Military Review

On the durability of Russian naval armor in the context of the tests of 1920

138

As you know, a human hobby is a very diverse thing: what people are not fond of. They collect beetles, grow flowers, create huge houses of cards, draw, solve crosswords, play computer games, etc.


We can only state that for a pleasant pastime, humanity has come up with a lot of different activities. But even the same hobby can be practiced at different intensities. It will be enough for one lover of computer games to drive some shooter for half an hour after work in order to relieve stress, without particularly straining. The other will spend hours looking for the best way to level up the character, keeping in mind dozens of parameters of the role-playing system.

All this is neither good nor bad, it does not indicate the depth of the mind, or, conversely, about its absence. It's just that each of us chooses not only the type of activity to our liking, but also the depth of immersion in it.

So, not all of those who would like to read about the comparison of German battlecruisers and Russian dreadnoughts are interested in understanding these or those nuances of armor penetration formulas, to study individual hits on tests, etc. This, I repeat, is neither good nor bad, everyone has the right to determine the level of study that is comfortable for him. stories.

Therefore, for those of you, dear readers, who are not interested in wading through the jungle of formulas and coefficients, I will immediately report the conclusions that I came to during the preparation of the article.

conclusions


In a previous article, I made the assumption that the "K" of Russian cemented armor had a value of 2005. However, when firing a compartment protected by 270 mm armor, individual hits showed significantly lower armor resistance, since "K" fell to 1862 or lower. In another case, on the contrary, the "super strength" of the armor plate was demonstrated, since the value of "K" on impact reached 2600.

The analysis of the hits showed the following: the cases when this coefficient turned out to be lower are fully explained by the damage received by the armor plate as a result of previous impacts. In other words, this happened when the projectile hit the armor plate at a relatively small distance from the previous hits. At the same time, the case when "K" turned out to be significantly higher than the 2005 value can be explained by the fact that not an armor-piercing, but only a semi-armor-piercing projectile was used, which had a smaller wall thickness, and, consequently, strength.

But the 370-mm armor did not live up to the expectations assigned to it. The "K" coefficient for a 370-mm plate is very unambiguously defined as no more than 1800-1820, or even worse, which is obviously inferior to the durability demonstrated by a thinner 270-mm armor plate.

Why could this happen? As you know, the Russian industry before the First World War could not mass-produce cemented armor plates with a thickness of more than 270-275 mm. Accordingly, the 370-mm armor plates created for testing were piece products and technologically not worked out. Therefore, despite assurances that the 370-mm armor plate fully meets all the requirements for it, most likely it failed. And even adjusted for the drop in durability with an increase in the thickness of the armor over 300 mm, it still had a coefficient "K" lower than the 225-270-mm slabs created for Russian dreadnoughts.

In general, based on an analysis of the results of tests of Russian armor in 1914 and 1920. it will be legitimate to use the coefficient "K" equal to 2005 in further calculations for it.

Well, that's all.

And those readers who do not want to understand the peculiarities of each hit can safely postpone this material, because they will no longer find anything important for themselves in it.

Well, for those who are interested in the nuances ...

Test compartments


In total, 2 compartments were prepared for testing, simulating the compartments of the battleship behind the main armor belt. The first compartment was protected by frontally located 4 armor plates, each of which had a thickness of 270 mm. The manufacturer was either an Arab or a big joker, so the numbering of the armor plates went from right to left. Looking from left to right, the numbering of 270 mm armor plates was as follows: 1b; 2a; 2; one.

Of course, the protection was not limited to "frontal" armor. Behind the armor plates No. 1 and No. 2 there was an armored bulkhead and a bevel made of 75-mm cemented armor. Behind armor plate No. 2a, the bevel had a variable thickness - 75 and 100 mm, while the armor bulkhead was 75 mm. Behind the armor plate 1b, the bevel was 100 mm, the armor bulkhead was 75 mm.

Compartment No. 2 also consisted of 4 armor plates, two of which were 320 mm thick, and two more - 370 mm. For some reason they were arranged in a checkerboard pattern. In order not to confuse the dear reader, I give their numbering and thickness according to the arrangement from left to right: № 6 (320 mm); No. 4 (370 mm); No. 5 (320 mm) and No. 3 (370 mm).

The second protection circuit was simple: behind the 370-mm armor plates there was a 12-mm bulkhead and a 50-mm bevel of uncemented armor, while behind 320-mm armor plates there was a 25-mm bulkhead and a 75-mm bevel, the latter being made of cemented armor plates ...

All 270-mm, 320-mm and 370-mm armor plates had a standard size of 5,26x2,44 m.

In total, according to the test logs, 29 shots were fired from 356-mm and 305-mm guns in these compartments. In addition, four more 356-mm projectiles were suspended inside the compartments and detonated (one detonation, however, was not very successful) to study the damage from the explosion of a large-caliber projectile in the armor space. Moreover, all the explosions and 26 shots were fired during 1920, and the last 3 shots were fired only in 1922.

The data of Journal No. 7 dated July 9, 1920 are of the greatest interest for our analysis. The fact is that the purpose of this type of test was precisely

"Determination of the maximum speed with which an armor-piercing 12-inch projectile can penetrate 270-mm side armor with a set behind it",

as well as the maximum armor penetration of the projectile for 370-mm armor plate. During this part of the tests, 270-mm armor plate No. 1 and 370-mm armor plate No. 3 were fired upon.


The section of the compartments is taken from the book by S.E. Vinogradov "The Last Giants of the Russian Imperial fleet". Alas, the numbering of the armor plates contains errors.

Below we will consider a complete list of the impacts that these 270 and 370 mm armor plates were subjected to.

Results of shelling 270-mm armor plate No. 1 with 356-mm shells


A feature of the tests of this plate is that before the start of testing 305-mm projectiles, she was fired at with fourteen-inch shells and received 5 hits. The shells were of different types, with and without explosives, their speed also varied, but there was something in common - they all hit the armor plate at an angle of about 60º to the surface, that is, the deviation from the normal was 30º in all cases.

The first hit was a high-explosive 356 mm projectile containing a full explosive charge. The energy from the impact and detonation was enough to penetrate the 270-mm armor through and through, although the plug did not go through the skin behind the armor. The plate bent: the deflection arrow in the area of ​​the hole reached 4,5 inches, and the lower and upper edges of the armor plate rose by 5 and 12 mm, respectively. Place of impact (as indicated in the report): 157 mm from the bottom and 157 mm from the right edge of the plate.

The second hit was a semi-armor-piercing 356-mm projectile without explosives at a speed of 446,5 m / s. The armor was not pierced, only a pothole with a diameter of up to 30 cm and a depth of up to 23 cm was obtained.However, the cemented layer of armor received

"A series of concentric cracks and gouges at diameters of about 50-60 cm."

Place of impact - 237 cm from the bottom edge and 173 cm from the right edge of the slab.

The third hit was a semi-armor-piercing 356-mm projectile without explosives at the same speed of 446,5 m / s. Obviously, other things being equal (the same speed and angle of incidence of the projectile, the thickness of the armor plate), one would expect a commensurate effect with the second hit. However, it turned out differently - the semi-armor-piercing projectile not only passed the 270-mm armor plate, but also broke an oval piece of the bulkhead made of 75-mm cemented armor measuring about 60 by 40 cm, and was found only 100 fathoms (about 230 m) behind the compartment. Place of impact - 239 mm from the bottom and 140 cm from the right edge of the armor.

If we calculate de Marr's armor-piercing ability for an armor-piercing 356-mm projectile with the corresponding tip for the above parameters and the coefficient "K" = 2005, then it should have penetrated a 270-mm armor plate at the limit of its capabilities. After that, maintaining a speed of about 73 m / s, he could barely overpower 28 mm of uncemented armor. It is easy to see that the results of both hits do not match the calculated data. But why?

Perhaps, of course, the whole point is in the inaccuracy of the formula of Jacob de Marr: we see that the calculation gave some intermediate value, and one shell "did not reach" the calculated result, and the second exceeded it. But still, the scatter of results is too great to be attributed to the probabilistic nature of the formula.

