Military Review

"Imperius" and "Nakhimov"

49
"Imperius" and "Nakhimov"
In the photo the prototype is Imperieuse.


Project


According to English sources:

Imperieuse-class armored cruisers - a project of ships of the British Royal fleet, the development of the Nelson-class armored cruisers.

In total, two ships were built: "Imperial" and "Worspite".

The project was considered unsuccessful and did not receive any further development.

The Imperieuse-class armored cruisers were built as defenders of trade and to serve in outlying British naval stations, just like their predecessors.

In addition to the steam engine, the cruisers carried sailing equipment.

Reservations and artillery did not allow performing tasks on a par with battleships, speed and seaworthiness were cruising.

Decommissioned already 20 years after completion of construction. "

There is a book by Arbuzov Armored cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" about stories life of our clone of the English "Empire", where it is documented how it was designed and built:

“From the report of the Shipbuilding Department of the Marine Technical Committee for 1882.

On the basis of the order of the Manager of the Naval Ministry, drawings (with detailed calculations) and a specification for the ocean battleship were drawn up in the Shipbuilding Department of the Committee on the model of "Imperieuse", but with some deviations from the drawing of the named English ship for the following reasons:

a) As directed by the Artillery Squad - the diameter of the towers for accommodating 9-inch long-range guns was increased by 5 feet against the "Imperieuse" towers, which caused an increase in the weight of the towers themselves by 105 tons.

b) Since the mechanism for "Imperieuse", which has several locomotive-type boilers among its steam boilers, has not yet been arranged and it is not known what the results will be on the test, and meanwhile it is clear from English magazines that the locomotive boilers were on the battleship "Polyphemus" unsatisfactory, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Fleet preferred to assign to the battleship the vehicles already tested on the Peter the Great ship, the Elder and Co. systems, with cylindrical steam boilers, which on trial in England and Kronstadt turned out to be quite satisfactory.

It took 8 feet of space along the length of the ship to accommodate these boilers and machines. more than for the "Imperieuse" mechanism.

c) Due to the increase in the length of the engine and boiler rooms, changes in the system of the machine itself, lengthening of the belt along the cargo waterline, changes in the main dimensions of the vessel in order to increase the displacement, the weight of the cargo and the hull increased by 285 tons, and in total, including the increase in the weight of the towers, by 390 tons ".

But there is no answer to the main question - why?

In the sense of why Russia, which does not have overseas colonies, a defender of trade and, calling things by their proper names, a colonial battleship?

Russia was preparing for a cruising war, for which "Nakhimov" was not suitable (like its prototype, he was a hunter for cruisers), and for the defense of the Baltic, for which "Nakhimov" was even less suitable. This requires full-fledged EBRs. We had no colonies, and we could not push this masterpiece (like the British) to a distant station.


No, outwardly, the ship, which entered service in 1887, looked formidable - almost 17 knots, 8-203 / 35 and 10-152 / 35 guns, compound armor, belt as much as 254 mm ...

But, again - narrowly on the dog, wide on the cat.

Main battery guns, never turret (as some write), but barbet guns, could work 6 on board, which is not enough in a battle against the EBR. And to get away (from the same EDR "Trafalgar") could not work at similar speeds. Against cruisers, there was not enough speed, against trade - autonomy, the sail of the brig turned out to be an extra load for the bulk of 8 tons of displacement.

Service


As a result, the ship was sent to the Far East to scare the "macaques", at that time still Chinese. The entire service of the ship is endless voyages out of sight: America, France, twice the Far East, where the cruiser took part in suppressing the Boxer Uprising. As a result, by 1902 the picture was sad:

From the telegram of Adjutant General Alekseev Port Arthur on January 9, 1902.

On December 23, during a steam distribution on the cruiser Nakhimov, at a steam pressure of 10 pounds, the main steam pipe ruptured, creating a crack 16 inches long and three-quarters wide.

No one from the team was injured during the pipe rupture.

The technician's commission found the ruptured metal corrosiveness, which reduced the pipe wall thickness by one-sixteenth of an inch, due to sixteen years of pipe service and the lack of a blow-off valve to release water.

Although she did not shine before the previous repair in 1899:

"Nakhimov" cannot be done on the water, because in view of the old age of the hull, I will not dare to do this work afloat, and due to the shaking from the riveting, the waterproofness of the outer skin can be disturbed, and especially after weakening during the absence of the second bottom belts.

The cruiser, which was 12 years old by that time, rusted through. 58 sheathing sheets had to be replaced. The artillery, which at first was thought to be replaced by 4-203 / 45 and 10-120 / 45, also became obsolete. But then they decided philosophically - there was no point in rearming an unsuccessful and extremely worn-out ship.

Easier to build a new one.

War


As a result, in 1903 the cruiser arrived in the Baltic.

Officially for renovation. In fact, no one really started this very repair until the Russo-Japanese War broke out.

And on the basis of Skrydlov's note, the "formidable" ship was included in the Second Pacific Squadron for fear of the enemy.

The repair took three months. The artillery was not replaced.

