Military Review

Non-serial production

115

And you have to start with the British.


Limes in the last quarter of the XNUMXth century were trendsetters and ardent supporters of large-scale production, which greatly simplified the actions in battle. In terms of managing ships and squads. And it made production and service cheaper.

United Kingdom


And we will start with the Victoria-type rams, which were produced by two units in 1890-1991. They were followed by HMS Trafalgar - 2 units in the same period. Further - "Royal Sovereigns" (HMS Royal Sovereign) - 8 units from 1892 to 1894. Following them - as many as 9 "Majestic" (RMS Majestic). Then 6 "Canopus" (HMS Canopus). And 8 "Formidable" (HMS Formidable).


A total of 35 squadron battleships of six types. Almost six per type on average.

And if without an average, then the first four is the search for the optimum. But it is quite similar. And it can work together.

Then construction proceeded with ready-made squadrons: just add cruisers and destroyers. Such a Victorian invite.

USA


And what about the Yankees?


Three USS Indiana, two USS Kearsarge, three USS Illinois, three USS Maine and as many as 5 CSS Virginia and six Connecticuts planned "(Connecticut-class battleship). While the tasks were local - small-scale production. As soon as the bald eagle gained mass - following the example of the British.

Germany


Germans?

Non-serial production

Germans too.

Four Brandenburg-Klasse, five Kaiser-Klasse, five Wittelsbach Klasse. And there are five Braunschweig-klasse under construction. Also ready-made squadrons.

Japan


In the United navy Japan was total six battleships. And six second-class cruisers or non-armored carriers.

France


Only the French remained of the greats.


And they have five "Charles Martel" (Charles Martel-class ironclad) and three "Charlemagne" (Classe Charlemagne). Worse than others. But serial production also takes place.

And the main thing is continuity. When the subsequent type is an improved previous one.

All this combined gave similar speeds and maneuverability characteristics. Facilitated training of personnel and repair and maintenance of ships.

Yes, and in battle, ships of different types are extremely difficult to maneuver. Especially as part of one unit.

Actually, we have proved it. One armored detachment 2 TOE, the Vladivostok detachment and that's it, maneuvered tolerably in the battles of the Russo-Japanese War. That is, where there are ships with similar characteristics, like the Japanese, for example.

Russia


And how did it go with us?

No way.


It was easier on the Black Sea.

There they issued a series of four "Catherines".

But then they decided to build something that would be cheaper. And a scrap of the ship came out - "The Twelve Apostles".

Further - the triumph of creativity. When next to the quite decent "Three Saints" there is a misunderstanding of "Rostislav". After them - "Potemkin". Successful. But single.

There are 5 types in total on the Black Sea. Almost like the British. Except for the battleships of the second class (and I did not count the limes), then there are three types. But on solid six ships.

In the Baltic, they went their own way, which did not intersect with the chosen Black Sea people at all.

Such an impression - the states were different. And the Balts began, diligently copying the British (and this is just good, learning is not a sin), with rams.


Two rams - "Emperor Alexander II" and "Emperor Nicholas I" seem to have set the right path. But going in the right direction is not our method.

As a result, they decided to reduce the price of rams, as in the Black Sea "Ekaterina".

Released:

"One mast, one pipe, one cannon - one misunderstanding."

In the sense of EBR "Gangut".

Well, okay. We experimented. Everyone had this.

The next "Navarin" is one unit. Then "Sisoy the Great" - again alone. Three types of the first four ships of the line are no joke. Further "Poltava" - three units. It seems to have improved. But again, no - now it was not between the types, but between the schools.

Already at "Poltava" - a medium-caliber tower arrangement, inconvenient and prolonged construction.

Then something strange was desired. And on the way out there are six strange ships. Three battleships of coastal defense that were needed, I don't know who. Not enough for the defense of the Gulf of Finland. For the rest of the tasks ...

Which ones? Defense of the port of Alexander III? So there are coastal batteries ...

Well, the "Peresveta", the ships are senseless and merciless. We wanted battleships-cruisers, got battleships of the second class, in size and price - about first-class.

Then, so that the admirals did not get bored, they bought two ships of different types from different schools - "Retvizan" and "Tsarevich". In addition, with different boilers, respectively, and accelerating characteristics, and a firebrand for ship repairers and mechanics. And, finally, the Borodino type - five plus two improved units.


Also not without nuances, but still.

Total for 1904: the First Squadron - 4 types of ships. The most numerous is three units.

How to divide this even into two groups? I don’t know.

Is that conditional: fast and slow. But difficult maneuvers are best avoided. By the way, only Makarov tried them. It turned out - collision and knocking together.

On the Second Squadron, six types were assembled, and the detachments could be put together only from four Borodintsy and three Ushakovs. And why didn't Zinovy ​​teach them how to maneuver?

Strange somehow, right? How not to share, all the same a bunch will eventually come out.

But it could have been different.

There could well be three rams, two Navarins, six Poltavs (three plus three improved with Harvey armor). And it was necessary to buy either two "Tsesarevich", or two "Retvizans" (preferably three, and a Tsesarevich but ...).

As a result, in 1904 they would have had 8 battleships of two types in the Pacific Ocean. Or 9. Also of two types.

And would there be a war? An interesting question.

And for the defense of the Baltic, a troika of rams and a pair of Navarins are in every way more useful than three BBOs.

But история has no subjunctive mood. And to the wild problems of logistics they added the same problems with combat maneuvering (as the second and third armored detachments Zinovy ​​taught to move a little better than in a bunch - I can't imagine).