As a matter of fact, it turns out that in the first case, when the armor was not pierced, the ratio of the quality of the armor and the projectile gave the coefficient "K" about 2600. While the second shot gave the coefficient "K" equal to or lower than 1890. It can be assumed that the first the shell was substandard or, on the contrary, the second one turned out to be unusually good manufacture. And this (in combination with the probabilistic nature of the formula) gave such an effect. But in my opinion, such an explanation looks overly stretched.

The following is much more likely. The first semi-armor-piercing projectile did not penetrate the "de Marr's" armor, because it was not armor-piercing, but only semi-armor-piercing. That is, it had a smaller wall thickness, which means - and less strength of the body. Hence the extremely high coefficient of durability (over 2600).

The second semi-armor piercing

"Fulfilled increased socialist obligations"

with "K" less than 1890 simply due to the fact that he got into the area of ​​armor weakened by the previous hit.

Both hits were approximately at the same level from the lower edge of the slab - 237 and 239 cm, 173 and 140 cm, respectively, from the right edge. In other words, the distance between hits was much less than 40 cm. Let us now recall the violations (cracks) of the cemented layer, observed within a radius of up to 60 cm from the first "semi-armor-piercing" hit. It is not surprising that the cracked armor did not show "passport" strength.

The fourth hit was an unloaded 356-mm high-explosive projectile (without explosives) at a speed of 478 m / s. Nothing unexpected happened - the projectile split into pieces, making a pothole in the armor only 11 cm deep. But at the same time

"The cemented layer bounced at a diameter of 74 * 86 cm."

The place of impact is 89 cm from the bottom and 65 cm from the right edge of the armor plate.

Fifth hit - unloaded semi-armor-piercing ammunition was not brought to the nominal weight (748 kg) and had only about 697 kg, the speed at the time of hitting the armor plate was 471 m / s. The armor was pierced, the projectile collapsed when overcoming the armor, while its cylindrical part remained lying here. But a piece of the head of the projectile still retained enough energy to break through the 75-mm bulkhead of case-hardened steel. Place of impact - 168 cm from the top and 68 cm from the right edge of the armor.

According to Jacob de Marr's formula, if the shell as a whole had overcome the 270-mm plate and the 75-mm armor plate behind it with the given parameters, this would indicate that the "K" of such armor would be less than or equal to 1990, which is very close to the value I calculated in 2005. Some reduction can be attributed to the probabilistic nature of the armor penetration and to the fact that the 75-mm armor plate had already been damaged.

In addition, the coefficient "K" equal to 2005 corresponds to the penetration of the projectile behind the armor as a whole, while in this case the main part of the projectile did not even reach the 75-mm armor plate. And this is also understandable - after all, the ammunition was not armor-piercing, so the destruction of the projectile when overcoming 270-mm armor is not surprising.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that the shelling of armored plate No. 1 with 356-mm projectiles in no way refutes the conclusion that the "K" of Russian armor had the value of 2005. Cases of lowering "K" are quite explainable by damage caused to the armor by previous hits ... Although…

Alas, there were some mysteries again. Dear S.E. Vinogradov in "Giants ..." gives photographs of the said armor plate after the shelling of 356-mm.

On the durability of Russian naval armor in the context of the tests of 1920

In the photo we see the hits of five shells. There are no problems here, but ... their places clearly do not correspond to those indicated in the reports. Nevertheless, damage from the second and third hits is quite clearly visible - the distance between them is minimal. And through is just one of them.


Shelling of 270-mm armor plate No. 1 with 305-mm shells


A total of 3 such shots were fired, and in all cases they were fired with unloaded 305-mm armor-piercing shells, reduced to the nominal weight of 1150 pounds or 470,9 kg. Thus, the influence of low-quality (not triggered on time) fuses was completely excluded. The shells hit at an angle of approximately 67º, or 23º from the normal.

The first shot with a 12-inch projectile was fired at an initial velocity of just over 520 m / s (1708 f / s). Taking into account the deviation from the normal, such a projectile with "K" = 2005 would have to penetrate almost 322 mm of monolithic armor. The combination of spaced 270 mm and 75 mm armor gave less armor resistance. In order for a projectile with the above parameters to penetrate such protection at the limit of its capabilities, the coefficient "K" of the spaced armor had to be 2181. Accordingly, there is nothing strange in the fact that the projectile not only pierced 270- and 75-mm armor plates, but also flew into the field for more than 300 m.

There is one more nuance. The fact is that the place where the shell hit the slab was only 55 cm from the bottom and 72 cm from the left edge of the slab. At the same time, the 270-mm armor plate, starting from 1,2 m from the bottom, had a thinning towards the lower edge. That is, a 305-mm projectile, most likely, pierced not 270 mm plates, but less.

The second shot was fired at an initial velocity of 1564 feet per second (476,7 m / s). The projectile, having overcome the 270-mm armor plate, for some reason turned around and hit it sideways in a 75-mm bevel, as if “driving” over it. As a result, a through hole with a length of about one and a half meters and a width of 102 to 406 mm was formed in the bevel. However, the projectile did not pass inside, but ricocheted upward, striking the vertical armored bulkhead and armored deck end-to-end. There, however, he did not achieve anything and fell down, where he was found as a whole. The point of impact is approximately 167 cm from the lower edge of the slab and 55 cm from its right edge.

As you can see from the description, the projectile retained a lot of kinetic energy, but it is very difficult to calculate the ultimate armor penetration for this shot. I will only note that at a speed of 476,7 m / s and a deviation from the normal of 23º, this projectile should have been calculated to penetrate a 280,6 mm armor plate with a coefficient "K" = 2005. In other words, there is nothing in the breakdown of a 270 mm plate surprising, but how did the shell then manage to push through 75 mm of cemented armor?

The answer is very simple. The fact is that this hit fell on a damaged cemented layer, deformed as a result of the 4th hit by a 356-mm projectile. The places of these hits were separated by only slightly less than 69 cm.But at the same time, as a result of hitting a fourteen-inch ammunition (as already mentioned above)

"The cemented layer bounced at a diameter of 74 * 86 cm."

That is, the slightly better armor penetration of the Russian projectile, again, is fully explained by the damage and drop in the armor resistance of the 270-mm plate in the place of its hit.

The third shot was fired at the same armor plate, all with the same angle of deviation from the normal, but at a lower speed - 1415 f / sec or 431,3 m / sec. And, judging by the description of the results of the hit, this time the armor penetration of the 470,9 kg shell was close to the limit. Our projectile mastered the armored plate, but then touched the middle rack sideways and hit the 75-mm bulkhead flat. There was no energy left for the breakdown of the armor, the projectile only pushed it to a depth of 15 cm, and fell immediately without collapsing. The place of impact is approximately 112 cm from the top and 93 cm from the left edges of the armor plate.

According to calculations, a 470,9 kg projectile with the above parameters (431,3 m / s with a deviation from the normal by 23º) could penetrate no more than 243-mm armor with a coefficient "K" equal to 2005. It also overcame 270 mm of armor , and this indicates that its "K" was equal to or lower than 1862. However, if it is lower, then it is very little, since the projectile has practically exhausted its energy during the "penetration" of the plate.

The place of hit of this 305-mm projectile was a meter from the point of contact with the armor of the 5th 356-mm ammunition, which (being unloaded) made a hole in the slab 36x51 cm. Information about cracking (or other damage) of the cemented layer in the description of the hit 14- an inch shell is not contained. But, judging by the previous descriptions, the armor at the point of impact of the third 305 mm could very well (and even should have) been weakened. In addition, it should be borne in mind that before this hit, the 270-mm armor plate had already been hit by 5 * 356-mm and 2 * 305-mm shells. That could not but affect its overall strength.

However, I cannot but note that these hits somehow correlate very poorly with the photo of the compartment after the tests, given by the same Vinogradov.


According to the photograph, the 2nd 305mm round did not penetrate the plates at all.