And on a campaign, the end of the second armored detachment. That is, as a battleship. The "battleship" by that time could fire a maximum of 42 cables and would accelerate to a maximum of 13 knots.

The Nakhimov survived the daytime battle normally, according to the report of its commander:

From the moment the fire was opened until its termination, the cruiser was showered with shells.

The mass of shells when undershot exploded in the water, and their fragments showered the upper deck, falling into the latter through the gun ports.

Some shells exploded on impact on armor without causing significant damage.

Many shells hit the cruiser at a high angle of incidence and, breaking through the bridges and the upper wooden deck, produced local small fires.

Two of them, of large caliber, piercing the decks, exploded in the battery, one above the 10th 6-inch gun, the other above the galley, injuring people nearby.

Which, however, did not stop in the morning to rescue the team on boats ...

The first fight is such a thing. Kostenko counted 300 hits in Oryol. And then, when the Japanese data appeared, it became somehow uncomfortable. Because a hundred is a shameless overstatement.

In any case, the old cruiser kept going. Shoot. And even slammed a shell into Iwate at 16:20 pm. There were no other eight-inch machines in the squadron.

Distinguished "Nakhimov" and at night. True, only in the officers' reports, according to which they sunk three Japanese destroyers. The Japanese do not confirm this. But I would not even accuse the cruiser crew of lying. You never know what may seem in the heat of the night battle ...

Anyway, the cruiser was torpedoed. And in the morning he sank three miles from Tsushima Island. He fulfilled his role - he diverted some of the enemy's shells to himself.

And for more - another ship was needed.

But the opinion of the "experts" is striking:

"Admiral Nakhimov", even twenty years later, by the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, had significant reserves for technical modernization and, subject to the replacement of outdated main caliber gun mounts, it was fully consistent with the newest armored cruisers.

He, in fact, became the prototype of the multi-turret cruisers that appeared almost a third of a century later.

Regarding either an unsuccessful cruiser, or a budget colonial battleship - the same British kept their prototypes in Asia. Away from sin. And then they quietly copied.

And our hero appeared in the Baltic only for repairs. And the rest of the time I spent in distant lands. Where the war did not shine.

The only combat operation in the history of the cruiser is Tsushima. But he got there, only because it was pointless to send 2 TOE out of 5 ships of the line. And someone decided to replace quality with quantity.

The rest is derivatives. The crew showed themselves worthy, the place for the old man was determined correctly. (Well, where was he to put it? So at least part of the fire was distracted by himself).

And that the result is such - so there is nothing to copy other people's mistakes.

And the Imperials were mistakes.

Yes, and specific - English. In the sense of a country preoccupied with protecting colonies from enemy cruisers.

Life after death



This weapon of Nakhimov is in the museum of the city of Tokyo. And it appeared there thanks to treasure hunting.

"In 1933, the American Harry Riesberg, in his book" 600 billion under water, "said that on board four Russian ships from the 2nd Pacific Squadron, sunk at Tsushima, there were treasures totaling $ 5 million."

Two of them are on the Nakhimov. In 1980, the Japanese examined the ship and found ingots. True, lead. The only money with the ship did not sink:

“I add to this that from the cruiser entrusted to me, at my order, government money was saved in the amount of 1 pounds sterling in English coins, which were distributed for saving and delivery to Russia.

They were created because I did not risk having them in someone's hands for fear that they would be confiscated by the Japanese as prize money. "

And there were far from millions.

In any case, unlike the newest Borodino residents, the handsome Peresvetov and other ships of that era, a particle of the most unsuccessful armored cruiser in Russia can now be examined and even touched.

The only pity is that not in our museums.

We have only Aurora.
Author:
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 6 February 2021 15: 26
    +5
    Interesting article smile
    Thanks to the author hi
  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 February 2021 16: 43
    +9
    The author did not understand why "Nakhimov" is needed, and the armored cruiser is to blame? :)))) M-dya ...
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 6 February 2021 21: 04
      0
      there were no colonies and for 20 years they were looking for them in Korea and China - found?
      1. unknown
        unknown 8 February 2021 21: 02
        +1
        What colonies?
        For what ?
        In order to take something out of the "colony", it is necessary to find it, develop it, train personnel, and build logistics. That is, to invest.
        And to use the "colony" as a sales market, steps and investments are needed no less.
        Why is all this to the Russian Empire, if Turkestan is much closer?
        Another question is why it was necessary to build such a large and well-equipped commercial port in Dalniy? With whom and with what were they going to carry trade through it?
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 9 February 2021 08: 25
          0
          in the future, the Chinese market was inviting and they tried to conquer Zheltorussia. did not grow together
        2. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 10 February 2021 13: 01
          +1
          Quote: ignoto
          With whom and with what were they going to carry trade through it?

          As far as I understand, export resources from Manchuria.
  3. Doctor
    Doctor 6 February 2021 16: 50
    +13
    ... The entire service of the ship is endless voyages out of sight: America, France, twice the Far East, where the cruiser took part in suppressing the Boxer Uprising.

