And you? I don’t understand you have problems with vision or memory, -wrote the same "Separate loading, especially caps, for 120 mm-idiocy". 120 mm Kane had a unitary loading -Novik, Pearl, Boyarin and others ...
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 21 December 2020 18: 33
                  0
                  Quote: ElTuristo
                  And you?

                  Forgive me, but you and I did not drink at brotherhood ...

                  Quote: ElTuristo
                  The 120 mm Kane had a unitary loading - Novik, Zhemchug, Boyarin and others ...

                  Once loaded, it was probably convenient for you to carry a "log" 1,4 m long and weighing 38 kg at a rate of 8-10 rounds per minute.
                  1. Elturisto
                    Elturisto 21 December 2020 20: 16
                    0
                    Once again, the Kane gun is 120 mm, the weight of the high-explosive projectile is -28 kg. I wouldn't drink with you on a brotherhood ...
                    1. Macsen_wledig
                      Macsen_wledig 21 December 2020 20: 56
                      +1
                      Quote: ElTuristo
                      Once again, the Kane gun is 120 mm, the weight of the high-explosive projectile is 28 kg.

                      You are bad with the hardware.
                      A high-explosive projectile with a head fuse (Fig. 693) weighed 23,0 kg.
                      Complete cartridge - 38,0 kg.

                      Quote: ElTuristo
                      I wouldn't drink with you on a brotherhood ...

                      Mutually...
  • Thomas N.
    Thomas N. 20 December 2020 05: 23
    +1
    Why did the article about the armor of ships get into the "Armored vehicles" section? Why didn't the "Fleet" section fit?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 December 2020 10: 52
      +2
      This is a question for the moderators. It is also unclear why they began to delete links to previous articles on the topic.
  • Potter
    Potter 20 December 2020 18: 15
    +1
    Thank you, Andrey! Unfortunately, I read the article too late to get involved in discussions. However, we look forward to continuing!
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 21 December 2020 11: 25
    0
    Thank you, Andrew!
    I read about the shooting of "Chesma", but did not analyze the hits.
    Here you unwittingly confirmed that according to Jacob de Marr, the result is so-so. If you accept the projectile as an absolutely rigid body, and the slab - endless with an absolute embedment - then within the limits specified by you - it will work.
    And in life:
    - if the mass of the slab is finite (about 30 tons), then from the received impulse it will receive a critical deflection and form a spall from the rear side even before it is completely penetrated by the projectile. This allows a by no means dense high-explosive projectile to penetrate armor in 3/4 caliber;
    - the embedding of the cylindrical sheets of the casemate is close to absolutely rigid, so that the armor-piercing shells should work on it conditionally, but they could not penetrate the casemate, although the sheet from the inside is extremely vulnerable both by the location of the cemented layer and the embedment. The reason is the detonation of the projectile when it meets the second significant obstacle, since the shock-absorbing properties of the capsule were exhausted at the first obstacle.
    Academic data on armor penetration was obtained in the 80s of the 200th century on 240-mm armor and 305-mm projectiles. As further experiments showed, the indicators for calibers XNUMX mm and more swam in favor of the projectile. As for deck booking, the classic formulas have never worked here.
  • fone
    fone 23 December 2020 14: 09
    0
    This question was raised on Tsushima almost three years ago http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10181
    and there it was deduced that the domestic armor for dreadnoughts roughly corresponds to the Krupp armor of 1895. It is based on tests in England of a Russian 305mm projectile, which makes it possible to compare with the results of firing in Russia. So the English 8-inch armor is better than the domestic 270mm.