Shelling of 370-mm armor plates


The first shot at it was also the first test shot. A high-explosive 356-mm projectile, loaded with explosives, hit the plate and gave a full gap. As a result, a dent with a deflection arrow was formed at the edges of the 38 cm pothole. The cemented layer of armor was knocked down in a circle with a diameter of 48-50 cm to a depth of 15 cm. The impact site was 135 cm from the bottom and 157 cm from the right edge of the slab.

This was the only hit from a 356 mm projectile. Subsequently, the 370-mm plate was fired at with 305-mm armor-piercing shells without explosives, the angle of incidence was approximately 68º or 22º from the normal.

The second shot - a 305-mm projectile hit the armor plate at a speed of 565,7 m / s. The defense could not withstand the blow at all. The 370-mm armor belt was pierced, and the 50-mm bevel behind it, and the 6-mm hold bulkhead, and even the 25-mm sheet of the steel base of the compartment. Place of impact - 137 cm from the bottom edge and 43 cm from the right.

Taking into account the fact that the projectile resistance of armor, starting from 300 mm, does not grow in direct proportion to its thickness (the "K" coefficient gradually decreases), the 370-mm armor plate is approximately equivalent to 359 mm of the "original K" protection. But even if we assume that in this case the energy of the projectile was enough only to overcome the plate of the armor belt with a deviation from the normal of 22º and a 50-mm bevel of uncemented steel with a deviation from the normal of about 30º, then the coefficient "K" of armor would be or less 1955. But the projectile still retained enough energy to penetrate 6 mm and 25 mm steel and go deep into the ground.

Why is the angle of 30º taken for the bevel? Theoretically, the projectile should fly almost parallel to the ground after overcoming the 370-mm plate. In this case, the angle of hitting the bevel should be 45º. But the projectile went down the compartment, so, obviously, the deviation from the normal turned out to be less. Although it is unclear how much.

In general, we see that the protection absolutely did not show the calculated "K" = 2005. Could this be a consequence of the fact that the plate received some damage from the previous high-explosive shell?

In principle, this is possible. The 305-mm projectile hit a place about 114 cm away from the previous hit, which is not that far. Still, the previous hit was a high-explosive, the 356-mm shell did not penetrate the armor and did not cause visible damage outside the chipped cement layer. Therefore, the question remains controversial.

The next hit was a 305 mm projectile at a speed of 513,9 m / s. The shell pierced 370mm armor, bounced off the 50mm bevel, pierced the 12mm bulkhead, and fell about 43 meters behind the compartment. The point of impact is 327 cm from the lower edge of the slab and 50 cm from the left.

In terms of armor durability, the results are extremely disappointing. In this case, the breakdown of the armor was indeed observed, close to the limiting one, but the coefficient "K" in this case was less than 1825. And it is hardly possible to write off this for damage to the armor from previous shots - the nearest hit (all the same high-explosive 356-mm projectile) was located at a distance of 195 cm. Hardly at such a distance, the damage to armor from the rupture of a fourteen-inch land mine could be significant, if at all.

The last two 305-mm projectiles had a speed of 485,2 m / s when hitting the armor. The first of them hit the slab 273 cm from the bottom and 103 cm from the right edge of the slab, but did not pierce the armor.

The second hit a place 231 cm from the bottom of the slab and 39 cm from the left edge, and the effect of his hit was very interesting. The projectile knocked out the plug of the 370-mm armor, but not only did not go inside, but generally bounced back and was found about 65 meters in front of the test compartment. Oddly enough - as a whole.

Thus, 305-mm armor-piercing shells at a speed of 485,2 m / s could not overcome the 370-mm armor plate either in its entirety or even in the form of fragments. Accordingly, we can say that in this case the coefficient "K" was slightly higher than 1716.

The conclusion is obvious - the durability of the 370 mm armor plate turned out to be about 10% lower than expected. The reasons for this, most likely, should be sought in the inability of the domestic manufacturer to create armor of a similar thickness in those years - without losing its quality.

Let's move on to the German armor.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
About the durability of Russian armor during the First World War
138 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. polpot
    polpot 25 December 2020 18: 06
    +7
    Thanks for the article, the topic and the material are interesting, we look forward to continuing.
    1. Lexus
      Lexus 25 December 2020 18: 24
      +1
      Then they still could not do a lot, and today they ALREADY can not. By downed "landmarks" and the result.
    2. Jura 27
      Jura 27 30 December 2020 11: 20
      0
      Ptisa tried to stretch herself onto the globe, but the globe burst.
      The third shot of 12 "BBS on plate No. 1: quite a valid hit, - one meter or more, between the centers of previous hits, therefore damage to the cement layer diameter(yes, yes, Andrey, not with a radius) up to 60cm, they have no effect.
      According to my calculations, - K = 1835, if we take cos 23gr. But the projectile had an armor-piercing tip, therefore, it is quite possible to turn to the normal, and then the meeting angle is about 10 degrees, and K = 1963.
      It somehow falls short of the mentioned 2005 units.
      1. Jura 27
        Jura 27 30 December 2020 11: 38
        0
        Now, about why the British 9 "armor almost did not penetrate the German shells in Jutland: let's say that at a speed of 1447 f / s on the armor, the Russian 12" BBS did not collapse and then K = 2495 for the English 8 "armor. To "for Russian armor of the" Sevastopol "era in 1963 or even 2005 units. Russian dreadnoughts should not be released to Jutland, they will gurgle with a big fireworks, like the British battleships.
  2. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 25 December 2020 18: 23
    +5
    some of these tests were carried out at the Rzhevka test site near St.
  3. Undecim
    Undecim 25 December 2020 19: 15
    +4
    And what is the primary source of information about these tests? Can you see him?
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 25 December 2020 20: 09
      +7
      The primary sources are the journals of the Marine Experiences Commission.
      Cited in a fairly complete form by Galkevich "Forgotten lessons of the distant war"
      Poor quality scans only
      Galkevich's article here
      http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7005&p=18
      further in the forum is the result of firing a Russian 12-inch projectile at a British 8-inch plate. The experiences of the Britons seemed interesting to me


      I looked at the correspondence of the distance for the first shot with a Russian projectile -55 cab
      For the second, the equivalent distance - 72 cab no longer took 8 inches of English armor, which is strange. If only I understood correctly that the empty quotes are the same type of shell as above.
      The angle of incidence is everywhere 20 degrees - it is clear that the Britons simply did not bother with its definition more precisely
      If you made a mistake with equivalent distances, then correct me someone
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 25 December 2020 20: 15
        +2
        further in the forum is the result of firing a Russian 12-inch projectile at a British 8-inch plate. The experiences of the Britons seemed interesting to me
        The famous Okun also mentions these experiments. I'll have to look.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        25 December 2020 20: 16
        +3
        Both shells pierced the armor, but one collapsed.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 25 December 2020 20: 18
          +1
          Judging by the "hole in plate" both
        2. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 26 December 2020 03: 40
          0
          Thank you for the article! Do not consider it as criticism or, even more so, for nit-picking, but for me the armor before the revolution of 17 is interesting, but not particularly relevant. Big ships before and after the war is another matter, due to my commitment to the need to arm modern ships. Maybe you have some special "folders" on this topic? For example, the shelling of the experimental compartments of "Stalingrad", I saw only the most general information. Thank you.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 10: 22
            +1
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Maybe you have some special "folders" on this topic?

            Yes, there are three quarters of the documents still Soviet secret ... :)
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 26 December 2020 17: 15
              0
              Still? 60 years after all.
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 17: 28
                +1
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Still? 60 years after all.

                As knowledgeable people say, the design solutions in terms of protection used in those projects are still used today.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 December 2020 20: 15
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      And what is the primary source of information about these tests? Can you see him?

      I sent you Galkevich hi
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 25 December 2020 20: 17
        +3
        I remember about Galkevich, I thought maybe something else appeared.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 December 2020 20: 19
          +3
          So how much more? :))) He completely posted all the scans of the magazines. And I took the photo from Vinogradov, so yes, more of them, of course
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 25 December 2020 20: 24
            +2
            So much more
            There is never a lot of information. By the way, in terms of the transition to German armor. Do you have Evers?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              25 December 2020 20: 25
              +3
              Quote: Undecim
              By the way, in terms of the transition to German armor. Do you have Evers?