    ... In any case, the old cruiser kept going. Shoot. And even slammed a shell into the Iwate at 16:20 pm. There were no other eight-inches on the squadron.

    ... "Nakhimov" distinguished itself at night. True, only in the officers' reports, according to which they sunk three Japanese destroyers. The Japanese do not confirm this. But I would not even accuse the cruiser crew of lying. You never know what may seem in the heat of the night battle ...

    ... Anyway, the cruiser was torpedoed. And in the morning he sank three miles from Tsushima Island. He fulfilled his role - he diverted some of the enemy's shells to himself.

    Well done ship. He fought all his life, and did not stick around in the base. And he died in battle, as expected, and did not rot at the pier.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 7 February 2021 19: 44
      +2
      A perfectly normal armored cruiser. Modern for the time.
      Therefore, it was copied from the English project.
      And he fought at Tsushima no worse than the others.
  4. Doctor
    Doctor 6 February 2021 18: 45
    +8
    The story turns out in an interesting way, in those days the Americans dreamed that "Admiral Nakhimov" and the Russian Fleet would be based in New York.

    Article in The New York Times. 1893. July 15.


    https://archive.org/details/sim_new-york-times_1893-07-15_42_13-071/mode/2up

    Translation:
    https://www.politforums.net/historypages/1202907472.html

    Some excerpts:

    ... Foreign warships will be deployed in US territorial waters! An important demarche of the Russian tsar is expected! Our port will become a permanent station for Russian ships! This news is causing a sensation!

    ... Yesterday, it became known from high-ranking Russian sources that the Russian government intends to maintain a naval squadron on a permanent basis in the territorial waters of the United States, and that the New York port will become the center of the Russian naval presence in the Western Hemisphere.

    ... The general manager of Erie Dry Docks, Mr. Dickey, unofficially told a New York Times spokesman yesterday that soon all the port facilities in Erie Harbor would be placed at the disposal of the Russian government.

    ... The news of Russia's intentions last night caused considerable surprise among the officers of the US Navy. One of them told a representative of the New York Times the following: such a step by Russia actually means an increase in the number of ships in the US Navy by the number of ships that the tsar decides to send to our shores.

    ... The British cruiser "Blake", which aroused the admiration of so many Americans during the naval parade on the occasion of the XNUMXth anniversary of the discovery of America, in battle with any of the aforementioned Russian ships will look like a pygmy.


    Aircraft carriers, you say ... laughing
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 6 February 2021 20: 00
      +7
      ..British cruiser "Blake", which aroused admiration among so many Americans during the naval parade on the occasion of the XNUMXth anniversary of the discovery of America, in battle with any of the aforementioned Russian ships will look like a pygmy.
      Pygmy, but not against "any". Blake is an armored cruiser, it is somehow incorrect to compare it with the battleship Emperor Nicholas I or the armored cruiser Admiral Nakhimov.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. 27091965
    27091965 6 February 2021 19: 20
    +7
    According to English sources:

    In total, two ships were built: "Imperial" and "Worspite".
    The project was recognized as unsuccessful and did not teach development


    Dear author, could you please indicate these sources. These ships had shortcomings, but in general, in English sources, they are not considered not successful, but rather morally obsolete. This happened due to the appearance of rapid-fire artillery.
    1. Roman81
      7 February 2021 22: 52
      0
      No, it was the concept - drum kits and a move comparable to that of an EBR that made it poorly suited for combat and too big for a cruiser. Well, the rhombus, we have at least six guns on board, the limes have three.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 10: 12
        +7
        Quote: Roman81
        No, it was the concept - drum kits and a move comparable to that of an EBR that made it poorly suited for combat and too big for a cruiser.

        Barbet installations did not prevent the Japanese battleships from fighting in the Yellow Sea and in Tsushima. Admiral Nakhimov was founded in 1884. Two years later, the British began building battleships of the "Trafalgar" type - 15 knots without forcing the course (that is, much less than Nakhimov) and with barbet installations of the GK
        1. unknown
          unknown 8 February 2021 21: 10
          0
          Both Japanese detachments had a long stroke of no more than 15 knots.
          The first squad was slowed down by Fuji, and the second by Azuma.
          As far as I remember, you wrote that the Japanese were very heavily overloaded with fuel.
          Then their real speed did not exceed 14 knots.
      2. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 8 February 2021 10: 16
        +5
        Quote: Roman81
        exactly the concepts - drum kits

        Why are you not satisfied with "barbette installations"?
        In the mid-80s, the towers have no advantages over them, rather the opposite. About deck and battery installations, I just keep silent. What is the alternative?
        Quote: Roman81
        Well, a rhombus