              Of course. "Military shipbuilding"
  4. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 25 December 2020 19: 34
    +4
    The manufacturer was either an Arab or a big joker, so the numbering of the armor plates went from right to left.

    Or maybe a Jew? They also write from right to left, and they love to joke.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 25 December 2020 20: 01
      0
      Quote: Aviator_
      Or maybe a Jew?

      Or maybe they just put how it happened ... :)
  5. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 25 December 2020 19: 52
    +1
    But how is Holmes? ... (c)
    More precisely, the question is: why were these tests? Why with such "marasmic" conditions?

    Looked
    Shelling of 270-mm armor plate No. 1 with 305-mm shells

    First shot ...
    The shells hit at an angle of approximately 67º, or 23º from the normal.

    If we count "from the slab", then the angle of incidence corresponds to the distance
    97 ... 98 cab.
    If we take into account the slope of the slab, then the angle will grow to 40 degrees, and this is already a distance of 133 ... 135 cab.
    However, in terms of speed
    with an initial speed of just over 520 m / s (1708 f / s)

    this corresponds to a distance of 49 ... 50 cables.

    What is the meaning of pulling an owl onto the globe is positively incomprehensible.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 December 2020 20: 14
      +4
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      What is the meaning of pulling an owl onto the globe is positively incomprehensible.

      I think that's just understandable. After all, the ships do not fight standing exactly opposite each other, in strictly parallel columns, therefore, when they hit the enemy, the deviation from the normal will be formed from many angles - falling, course, etc.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 25 December 2020 20: 19
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I think that's just understandable.

        Not at all...
        As for me, this is more like the famous shooting off of a part of the 650-mm plate of the frontal armor of the Shinano turret: the Americans set themselves the task of breaking through the plate at any cost and piercing it.

        In these tests, I see something similar.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 December 2020 20: 23
          +2
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          In these tests, I see something similar.

          Why?
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 25 December 2020 20: 28
            0
            I already wrote ...
            The angle of incidence does not correspond to the final velocity of the projectile at the declared angle of incidence (if we take the maximum about 40 degrees) should be 389 ... 391 m / s, but not 520.
            1. lucul
              lucul 25 December 2020 21: 03
              -1
              I already wrote ...
              The angle of incidence does not correspond to the final velocity of the projectile at the declared angle of incidence (if we take the maximum about 40 degrees) should be 389 ... 391 m / s, but not 520

              Sorry - that is, we have no other test results, and will no longer be)))
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 25 December 2020 21: 09
                +1
                Quote: lucul
                Sorry - that is, we have no other test results, and will no longer be)))

                It is clear that it will not, but still they are "not kosher".
                Just look here.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 25 December 2020 21: 16
                  -1
                  It is clear that it will not, but still they are "not kosher".
                  Just look here.

                  I perfectly understand your doubts - that the speed of the projectile during the tests did not correspond to the angle of fall. Well, this can already be modeled in modern conditions (reliability).
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 25 December 2020 21: 21
                    +1
                    Quote: lucul
                    I perfectly understand your doubts - that the speed of the projectile during the tests did not match the angle of fall.

                    As Shelenberg used to say in Tabakov's voice: "Stirlitz, a little lie gives rise to great distrust ..."

                    Quote: lucul
                    Well, this can already be modeled in modern conditions (reliability).

                    I am tormented by vague doubts that it is possible: there is no normal software package because it is not needed.
                    There is no hope for Mr. Okun with his formulas either, because he discredited himself so much with his assumptions and free interpretations that kapets ...
  6. dgonni
    dgonni 25 December 2020 19: 53
    +1
    Historically interesting. Practically? Useless? No. In fact, it is a confirmation of the complete transparency of the armor of neighboring battleships of the empire in front of the running calibers of that war. Starting from 280mm.
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 25 December 2020 20: 48
      +1
      but nothing that these battleships many times in a row almost every 2 years became obsolete for everyone? of course done by accident you forgot about it lol
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 25 December 2020 21: 00
        0
        Deutschland's still not! Yes, and the Angles are not so bad, but not ideal.
        We will not take Amer. It's not bad but comical.
      2. lucul
        lucul 25 December 2020 21: 20
        +1
        but nothing that these battleships many times in a row almost every 2 years became obsolete for everyone? of course done by accident you forgot about it

        It took us too long to build ships, the same Sevastopol at the time of design is a good modern ship, but at the time of the actual launching it is already outdated.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 25 December 2020 21: 24
          0
          Quote: lucul
          , the same Sevastopol at the time of designing a good modern ship,

          A victim of the "Tsushima syndrome" and the Tsushima experience ...
          1. unknown
            unknown 26 December 2020 08: 55
            +1
            "Strange" syndrome and even more "strange" experience.
            Only Russia has learned the "lessons".
            All other countries, including Japan, have not learned these lessons. More precisely, they removed the wrong ones ...
            The British entered WWI with armor-piercing rounds filled with black powder.
            The Germans and French continued to improve the armor-piercing projectile.
            Japan, to WWII, was generally left without high-explosive shells for guns from 8 "and above.
            Only Russia has "learned" the experience.
            But, from what? From the fact that ships overloaded with combustible materials (thermal protection and coal) and moving at the speed of an artillery shield, under concentrated enemy fire, lose their combat stability?
            It was a strange war, and a strange enemy. Was there a war against that enemy?
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 11: 01
              0
              Quote: ignoto
              The British entered WWI with armor-piercing rounds filled with black powder.

              There were just a LOT of them ... It was necessary to dispose of.
              In addition, liddite gave mixed results in tests.

              Quote: ignoto
              Japan, to WWII, was generally left without high-explosive shells for guns from 8 "and above.

              They reasonably relied on single hits from heavy shells to vital parts hidden under heavy armor. True, they chose a strange and probably wrong path ... The Germans and the British did not develop special "diving" shells, but this did not prevent the "Bismarck" and "Prince of Wales" from exchanging hits well below the waterline.

              Quote: ignoto
              under concentrated enemy fire, lose their combat stability?

              Under concentrated fire HE shells, which gave impetus ...

              Quote: ignoto
              It was a strange war, and a strange enemy. Was there a war against that enemy?

              Yes, in general, there was a war between the British, the French and a few Germans in the sense of the schools of shipbuilding ...
    2. lucul
      lucul 25 December 2020 21: 01
      +1
      In fact, it is a confirmation of the complete transparency of the armor of neighboring battleships of the empire in front of the running calibers of that war. Starting from 280mm.

      This is not true )))
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 25 December 2020 22: 38
        +1
        Unfortunately, the fact. That is why they did not even try to let them into battle. And the old battleships of the Glory type came off.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 10: 25
          0
          Quote: dgonni
          And the old battleships of the Glory type came off.

          Because no one else could pass through Moonsund: neither "Andrey" with "Pavel", nor "Sevastopoli".
          And there were no fools to lead them around the Moonsund Islands ...
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 26 December 2020 21: 02
            0
            Yes, they cannot be carried out anywhere in the Baltic. Six navigational accidents of Sevastopol in just a few exits to the sea. And Rurik-2, poor fellow, Byakhirev also barely left without a belly. IMHO only BBOs look like an adequate solution for the Baltic, the Finns are probably right with their Vanya-Manya. For the cover of minefields, that's it.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 27 December 2020 12: 03
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              And Rurik-2, poor fellow, Byakhirev also barely left without a belly.

              A banal navigational accident in zero visibility conditions.
              It is possible to write off the "Iowa" under this brand: "Missouri" so managed to run aground on January 17, 1951, that it remained "disabled" until the end of the service.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 27 December 2020 22: 25
                0
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                A banal navigational accident in zero visibility conditions.