        And what's wrong with the diamond?
        This is not the same rhombus as on Fethi-Bulend, when the aiming is limited by the size of the embrasure and is essentially done by turning the hull. The Nakhimov had six main guns that could fire at almost any point on the horizon.
      3. unknown
        unknown 8 February 2021 21: 07
        +2
        A move comparable to battleships?
        Then, what place would you define for the Japanese armored cruisers?
        The best of them, four "Englishmen" and two "Italians" could keep 17 knots for a long time.
        "German" - 16 knots for a long time, "French" - 15 knots for a long time.
        That is, ALL "cruisers" had a speed not exceeding the speed of modern squadron battleships.
  6. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 6 February 2021 19: 29
    +12
    Well, something is so-so ... stretched ... what In fact, the entire end of the 19th century was a search for prototypes. The technologies of that time developed rapidly, therefore the ship laid on the slipway could become obsolete by the time it was put into operation. And to add bureaucracy to RI, it turns out that they constantly built single ships of different projects, tried to look for solutions in copying foreign samples. There were few concrete serials, only a series of their 4 "synops" stands out. But there they knew why they were built. That is why the Russian assadrons were full of their heterogeneity ... BUT! When necessary, serial production appeared - the same "Borodino".
    Therefore, in fact, "Nakhimov" is the result of politics and technology of the late 19th century. He could have butted with his fellow Englishmen ... Well, they built, well, he lived on campaigns all his life, but it was not the ship's fault that he died with outdated artillery. Re-armed would be more useful. People are fighting. Then it came to the understanding that a high-quality weapon was not the last argument and they began to train and improve SUAO and artu ... But by that time "Nakhimov" was rotting at the bottom. But this is the lyrics ...
    Recently, this new author has been surprising. smile For this plus yes
    1. 27091965
      27091965 6 February 2021 21: 44
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      In fact, the entire end of the 19th century was a search for prototypes.


      A "funny" story happened with the armored cruiser Imperieuse. In the English Admiralty there was the post of Secretary of Finance, it was held by the representative of Parliament, A.B. Forwood, a civilian man, but wishing to benefit the Navy of England. In one of his works on the theme of armored ships, he transferred the armored cruiser "Imperieuse" to a battleship, since these works were published by the Admiralty, they were of an official nature. So the armored cruiser "Imperieuse" became a battleship for the rest of the world, this caused displeasure among the officers of the Navy, which they began to report to the Admiralty. After a certain time, "Imperieuse" again became officially an armored cruiser, but he managed to stay for a certain time as an battleship.
  7. Kronos
    Kronos 6 February 2021 20: 07
    +2
    So Russia tried to get hold of colonies, which led to a conflict with Japan.
  8. clerk
    clerk 6 February 2021 20: 47
    +14
    It remains to remind the author that the "Nakhimov" entered service in 1888 and for 5 years (a quarter of its life) was stronger than any ship that could catch up with it on the high seas (the low-sided Trafalgar does not count). As for artillery, it was out of 8/35 (of which Nakhimov had 6 in an onboard salvo) that the most successful Russian hit in the Russian-Japanese war was achieved. Therefore, against Asam in the line of "Nakhimov" even in 1905 he looked quite confidently. And the Nakhimov's power reserve was quite decent - with a normal supply of coal for at least 15 days of economic progress (at the ocean Peresvetov with a full reserve - 20 days of economic progress). In general, the author again poured humus off target.
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 7 February 2021 09: 27
      +3
      Eugene, good afternoon!
      I will expand a little your comment on the 8/35 artillery. Because The "old" cannons fired the same shells as the "new" ones, then it should be said that "Russian shells, even fired from old guns, were capable of causing great damage." I wrote a whole series of articles on this issue. And the general conclusion: not our shells were bad, but there were very few hits.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 10: 47
        +3
        Quote: rytik32
        I wrote a whole series of articles on this issue. And the general conclusion: not our shells were bad, but there were very few hits.

        Alexey, with all due respect to your work, in which you have excellently analyzed the statistics of hits, I have to note that the proof of the "goodness" of Russian shells ultimately boiled down to Japanese losses per hit. Which is absolutely not a criterion for evaluating the "goodness" of shells
        1. clerk
          clerk 7 February 2021 11: 40
          0
          It makes sense to estimate losses per hit only for shells of one type. And since the Japanese fired high-explosive and PB, and the Russian PB and BB (according to the generally accepted classification), then such a comparison for assessing the quality of shells is not very advisable.
        2. rytik32
          rytik32 7 February 2021 11: 47
          +2
          Andrey, but what about the ability to penetrate armor and explode behind it, which our shells had, but the Japanese did not have?
          Indeed, given the fact that by that time all vital parts of the ships were covered by armor, this was a key advantage.

          Those parts that our shells could not penetrate at the main battle distances are highlighted in red.
          And let's get some alternatives. So that it would be, if Russian shells of the same caliber and in the same places as in the Oryol (according to A. Danilov's scheme) hit the Mikasa.
          Left side of the "Eagle" (right "Mikasa"):
          1. No.22 12-inch pierced the unarmored side, exploded on impact on the barbet and would have caused extensive flooding in the nose.
          2. No. 24 8-dm. A hole in the unarmored side of the nose. Overflowing water.
          3. No. 7 10..12-dm. A hole in the 152-mm upper belt under the conning tower. Water intake.
          4. No. 5 6 ... 8-dm. A hole in the unarmored side of the nose. Overflowing water.
          5. No. 17 ... 8-dm. A hole in the unarmored side of the nose. Overflowing water.
          6. No. 23 12-dm. A hole in the board just above the waterline, exploded on impact on the barbet and extensive flooding in the stern.
          7. Шесть holes in the unarmored side in the stern. Overflowing water.