                Well yes. Only now BrKR passed, and Rurik stayed there. Well at least he crawled to Kronstadt, they say he brought 40 tons of Baltic pebbles. And so seven times in a row (if you remember battleships). laughing

                There is nothing to do for ships with such a draft in the Baltic.
  7. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 25 December 2020 20: 39
    -1
    after reading the articles, I am very surprised that 4 Baltic dreadnoughts did not roll out the entire hochseeflotte, read it like this 300mm armor is worse than 229 there is some factor that is not the real one
    1. lucul
      lucul 25 December 2020 21: 00
      0
      after reading the articles, I am very surprised that 4 Baltic dreadnoughts did not roll out the entire hochseeflotte, read it like this 300mm armor is worse than 229 there is some factor that is not the real one

      Everything will be in the next part)))
      And armor armor is different - as roughly the difference between damask steel and a sword of simple hardening)))
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 25 December 2020 21: 11
        +1
        Quote: lucul
        how about the difference between damask steel and a sword of simple hardening)))

        Damascus blade also has a "simple hardening" ... laughing
  8. Khibiny Plastun
    Khibiny Plastun 25 December 2020 22: 35
    +3
    Wonderful Andrey Nikolaevich. Informative.
    Let me tell you my opinion - the 370mm armor may still meet the standards of the time. Just a 305mm round. 1911 beyond praise? Remember the test report in England of a Russian 305mm projectile in comparison with your greenboy. On "Tsushima" there are photographs (you know) - the Russian shell, after breaking through the armor, lost its ballistic tip and "Makarov" cap, and so it was intact, unlike its English counterpart - almost split. Maybe all the same the shell is good, but not the armor is bad?
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 26 December 2020 09: 59
      +1
      I will support you. Our 305 mm was better than the 305 mm greenboy (the next generation projectile) and rather matched the 343 mm greenboy.
      According to Tsushima's experience, ours invested in shells - that's the result.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 10: 27
        0
        Quote: rytik32
        Our 305 mm was better than the 305 mm greenboy (the next generation projectile) and rather matched the 343 mm greenboy.

        Is this IMHO, or are there calculations somewhere?
        1. rytik32
          rytik32 26 December 2020 11: 05
          0
          This is the opinion of Nathan Okun, based on British experiments with our shells, which have already been discussed above.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 11: 32
            0
            Quote: rytik32
            This is the opinion of Nathan Okun,

            You don't have to go further ... :)
            1. rytik32
              rytik32 26 December 2020 17: 31
              0
              Have you noticed his bias towards Russian shells? Or the British?
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 17: 39
                0
                Quote: rytik32
                Have you noticed his bias towards Russian shells? Or the British?

                I noticed his low qualifications ...
                1. rytik32
                  rytik32 26 December 2020 17: 44
                  0
                  Those. If I dig up your inaccuracies in the comments, can I say the same about you?
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 17: 54
                    0
                    Quote: rytik32
                    Those. If I dig up your inaccuracies in the comments, can I say the same about you?

                    As you wish...
                    His adjustments of the coefficients for the German shells were enough for me to calculate his formulas, at least roughly coincide with the German armor penetration tables.

                    On the "old" "Tsushima" there were a couple of topics, with a parsing of his article (or rather an unauthorized translation of his article on booking the LC from the WWII period) ...
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      26 December 2020 10: 34
      0
      Quote: Khibiny Plastun
      Let me tell you my opinion - the 370mm armor may still meet the standards of the time. Just a 305mm round. 1911 beyond praise?

      You see, if this were the case, then 225/250/270 mm armor plates would show a different result. In other words, the quality of armor up to 300 mm is roughly equivalent, but 370 is worse. Alas, there can be only one conclusion here - the worst quality of armor.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 26 December 2020 11: 16
        +1
        And the fact that even the Tsushima projectile could not hold back against the armor does not mean that the quality of the armor was low?
        They say that our armor remained at the level of 1895, while the German and especially the English went far ahead.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          26 December 2020 12: 11
          0
          Quote: rytik32
          And the fact that even the Tsushima projectile could not hold back against the armor does not mean that the quality of the armor was low?

          He doesn't speak at all. With certain parameters, a 331,7 kg projectile could penetrate 300 mm of Derflinger - the only question is in the firing distance
          1. rytik32
            rytik32 26 December 2020 18: 15
            +1
            I'm talking about shot # 44, which corresponded to a distance of 51 cab. and gave a break in 254 mm armor.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              26 December 2020 18: 31
              0
              Quote: rytik32
              I'm talking about shot # 44, which corresponded to a distance of 51 cab. and gave a break in 254 mm armor.

              Alexey, I have already shown in figures that for some reason the distances in the reports are too high. The projectile could show a speed of 467 m / s on the armor when firing from 305 mm / 40 no further than 37 cables. And about the breakdown - in fact, the shot is not clear. First, I hit the embrasure area - there the armor is weaker by definition. Secondly, the description mentions that he broke a piece of armor, but not that he went inside.
      2. Khibiny Plastun
        Khibiny Plastun 26 December 2020 14: 59
        0
        Good day.
        And you are not considering such an option - this is an experimental 370mm plate. After all, from what it is necessary to start, and then, according to the test results, changes are made to the composition of alloying additives, the method of hardening is changed (as an option, the mentioned hardening method according to the Gantke method, God knows what he represented), but they did not have time to bring it to mind, the shooting was already after the Revolution.
        Which, however, does not implore the dignity of the projectile vol. 1911.
        Thanks for the cycle, without you it was empty on VO.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          26 December 2020 18: 33
          0
          Quote: Khibiny Plastun
          And you are not considering such an option - this is an experimental 370mm plate.

          In any case, it could only be an experimental one - there was no mass production of such armor plates, they were made to order, and in fact, in order to put such a plate into series, it was necessary to make an installation batch, check it by shooting, etc. None of this, as far as I know, was done - they just made a plate using the same technology and that's it.
  9. Zounds
    Zounds 26 December 2020 08: 32
    0
    Tell me, please, if the industry could not make high-quality armor plates with a thickness of 370 mm, then could it be possible to put two plates of 185 mm each? And what would be their effective resistance? Higher or lower than one double thickness board?
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 10: 32
      0
      Quote: Zounds
      Higher or lower than one double thickness board?

      A "sandwich" of two slabs is less resistant than a monolith, if only in view of the fact that the entire "back" slab must be "perforated" with armor bolts; moreover, it is impossible to precisely fit the slabs along the plane: some kind of filler is needed between them: for example, Italians "sandwich" 270 + 80 mm of the main armor belt was poured with special concrete.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 26 December 2020 11: 09
        +2
        Ideal spaced armor: 270 + 100 mm in one to two meters
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 11: 32
          0
          Quote: rytik32
          Ideal spaced armor: 270 + 100 mm in one to two meters

          Confirmed by calculation? :)
          1. rytik32
            rytik32 26 December 2020 17: 29
            +1
            Confirmed by the experiments described in this article.
            If we cannot make 370 mm with the same characteristics as 270 mm, then there is no point in doing it at all. And spaced-out has two important advantages:
            1. Destabilization of the projectile.
            2. Fuse initiation.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 17: 41
              0
              Quote: rytik32
              Confirmed by the experiments described in this article.

              Ah ... Well then, yes.
              Only everyone, if they could, preferred "monolith" to spaced booking.
              1. rytik32
                rytik32 26 December 2020 17: 47
                0
                So it's not about those who could make a high-quality and thick monolithic slab - it is clear that a monolith is preferable.
                Reminding the original question
                Tell me, please, if the industry could not make high-quality armor plates with a thickness of 370 mm, could it be possible to put two plates of 185 mm each?
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 17: 55
                  0
                  Quote: rytik32
                  Reminding the original question

                  In it, the problem statement is somewhat different.
  10. tank66
    tank66 26 December 2020 12: 30
    0
    And this is what arrives from the other side of the armor plate. For half an hour "froze" to the stand in the Maritime Museum. The largest shard from the "two fist".