          Starboard "Eagle" (left "Mikasa"):
          1. No. 8 8-dm. A hole in the very tip. Water entering the nose under the pressure of movement.
          2. No. 7 8-dm. No. 13 3 ... 6-dm, No. 14 8-dm. Three shells in almost one place. Complete destruction of the side at the very tip at the level of the battery deck. Intense inflow of water without a chance to close the hole.
          3. No. 12 12-dm. Didn't pierce the main 229 mm belt.
          4. Couple holes in the unarmored side in the stern. Overflowing water.

          As a result, the "Mikasa" has a complete flooding of the bow up to the traverse. The speed would have dropped to 12 knots. In the stern, the situation is a little better, but the water would have flowed 1 ... 1,5 meters along the armored deck.

          This I have not yet looked at in detail the hits in the casemates - there would also be many hits with overwhelming water. In total, the "Mikasa" has a completely flooded bow end and large floods along the entire starboard side. As a result, "Mikasa" with a roll to the left side, burying its nose to the very haws ... would obviously have been forced to end the battle and would have had every chance of capsizing.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 16: 40
            +3
            Quote: rytik32
            Indeed, given the fact that by that time all vital parts of the ships were covered by armor, this was a key advantage.

            Alexey, a key parameter for assessing the impact of shells (and, consequently, their quality) is the drop in the combat capability of the ship into which they fall. So the Russian shells practically did not give a decrease in the combat effectiveness of Japanese ships, with rare exceptions, which, for the most part, belong to the old-style shells.
            Quote: rytik32
            And let's get some alternatives. So that it would be if Russian shells of the same caliber and in the same places as in the Oryol hit the Mikasa

            Nothing would have happened.
            Quote: rytik32
            # 22 12-inch pierced the unarmored side, exploded on impact on the barbet and would have caused extensive flooding in the nose.

            Why would you? He would have made a hole in the casing in the size of his diameter, buried himself in the barbet, and would have burst there absolutely harmlessly, since he could not pierce the barbet. As a result, Mikasa would have received minimal damage to the skin above the armor belt, which could not have led to significant flooding. The hole would not have been at the waterline, it would only be overwhelmed and repaired at once.
            Recall that the shell hit Mikase lower in the ZhM, and broke the 178 mm armor plate. The hole turned out to be much larger, and closer to the waterline. What's the point? Yes, of course, the sea was much calmer in ZhM, but ...
            But let's say you are right, and all the shells you listed would lead to the flow of water into the hull. So what?
            Quote: rytik32
            As a result, the "Mikasa" has a complete flooding of the bow up to the traverse.

            Yes, in no case :))))) This would be the flooding of the bow ABOVE THE ARMOR DECK, which in general would not affect the survivability and speed of the ship. Let me remind you that similar damage to "Peresvet" in the ZhM did not lead to anything at all.
            Problems could arise in case of water inflow below the armored deck, by analogy with the Oslyabey, but why? Unlike the latter, Mikasa was well built.
            In general, you greatly exaggerated both the effect of hits (it is unlikely that they would give a large flood) and the effect of flooding, which, even if it did, practically did not affect Mikasa's combat effectiveness
            1. rytik32
              rytik32 7 February 2021 19: 43
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the key parameter for assessing the impact of shells (and, consequently, their quality) is the drop in the ship's combat capability

              Asama, Kassagi and Naniwa were out of order. Isn't this the effect?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Mikasa would have received minimal damage to the skin above the armor belt, which could not have led to significant flooding.

              "Asama" received two 10-inch shell aft above the waterline, the ship sank 1,5 meters. And "Mikasa" would get nine shells in the nose!
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Recall that the shell hit Mikase lower in the ZhM, and broke the 178 mm armor plate. The hole turned out to be much larger, and closer to the waterline. What's the point? Yes, of course, the sea was much calmer in ZhM, but ...

              That 10-inch projectile flew in from 9-10 km and did not even have a theoretical chance to penetrate such armor ... The fact that he knocked out the plug is, in my opinion, a consequence of the poor quality of the armor. Naturally, there could not be any outboard damage ...
              But hits with a gap behind the side turned into a sieve bulkheads, decks and the opposite side. And it was not easy to close them up.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              that would be the flooding of the bow ABOVE THE ARMOR DECK, which would have no effect on the survivability and speed of the ship. Let me remind you that similar damage to "Peresvet" in the ZhM did not lead to anything at all.

              I would rather judge by the damage of Japanese ships from our shells, and not our ships - from the Japanese.
              So, "Asama" as a result of flooding, let me remind you of just a couple of shells, the next day did not have time either to Nebogatov or to "Donskoy". And Mikasa would have had not two such holes, but an order of magnitude more ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 08: 53
                +3
                Quote: rytik32
                Asama, Kassagi and Naniwa were out of order. Isn't this the effect?

                The effect. But from what? :)))
                Kasagi and Naniwa received hits below the waterline, and have nothing to do with the damage discussed. "Asama", having received 3 hits in the stern with heavy shells (one in the upper deck, but the helmsman seems to have disabled it) had multiple damage to the lower deck.
                That is, if we look at the Asama's booking, we will see that in the stern the armored deck does not reach the sternpost (it bumps into the traverse, and then it is not armored). Apparently it was through this vulnerable spot that the ship was flooded. But Mikasa has no such vulnerabilities in its nose. And 254-mm shells were still equipped with pyroxylin, and not smokeless powder, like 305-mm "land mines"
                Quote: rytik32
                The Asama received two 10-inch rounds aft above the waterline, and the ship sank 1,5 meters. And Mikasa would have gotten nine shells in the nose!

                The question is not in the number of shells, but in the effect of their hits. All the Russian shells could count on was to make holes above the armor belt. Whether it would give uncontrolled flooding of the bow or not is a guessing question. But the fact is that a ship protected by a carapace armored deck up to the stem in any case would not have had problems from flooding the middle deck, just as Peresvet did not have these problems.
                Quote: rytik32
                That 10-inch projectile arrived from 9-10 km and did not even have a theoretical chance to penetrate such armor ...

                There was 12 inches from a distance of about 40 cables, but it is possible that it was lower. Hit at 12.55 our time.
                Quote: rytik32
                The fact that he knocked out the cork is, in my opinion, a consequence of the poor quality of the armor. Naturally, there could not be any outboard damage ...

                It knocked out a cork about 3 feet in size in the immediate vicinity of the waterline, but yes, it did not have an armored effect, most likely it exploded while breaking through the armor.
                Quote: rytik32
                But the hits with a gap over the side turned into a sieve of bulkheads, decks and the opposite side.

                I repeat, it would not be worse than "Peresvet" for the reasons I mentioned above
                Quote: rytik32
                I would rather judge by the damage of Japanese ships from our shells, and not our ships - from the Japanese.

                And I would suggest taking into account the design features of certain Japanese ships. The fact that Asama got sinking from hitting the stern cannot be extrapolated to the Mikasa's bow.
                1. rytik32
                  rytik32 8 February 2021 12: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  That is, if we look at the Asama's booking, we will see that in the stern the armored deck does not reach the sternpost (it bumps into the traverse, and then it is not armored). Apparently, it was through this vulnerable spot that the ship was flooded.

                  Fortunately, there are damage schemes for the Asama. And nothing is marked on that piece.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And 254-mm shells were still equipped with pyroxylin, and not smokeless powder, like 305-mm "land mines"
                  While studying the damage, I did not notice a big difference at all between the effect of 10-inch and 12-inch shells. Let me remind you that the giant gap of the Mikasa shelter deck of 4,3 x 3,4 m was made by the 12-inch shell.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  All the Russian shells could count on was to make holes above the armor belt. Whether it would give uncontrolled flooding of the bow or not is a guessing question. But the fact is that a ship protected by a carapace armored deck up to the stem in any case would not have had problems from flooding the middle deck, just as Peresvet did not have these problems.

                  Let's go back to the actual data. "Iwate" received two hits to the stern just above the armor belt. The 6-inch shell exploded. The 8-inch didn't even burst. But as a result, the water in the stern "Iwate" went 2 feet. "Peresvet" also received two Japanese shells, but 12-inch in the bow near the waterline. And also the water went 2 feet. I'm not going to argue that the Japanese 12-inch land mine is approximately equal in strength to our 6-inch exploded or 8-inch non-exploded one))) This is an isolated case. But you shouldn't underestimate our shells!
                  And by the way, "Peresvet" had a roll of up to 8 degrees. But Mikasa would have had a lot more holes and a lot more floods.

                  By the way, the topic is interesting, you can write a whole article "If Mikasa received as much as the Eagle."
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 13: 14
                    +1
                    Quote: rytik32
                    Fortunately, there are damage schemes for the Asama. And nothing is marked on that piece.

                    There, and no damage to the steering was noted. And it was. If you look at the drawings that you gave in your article, you will see that the armor belt only protruded slightly above the waterline and should have gone under the water from the water that came over the armor deck. Accordingly, the outermost aft rooms were obviously flooded from above.
                    Moreover, I will now quote to you one very interesting and readable author (I am not joking at all). On this resource he writes under the nickname rytik32
                    At 14: 55… 14: 58 (14:42… 14:44) two 10… 12 ”shells pierced the starboard side aft and exploded on the middle deck. Shrapnel literally riddled the bulkheads unarmored lower deck flooring and the opposite side.

                    That is, the lower deck was damaged, or the respected rytik32 was mistaken?
                    Quote: rytik32
                    While studying the damage, I did not notice a big difference at all between the effect of 10-inch and 12-inch shells. Let me remind you that the giant gap of the Mikasa shelter deck of 4,3 x 3,4 m was made by the 12-inch shell.