    And this is the main caliber. I / land fuel oil / already sweated when I imagined such a snowball arriving in a tank. belay
  11. DrEng527
    DrEng527 26 December 2020 13: 28
    +2
    Thank! Interesting!
    It is very interesting that a high-explosive 14dm projectile with 270 mm armor turned out to be more effective than a semi-armor-piercing one ... request
    We can note the good quality of 12 dm BB shells! hi Which kept their integrity when breaking through.
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 26 December 2020 18: 23
      0
      I read somewhere that the 14-inch shells were from an experimental batch, therefore of unstable quality
  12. rytik32
    rytik32 26 December 2020 18: 46
    +1
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    On the "old" "Tsushima" there were a couple of topics, with a parsing of his article (or rather an unauthorized translation of his article on booking the LC from the WWII period) ...

    I've heard a lot about pulling "Iowa" on the globe)))
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 19: 37
      0
      Quote: rytik32
      I've heard a lot about pulling "Iowa" on the globe)))

      He also pulled the Germans so ...
      In order to somehow "raise" the armor penetration of the German "panzersprenggrenat" in his formula, he came up with an increasing coefficient, justifying this by the fact that the supposedly armor-piercing cap of German shells was fastened to the shell glass using high-temperature welding, which seemed to increase the calculated armor-piercing characteristics of the shell ( its removal requires a thicker armor barrier).
      In fact, the slug glass was fastened to the armor-piercing cap by soldering under pressure: the pre-cured head of the slug cup was immersed in the cap chamber filled with molten zinc-tin solder and pressed against the cap with a special press.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 26 December 2020 20: 46
        0
        In general, fitting formulas to test results is a silly exercise. The formulas are probabilistic. In the same RYAV, our shells twice pierced the Mikasa's armor in situations where it was not likely. I'm talking about 178 mm in ZhM from a distance of 60-70 cab. and about 152 mm in Tsushima at an angle of about 45 degrees, most likely from a weak 10-inch BBO and a distance of more than 40 cab.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 26 December 2020 21: 03
          0
          Quote: rytik32
          In general, fitting formulas to test results is a silly exercise. The formulas are probabilistic.

          And nevertheless, the fact takes place ... :)
          Therefore, Okun is not at all an authority.
  13. Kurdyukov
    Kurdyukov 26 December 2020 23: 06
    0
    I think that under the tsar the powder charge for 12 '/ 52 was more than 133 kg indicated by Shirokorad for Soviet times. The charging chamber also included 156 kg of gunpowder. For battleships there was a second set of barrels and there were no problems to make more guns. After the revolution, until the mid-30s, it seems to me that they did not make new weapons. In the 80s Vo for 12 '/ 52 was given 835 m / s. With such an initial speed, it seems to me that the discrepancies in the experiments in 13 years will disappear. And what is the point of saving the barrel resource if the AP shells will not penetrate the enemy's armor in battle. And for any ammunition, the resource is enough for a decisive battle. And the charge was limited for railway installations to reduce rollback and recoil.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 December 2020 00: 52
      +1
      Quote: Kurdyukov
      In the 80s Vo for 12 '/ 52 was 835 m / s.

      A lightweight projectile. But 470,9 always fired 762 m / sec.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 27 December 2020 11: 50
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A lightweight projectile.

        For high-explosive shells arr. 1911, according to drawings 254 (409,4 kg) and 45108 (412,0 kg), the initial speed was set at 850 m / s.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          27 December 2020 16: 44
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          For high-explosive shells arr. 1911, according to drawings 254 (409,4 kg) and 45108 (412,0 kg), the initial speed was set at 850 m / s.

          Please confirm this information with the appropriate links
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 27 December 2020 19: 34
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Please confirm this information with the appropriate links

            Present here, pp. 58 and 60
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              28 December 2020 06: 32
              0
              I'm sorry, but I don't have this source. I would be very grateful for the download link.
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 28 December 2020 18: 34
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I would be very grateful for the download link.

                See L.S.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  29 December 2020 07: 50
                  0
                  Thank you from the bottom of my heart for an excellent gift for the New Year! :)))
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  For high-explosive shells arr. 1911, according to drawings 254 (409,4 kg) and 45108 (412,0 kg), the initial speed was set at 850 m / s.

                  Yes. But I have no information that battleships or coastal guns were ever equipped with these shells. Accordingly, it can be assumed that, although the shells were created based on the indicated speed, for one reason or another, they did not go into a large series, or maybe they did not go into a series at all.
                  And, in any case, there is no evidence that someone fired shells of 470,9 kg from the beginning. speed above 762 m / s.
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 10: 42
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Thank you from the bottom of my heart for an excellent gift for the New Year! :)))

                    New Year is a time of miracles. :)

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Accordingly, it can be assumed that, although the shells were created based on the indicated speed, for one reason or another, they did not go into a large series, or maybe they did not go into a series at all.

                    I will not argue. Everything is possible.
                    But the fact of the presence of development and (possibly) testing on the face - otherwise the meaning of their inclusion in the document.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      29 December 2020 12: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      But the fact of the presence of development and (possibly) testing on the face - otherwise the meaning of their inclusion in the document.

                      Without a doubt
                    2. Andrey152
                      Andrey152 30 December 2020 22: 43
                      0
                      There is a clear error in the document. The shells of drawings 253 and 254 were received simultaneously. They have the same weight of 470,9 kg, the same pressure in the bore of 2380 atm, but at the same time different initial speeds of 762 and 850 m / s? This does not happen, the charge is the same! But with the high-explosive long-range, everything is correct - the weight is different and all the parameters have changed
            2. DrEng527
              DrEng527 28 December 2020 13: 40
              +1
              Interesting source! do not look at the data for projectiles 14dm? There is a discrepancy in the initial speed for the Izmail LKR and for the railway guns based on their guns ... hi
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                28 December 2020 15: 10
                0
                Sergei, you need to look at this source more carefully. I must say right away that 850 m / s for a 305 mm / 52 gun and a 470,9 kg projectile is an enchanting value that is beyond reality. I'm afraid there is a misinterpretation.
                And with the Ishmaels everything is simple. The manufactured guns were designed for one speed, but in fact they were over-lightened and therefore the speed had to be reduced
              2. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 28 December 2020 18: 21
                0
                Quote: DrEng527
                Interesting source! do not look at the data for projectiles 14dm?

                Projectile weight - 743,8 kg.
                Speed ​​- 731 m / s.
                1. DrEng527
                  DrEng527 29 December 2020 11: 38
                  +1
                  [quote = Macsen_Wledig] Speed ​​- 731 m / s. [/ quote]
                  Thank you!
                  [quote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk] you need to take a closer look at this source. [/ quote]
                  who argues mistakes are everywhere, but this is a specialized source and at the required time ...
                  in any case, this is additional information and fits into your theory - see above hi

                  [quote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk] but in fact they were relieved and therefore the speed had to be reduced [/ quote]
                  perhaps, in addition, they were used on a railway basis, which could also affect the decrease in the weight of gunpowder ... request [quote = Macsen_Wledig]
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    29 December 2020 12: 13
                    +1
                    Quote: DrEng527
                    perhaps

                    In Russian-language sources it is usually mentioned that when trying to fire with a standard charge, the bodies of the guns were inflated. Anyway ... if we compare with foreign guns of a similar caliber, then painfully chic performance characteristics are obtained (taking into account the weight of the guns), so the forced decrease in speed is not at all surprising
                    1. DrEng527
                      DrEng527 29 December 2020 15: 32
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Anyway ... if we compare it with foreign guns of a similar caliber, then painfully chic performance characteristics are obtained (taking into account the weight of the guns)

                      comparable to US 14/45? the mass of the projectile is 635, the speed is 790 m / s, 14/45 England is 719 kg / 762, the Russian gun 14/52 is 748/732 (according to other sources) if we compare by muzzle energy, we get 396, 417, 400, respectively.

                      At the same time, the mass of guns is 64, 86, 83t. But for a 14/50 gun, the speed is 854m / s, which gives 463 energy (very close to 15/45 England).
                      Because The Russian cannon has 52 caliber - its data against the background of the American 14/50 is not that great, because its mass was 79t ... request It is clear that at 870 m / s the Russian cannon has an energy of 566, which is excessive ... on the other hand, it has a charge of 203 kg versus 165 for the United States, and if we recalculate by the mass of gunpowder, then the energy will be 521 and the recalculation gives about 830 m / s. ..
                      Based on these conclusions, this is the most likely figure for our gun ... request although it's all written with a pitchfork ... hi
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        29 December 2020 16: 40
                        0
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        It is clear that at 870m / s the Russian cannon has an energy of 566, which is excessive ...