                    That's it :))))) The shell hit the light side skin, and no significant damage was indicated. But the shelterdeck, that is to say, the hinged deck, did suffer, the upper and front bridges too, but for some reason nothing was said about the upper deck.
                    Hence the simple conclusion - when hit due to unclear reasons, the projectile turned upward, and the cone of damage fell on the hinged deck. And what was nearby - the upper deck, the planking - practically did not suffer.
                    Compare this with your own description of the hits of 10-inch shells that exploded at the level of the middle deck, but the lower one received multiple damage. That's the difference.
                    Quote: rytik32
                    Let's go back to the actual data. "Iwate" received two hits to the stern just above the armor belt. The 6-inch shell exploded. The 8-inch didn't even burst. But as a result, the water in the stern "Iwate" went 2 feet. "Peresvet" also received two Japanese shells, but 12-inch in the bow near the waterline. And also the water went 2 feet. I'm not going to argue that the Japanese 12-inch land mine is approximately equal in strength to our 6-inch exploded or 8-inch non-exploded one))) This is an isolated case. But you shouldn't underestimate our shells!

                    In this case, both Japanese and our shells ensured the penetration of water onto the armored deck. And the flooding had no effect on the combat effectiveness of the ships. That is, in both cases, the shells did not cause significant damage to the ship. What far-reaching conclusions should I draw from this? :)
                    Quote: rytik32
                    And by the way, "Peresvet" had a roll of up to 8 degrees.

                    Later, and having received more than the damage described by you. For him, sorry, 2 twelve-inch ones exploded in the immediate vicinity of the waterline in the unarmored side, which led to partial flooding of the compartments below the armored deck. And the roll began to form in general when the ship burned the coal well, i.e. reduced lower weight.
                    Quote: rytik32
                    By the way, the topic is interesting, you can write a whole article "If Mikasa received as much as the Eagle."

                    so Yes:))))
                    1. rytik32
                      rytik32 8 February 2021 18: 04
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      There, and no damage to the steering was noted. And it was.

                      No shrapnel hit the steering. But the mechanism was simply disconnected from the concussion. Therefore, there is nothing to display on the diagram)))
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      That is, the lower deck was damaged, or the respected rytik32 was mistaken?

                      The flat, unarmored part of the lower deck was damaged. But under it was an armored carpass, which the fragments did not break through. So the water hardly got down.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Hence the simple conclusion - when hit due to unclear reasons, the projectile turned upward, and the cone of damage fell on the hinged deck. And what was nearby - the upper deck, the planking - practically did not suffer.


                      Yes, the projectile turned up, but many fragments flew forward. Look at the DC cut: colander!
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And the flooding had no effect on the fighting efficiency of the ships.

                      If there was 60 cm of water from two shells, then how much water would there be from 8 shells?
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 07: 26
                        0
                        Quote: rytik32
                        The flat, unarmored part of the lower deck was damaged. But under it was an armored carpass, which the fragments did not break through. So the water hardly got down.

                        Alexey, let's think logically. 60 cm of water on an armored deck cannot cause a 1,5 m trim :))) It is obvious that the water passed outside the citadel, into unarmored superstructures
                        Quote: rytik32
                        If there was 60 cm of water from two shells, then how much water would there be from 8 shells?

                        60 cm :))) More than it could fill on the armored deck, it couldn't fill up, how many holes don't make
                      2. rytik32
                        rytik32 9 February 2021 10: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Alexey, let's think logically. 60 cm of water on an armored deck cannot cause a 1,5 m trim :)))

                        So 60 cm of water was at "Iwate", and a trim of 1,5 at "Asama". Theoretically, "Asama could have somewhere up to 3 meters of water (from karpas to a hole). And a similar" trough "structure at the ends of almost all Japanese ships.
                  2. unknown
                    unknown 8 February 2021 21: 35
                    0
                    The article should be written about Britain's "cardboard sword" in the Battle of Jutland.
              2. unknown
                unknown 8 February 2021 21: 32
                0
                Asama's problem is that armor is of very poor quality. Plasticine harvey.
                Mikasa is overwhelmed. Construction - 900 tons. Plus, as you wrote, huge operational. And where were the bow girdle and bow carapace deck?
          2. unknown
            unknown 8 February 2021 21: 27
            0
            Oslyabi's problem is a significant construction overload.
            Unlike "Peresvet", it could not even be unloaded due to insufficient fuel intake.
            Although, it was possible. Take fuel only for a day's fight. And then, in tow, or leave. But at least he could be useful.
            As for Mikasa, it was overloaded by construction by 900 tons. In percentage terms, this is more than "Borodino" with their 635 tons of construction overload.
            Plus, as you wrote, a huge operational overload. And where was the bow armor deck? Could she fulfill her role? And at what height above the water level was the upper edge of the nasal belt?
  9. Roman81
    7 February 2021 22: 56
    0
    So what? If this is an EBR, then he should act in a squadron, if a cruiser, he will sink merchants. For the first, it is not suitable, for the second, a simpler pair is better. In a cruising war, quantity is more important than quality. The cannon is, yes, not bad, but the drums and the rhombus neutralized it all. Yes, and the range of 42 cables by the end of the century is already very
    1. clerk
      clerk 8 February 2021 06: 45
      +3
      Russia is not a rich country. "Push" is a universal ship - it had acceptable seaworthiness and good range and speed to drive merchants and sufficient combat power to resist anyone who could catch up with it, even theoretically. within 5 years after entry into service, as well as larger airborne missiles even at the end of their careers. At the same time, 50 cab., A range of 8/35 for the RYAV distances was quite enough.
    2. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 8 February 2021 10: 23
      +4
      Quote: Roman81
      If this is an EBR, then he should act in a squadron, if a cruiser - to sink merchants

      And that there are no other options?
      On the Far East, this cruiser is quite kosher. From "Ding-Yuan" and its sister ship will leave, and any other ship of the Beiyang fleet is within his power.
  10. unknown
    unknown 8 February 2021 21: 18
    +1
    In an onboard salvo at "Nakhimov" 6 * 203mm and 4 * 152mm.
    The "asam" has 4 * 203mm and 6-7 * 152mm.
    The masses of the projectiles are close. Russian 203mm - 88 kg. Japanese 203mm - 93,5 kg. Russian 152mm-41,5 kg. Japanese 152mm - 45 kg.
    Loading both there and there - manually. But, at the same time, the mass of the Japanese is, on average, 10-20 kg less than that of the European. Not because of a good life, the Japanese switched to 140mm caliber.
    1. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 10 February 2021 13: 03
      +1
      Quote: ignoto
      The masses of the projectiles are close. Russian 203mm - 88 kg.

      As far as I remember, 35klb is heavier. (EMNIP 135 but not sure)
  • Revolver
    Revolver 6 February 2021 23: 22
    -1
    Some ships named "Admiral Nakhimov" are unlucky. And 1144 still does not come out of repair ...
    1. Roman81
      7 February 2021 22: 58
      0
      So the admiral himself ... It seems to me he was looking for death so as not to survive the death of the fleet
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 7 February 2021 02: 01
    +1
    The article is interesting, albeit sad.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Comrade
    Comrade 7 February 2021 06: 02
    +12
    According to English sources:

    "English sources" of this unfortunate "author" - Russian-language Wikipedia.
    Data.
    1. Discussed text:

    2. Russian-language Wikipedia, article "Armored cruisers of the" Empire "class"

    Word by word.

    Poor "Voennoye Obozreniye", once again the bottom has been broken.
    Copy-paste of wikipedia in the "articles" on the "Military Review" hitherto have not been seen, so with a start.
    1. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 8 February 2021 12: 50
      0
      Quote: Comrade
      Poor "Voennoye Obozreniye", once again the bottom has been broken.
      Copy-paste from Wikipedia in the "articles" on the "Military Review" have never been seen, so with a start.

      The publication in the opinion section, most likely the author worked on it for free. Therefore, such a quality.
  • rytik32
    rytik32 7 February 2021 09: 43
    +6
    Dear Roman, good afternoon!
    Thank you very much for not forgetting the theme of Tsushima that is close to me.

    Nevertheless, in some points I will correct you:
    1. I disagree with your assessment of the ship. For its time, it was a rather formidable ship. Another question is that by 1905 it was already outdated both morally and physically.
    2. About hitting the Japanese, the author of which may be "Nakhimov". The time is "Japanese".
    14.23:6 Iwate. Starboard aft. It did not explode, so the ship's commander's estimate should be considered more accurate than Sasebo's experts, who estimated the shell at XNUMX inches.
    15.18 Mikasa. Rear chimney. Based on the size of the hole, the projectile could not be more than 8 inches.
    16.20 "Iwate" - and this is hardly. Firstly, Sasebo's experts estimated the projectile at 6 inches, and secondly, the projectile flew almost strictly along the traverse, and there were Borodinians, not Nakhimov

    In turn, I plan to continue the Tsushima topic with an article on fires: the causes and mechanisms of their occurrence. And I will answer the question why such fires were only in Tsushima.
    1. 27091965
      27091965 7 February 2021 11: 29
      +1
      Quote: rytik32
      In turn, I plan to continue the Tsushima topic with an article on fires: the causes and mechanisms of their occurrence.


      Dear Alexey. When you plan to display your article. It will be interesting to compare your findings with the opinion published at that time. This applies to several sea battles.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 10 February 2021 23: 12
        +1
        Published here, now on moderation
  • Ivan Hangoverov
    Ivan Hangoverov 12 February 2021 02: 50
    0
    And if you cut down the masts ?! And add one main battery turret with a pair of guns by weight ?! To capitalize or shamanize the engine - the lack of progress did not affect the fighting qualities. Although he shot and shot, but did not hit. Something with sights, or the barrels had to be changed.