                        What are we talking about
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        comparable to US 14/45?

                        What for? better with 356 mm / 50 While the latter
                        Full Charge - New Gun
                        AP - 2,700 fps (823 mps)
                        HC - 2,825 fps (861 mps)
                        Reduced Charge - New Gun
                        AP - 1,935 fps (590 mps)
                        HC - 2,065 fps (629 mps)
                        That is, absolutely the same problems as ours with approximately the same weight of 81,5 tons
                      2. DrEng527
                        DrEng527 29 December 2020 17: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        better with 356 mm / 50

                        you are not careful - I compared it with both systems ... and 14/45 was obviously lighter than our gun, however, like 14/50 ... so we can't talk about the excessive lightness of our gun!
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What are we talking about

                        however, recalculation by the mass of the charge gives more power for our gun ... request so the speed of 732m / s for 14/52 is underestimated request that before the blowing up of the trunks, the mess in those years was such that it could have been anything. request I have more faith in something else -
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        in addition, they were used on a railway basis, which could also affect the decrease in the weight of gunpowder.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 06: 56
                        0
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        you are not careful - I compared with both systems ...

                        And I threw in numbers that are unlike yours :))))) You write
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        But for a 14/50 gun, the speed is 854m / s, which gives 463 energy (very close to 15/45 England).

                        In fact, such speeds were used only for a "superchard", that is, a full charge, and this is an analogue of an intensive-combat one. That is, this is a super-powerful shot for wear, the usual charge of gunpowder was less, and the muzzle velocity is also less
                      4. DrEng527
                        DrEng527 30 December 2020 12: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That is, this is a super-powerful wear shot,

                        how else to compare the tools? Only in critical mode ... request
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And I threw in numbers that are not similar to yours

                        They are not mine - I did not look for them in the archives ... request However, your figures for the US 14/50 mass - 81,5 tons against "mine" 79 tons - are still lighter than our 14-inch cannon -83 tons ... request
                        And most importantly, our charge is 203 kg, against 160-165 for the Anglo-Saxons. It is impossible to count gunpowder in the RIF so much worse, this is not the times of the USSR ... request
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 12: 40
                        0
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        how else to compare the tools? Only in critical mode ...

                        In no case. Normal n / a only
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        However, your figures for the US 14/50 mass - 81,5 tons against "mine" 79 tons - are still lighter than our 14-inch cannon -83 tons ...

                        Slightly. At the same time, they did not succeed in shooting much lighter projectiles with a lower initial velocity than it was planned for our 356-mm / 52
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        And most importantly, our charge is 203 kg, against 160-165 for the Anglo-Saxons.

                        Full Charge - 420 lbs. (190.5 kg) SPD - i.e. for comparable speed - comparable charge
                      6. DrEng527
                        DrEng527 30 December 2020 13: 08
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In no case. Normal n / a only

                        In battle, there will be just such a mode - the resource of the barrel does not play a role at the bottom ... request
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Slightly.
                        anyway talk about
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        in fact were over-lightened

                        complicated... request
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Full Charge - 420 lbs. (190.5 kg) SPD - i.e. for comparable speed - comparable charge

                        that's what I mean, that 730m / s is not the maximum speed for 14/52 request and from
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        HC - 2,825 fps (861 mps)

                        quite close to 870, taking into account the canopy of gunpowder ... hi
                        alas, so many years have passed, but we are still guessing ... request
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 15: 09
                        0
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        In battle, there will be just such a mode - the resource of the barrel does not play a role at the bottom ...

                        On the contrary, it won't. Not a single sane gunner will go for overheating of the barrels, increased burnout and a "fabulous" change in characteristics after all this. He needs to hit.
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        anyway talk about

                        Quote: DrEng527
                        complicated...

                        Oh please. If the fact that the Americans, having made a cannon of almost the same weight, could not shoot from it a projectile with a lower mass and lower initial velocity is not an argument ... As I always say in such cases, questions of faith are sacred to me!
                      8. DrEng527
                        DrEng527 30 December 2020 15: 17
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        He needs to hit.

                        for you he has no shooting tables? bully in addition to the hit, the action of the projectile on the target also plays a role request I am not an artilleryman, but from my experience of "shooting", let's call it flows of energy, I will say that sometimes an extremely emergency mode is needed to achieve the goal, otherwise there is no point in shooting at all ... request
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        could not shoot from it normally

                        from what? the regime was, but they did not shoot at the LK, but along the coast - and there it is more important to protect the trunks ...
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 15: 20
                        0
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        for you he has no shooting tables?

                        Look at Leisure Speed ​​Firing Derflinger Utland. On Tsushima, after the analysis, the only plausible explanation was put forward - the fear of overheating of the trunks.
                        When shooting with intense combat, a bunch of amendments just fly to hell.
                        Quote: DrEng527
                        from what? the regime was, but they did not shoot at the LC

                        Let's go from the other side. When and who, in what battle, fired with intense combat?
                      10. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 15: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Look at Leisure Speed ​​Firing Derflinger Utland.

                        Combat rate of fire is very much a thing in itself ...
                        For example, the combat rate of fire of the Bismarck in the battle in the Danish Strait was only 1 salvo / min, with two possible.
                      11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 21: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Combat rate of fire is very much a thing in itself ...

                        Yes, but now it's a little bit different
                      12. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 21: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yes, but now it's a little bit different

                        About that ...
                        You are talking about overheating of the barrels when firing with an enhanced charge, but the joke is that no one in battle will shoot with a technical rate of fire.
                        Physically will not pull.
                      13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        31 December 2020 10: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        You are talking about overheating of the barrels when firing with an enhanced charge, but the joke is that no one in battle will shoot with a technical rate of fire.

                        So the overheating of the barrels occurs long before the technical rate of fire is reached :)))
                      14. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 31 December 2020 10: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So the overheating of the barrels occurs long before the technical rate of fire is reached :)))

                        Can you see the temperature curves? :)
              3. DrEng527
                DrEng527 30 December 2020 15: 39
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Look at Leisure Speed ​​Firing Derflinger Utland.

                he shot perfectly and sometimes very often ... request
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                When shooting with intense combat, a bunch of amendments just fly to hell.

                this is the shooting mode, everything else is your speculation ... request
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                When and who, in what battle, fired with intense combat?

                I don’t know, but I’ll answer you differently - each car / tank / ship has a maximum design speed, which is indicative enough for the design characteristics! But the driving mode is chosen by the driver / commander / captain! And if the shooting officer realizes that hitting the target is possible only in this shooting mode, he will switch to it ... hi Indicative for the modes of operation of mechanisms is the last battle of the LKR Sharnhost, when he almost ran away from Duke - they did not save on the resource of the CMU at that moment request
              4. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 16: 35
                0
                Quote: DrEng527
                Indicative for the modes of operation of mechanisms is the last battle of the LKR Sharnhost, when he almost ran away from Duke - they did not save on the resource of the CMU at that moment

                Therefore, there is a version that the boilers fired by themselves ...
              5. DrEng527
                DrEng527 30 December 2020 16: 48
                +1
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                Therefore, there is a version that the boilers burned out by themselves ...

                Did Scharnhost have a choice?
              6. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 16: 59
                0
                Quote: DrEng527
                Did Scharnhost have a choice?

                As of 1650 there was no longer ...

                The choice remained with Bey until 1205.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            30 December 2020 21: 23
            0
            Quote: DrEng527
            shot perfectly and sometimes very often ..

            He had periods of shooting to kill, during which the rate of fire decreased relative to the previously achieved.
            Quote: DrEng527
            this is the shooting mode, everything else is your speculation ..

            Yes, this is a shooting mode. But this is not a normal firing mode, which has never been used in practice as far as I know.
            Quote: DrEng527
            And if the shooting officer realizes that hitting the target is possible only in this shooting mode, he will switch to it ...

            This usually does not work like that - commanders use high-explosive shells up to a certain distance, then armor-piercing shells. And, I repeat, I do not know of a single case when someone switched to intensive combat for any reason.
            And about the overheating of the trunks - this is absolutely not speculation. The problem of cooling them has always been the same question for the gunners.
          3. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 21: 45
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            He had periods of shooting to kill, during which the rate of fire decreased relative to the previously achieved.

            Generally, fire to kill is carried out with the highest possible rate of fire.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            This usually does not work like this - commanders use high-explosive shells up to a certain distance, then armor-piercing shells.

            Usually there are instructions and instructions on what, from what distance and what projectiles to fire.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And, I repeat, I do not know of a single case when someone switched to intensive combat for any reason.

            Naturally, since the intensive-combat charges were used only on coastal batteries (for example, British 15 ") or did not reach the series, as in the case of the Soviet ones for the B-37 and B-50 guns.
      2. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 16: 35
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Let's go from the other side. When and who, in what battle, fired with intense combat?

        Bingo ... :)
        Nobody and never.
  14. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 15: 35
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    On the contrary, it won't.

    Will be...
    If such a charge is in the cellar, it will certainly be used.
    The joke is that there will be few of them in the BC, I think 10-15%.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Not a single sane gunner will go for overheating of the barrels, increased burnout and a "fabulous" change in characteristics after all this.

    If there is a charge, then there are corresponding tables with amendments to it.
  15. DrEng527
    DrEng527 30 December 2020 15: 54
    +1
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    If there is a charge, then there are corresponding tables with amendments to it.

    kind of banality, but Andrey is in the heat of the discussion wink
  16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    30 December 2020 21: 25
    0
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    If there is a charge, then there are corresponding tables with amendments to it.

    Of course. But the presence of tables does not negate the rapid overheating of the trunks. Roughly speaking, given the lack of cooling, you will have to shoot less often than conventional shells. Moreover, overheating of the barrels takes place at the rate of fire, much less than the passport one.
    There is a direct analogy with a machine gun. Yes, it is designed for automatic firing, but start planting horns out of it - ditch the weapon.
  17. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 21: 28
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But the presence of tables does not negate the rapid overheating of the trunks.

    I repeat: the combat rate of fire is noticeably lower than the practical one and even more lower than the technical one, in view of this, I think that you are inventing a problem out of the blue. :)
  18. DrEng527
    DrEng527 31 December 2020 12: 35
    0
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    You come up with a problem out of the blue. :)

    to the point! bully I think everything comes from the fact that 14 \ 52 should not be so good! bully
  19. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 15: 33
    0
    Quote: DrEng527
    In battle, there will be just such a mode - the resource of the barrel does not play a role at the bottom ...

    Only there are great chances to become "Von der Tann" under Jutland, when his rollback brakes and knurlers are covered ...
  20. DrEng527
    DrEng527 30 December 2020 15: 53
    +1
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    Only there are great chances to become "Von der Tann" under Jutland, when his rollback brakes and knurlers are covered ...

    who argues - it's a risk! But if you do not break through in another way? And a fight is always a risk, and if you don't risk it, you will lose, there are enough examples - see ZPR in the initial phase of the battle - he could have accelerated and go to the dump ... At the same time, Mikasa was hit from 60 kabs - it was not realistic to hit, but they hit and struck ... request
  21. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    30 December 2020 21: 27
    0
    Quote: DrEng527
    who argues - it's a risk! But if you do not break through in another way?

    Do not break through - what? :)))) You look at the statistics of hits in the GBP. The bulk of the shells hits anywhere but the thickest armor plates
  22. DrEng527
    DrEng527 31 December 2020 12: 30
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Do not break through - what? :)))

    Armor! you yourself provided a scan of a typical textbook, and there are zones of free maneuvering ... intensive combat is a form of exit from these zones
  • Split
    Split 27 December 2020 13: 36
    0
    Perhaps, of course, the whole point is in the inaccuracy of the Jacob de Marr formula: we see that the calculation gave some intermediate value, and one projectile "did not reach" the calculated result, and the second exceeded it
    Eh, Great Belarusian Rand laughing
  • Potter
    Potter 27 December 2020 17: 31
    +1
    A big plus for the article. Unfortunately, I read it with a delay, the dacha failed. I look forward to continuing, thanks!
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 27 December 2020 17: 37
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    He doesn't speak at all. With certain parameters, a 331,7 kg projectile could penetrate 300 mm of Derflinger - the only question is in the firing distance

    In fact, our dotsushima 12-inch armor-piercing shells were tested on 16-inch armor during acceptance.
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 27 December 2020 18: 04
    0
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    For high-explosive shells arr. 1911, according to drawings 254 (409,4 kg) and 45108 (412,0 kg), the initial speed was set at 850 m / s.

    Very interesting! And where does this data come from?
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 27 December 2020 19: 34
      0
      Quote: Andrey152
      Very interesting! And where does this data come from?

      See mail ...;)
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 29 December 2020 12: 06
    0
    If we cannot make 370 mm with the same characteristics as 270 mm, then there is no point in doing it at all.

    You cannot make 370 mm with characteristics (K) 270 mm if we are talking about the same armor manufacturer. Thicker armor slightly reduces quality.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 December 2020 12: 10
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Thicker armor slightly reduces quality.

      This is taken into account in the calculations. I wrote
      Taking into account the fact that the projectile resistance of armor, starting from 300 mm, does not grow in direct proportion to its thickness (the "K" coefficient gradually decreases), the 370-mm armor plate is approximately equivalent to 359 mm of the "original K" protection.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 29 December 2020 12: 19
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    This is taken into account in the calculations.

    Yes, it is taken into account, but it may not hit fully. But in general I read with great interest for which thank you.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 December 2020 06: 57
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Yes, it is taken into account, but it may not beat fully.

      According to our calculations performed by specialists after the shooting
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 30 December 2020 22: 51
    0
    Quote: DrEng527
    that before the blowing up of the trunks, the mess in those years was such that it could have been anything.

    In fact, there were swellings on the 14-inch barrels of the English development. The British made the barrels according to our drawings using nude technology and screwed them up when fastening the barrels with cylinders, since they had long forgotten how to do this, fastening their weapons with wire. So there is no need for the mess in those years in our Fatherland ...
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 31 December 2020 06: 58
    +1
    Quote: DrEng527
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    When and who, in what battle, fired with intense combat?

    I don’t know, but I’ll answer you differently - each car / tank / ship has a maximum design speed, which is indicative enough to characterize the design! But the driving mode is chosen by the driver / commander / captain! And if the shooting officer realizes that hitting the target is possible only in this firing mode, he will switch to it ... Indicative for the operating modes of the mechanisms, the last battle of the LKR Sharnhost, when he almost ran away from Duke - they did not save on the CMU resource at that moment

    Dear colleagues, for the possibility of firing with intensive-combat charges, it is worth looking, and were they in ammunition load? When did they appear? What for?
    So, with our 12/52 and 14/52 reinforced-combat charges, it was never even supposed to fire regular shells. They were introduced exclusively for light long-range high-explosive shells arr. 1928 of the year. In general, combat for a ship is a normal mode. And no one "shoots at the barrel melt". They shoot with standard shells, standard charges.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 31 December 2020 10: 41
      +1
      Quote: Andrey152
      And no one "shoots at the barrel melt". They shoot with standard shells, standard charges.

      For 16 "B-37" and 12 "B-50" such a charge was developed in relation to the "standard" armor-piercing projectile. The fact that they did not have time to "finish" is different ... :)
      1. Andrey152
        Andrey152 31 December 2020 12: 52
        +1
        Well, this is a completely different time, different guns, different steel, other gunpowder ...
  • yehat2
    yehat2 15 February 2021 12: 18
    +1
    just drive some shooter for half an hour after work

    the author aptly noticed)))
    I had periods when it was just necessary to relieve stress after work for 15-20 minutes.