It's a long history.

And it's sad to look at the throwing between the types of frigates and corvettes these days, when the series is ripped off for the sake of wishes.

Everything is as it was then.

The past does not teach.
Author:
115 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 11 February 2021 18: 27
    +6
    The past does not teach.

    Not far gone
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 11 February 2021 19: 56
      +7
      And it's sad to look at the throwing between the types of frigates and corvettes these days, when the series is ripped off for the sake of wishes.

      Everything is as it was then.

      The past does not teach.

      - just said USC - a break in Sevmash between generations should be no more than 3-4 years, otherwise it will happen - cuckoo.
      not far gone, but compared to 1960-80? The fish was dismantled here - all the Moremans did not correctly put into the ruchenki
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 11 February 2021 22: 39
        +6
        No wonder, because the "mustache carrying the blizzard" publicly declared that illiterate
        bast shoe-agrarian "patchwork quilt" a reference point for today's Russia.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 12 February 2021 11: 27
          +2
          about rags - it takes time (at least 1 generation) to infuse into a fraternal family - so the peasants of the early 20th century - Brezhnev's father - then 20-30 years - and up to 90 years - the Russians ended - Kaukaz and Srazia went. socialization, etc.
          we are still living in a period of transition.
          and R&D are the same (Rybka and the Strategic Missile Forces-GABTU). Constant replenishment of the city from the lower "estate" not familiar with the "civic position" (they have my own). the question arose sharply at the MSG - they did not solve it. fertility leads us into the pit of the Middle Ages - the number of bearers of the ideas of democracy and humanism is decreasing ... more archaic ... so in the whole world.
          1. unknown
            unknown 13 February 2021 01: 33
            0
            The tendency all over the world is the destruction of the middle class.
            With the current type of management, mercenary capitalism, resources are overspending. The main overspending comes precisely from the middle class.
      2. Kuroneko
        Kuroneko 12 February 2021 15: 16
        +1
        Well, according to the author, Victoria was built for more than a century. = 3
        And we will start with Victoria-class rams, which were produced by two units in 1890-1991 Years.
        So we're still VERY good. = 3
  2. sergo1914
    sergo1914 11 February 2021 18: 30
    +6
    Pancake. Everybody made irons, and the French made beauty. How so? Dupuis de Lom is generally a song.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 February 2021 20: 04
      +7
      Quote: sergo1914
      Pancake. Everybody made irons, and the French made beauty. How so? Dupuis de Lom is generally a song.

      Controversial!
      Although the author.
      And they have five "Charles Martel" (Charles Martel-class ironclad) and three "Charlemagne" (Classe Charlemagne). Worse than others. But serial production also takes place.
      And the main thing is continuity. When the subsequent type is an improved previous one.

      There is one trifle, at the request of the French Admiralty, all ships of the first and second rank until 1908 had to have a unique silhouette.
      1. unknown
        unknown 13 February 2021 01: 35
        +1
        How did the author of the article write down the French battleships of the "fleet of samples" in serial?
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 13 February 2021 03: 33
          +3
          Quote: ignoto
          How did the author of the article write down the French battleships of the "fleet of samples" in serial?

          Yes, nothing, there was a beautiful conclusion with the projection of the situation to the present, to which they began to pull the events of the past by the ears!
          Immediately, according to the text of the Author, inconsistencies with the British battleships went, after reading to the French I realized that "holivar - floats on the topic, like a student at a session"!
          For the domestic fleet, it is easier to take its development programs at the end of the year before last and the beginning of the last century! Then everything becomes clear, without reading it is possible to draw not such extravagant conclusions!
  3. Niko
    Niko 11 February 2021 18: 35
    +17
    The period of time described by the author: one of the most interesting for the fleet lovers. Topic: interesting and worthy of attention. But the article .... Maybe I did not understand or missed something, (then I apologize) but this is not an article, but BEGINNING INTRODUCTION to an article on a selected topic
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Ros 56
    Ros 56 11 February 2021 18: 39
    +1
    And you have to start with the British.

    Well the author, let's start with them, but I'm afraid they won't like it. laughing
    1. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 11 February 2021 18: 41
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      only I'm afraid they won't like it.

      Get used to lol
  6. strannik1985
    strannik1985 11 February 2021 18: 47
    +14
    And you have to start with the British.

    Because they wanted to sit on two chairs - a cruising war with the British and a struggle for supremacy at sea with everyone else. Hence, a series of "Peresvetov" and large cruisers - armored decks of the program 1898 and "Bayan". Plus BBO against the Germans, Swedes in the Baltic. It was not possible to sit on 2,5 chairs as expected request
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 11 February 2021 21: 06
      +3
      today SBIvanov - sounded --100 billion rubles for the advanced - hypersound - he started this reform "war comes from the sky" following the results of entering Iraq in 2003.
      means the 15 year old cycle is about over. if already announced, summed up.
      waiting for AB.
      the next ambitious program for 100 billion rubles.
      I am against no joke. all systematically increase VI from MRK to UDC and from UAVs.
    2. unknown
      unknown 13 February 2021 01: 45
      +1
      The Peresvets are definitely stronger than the Japanese armored cruisers.
      The armored decks of the 1898 program are not as bad as people think they are.
      Suliga wrote about this very well in his introduction to the monograph on Japanese heavy cruisers.
      Japanese small cruisers had poor seaworthiness, quickly lost speed in waves, were poorly armed, and lost combat effectiveness from one or two hits.
      The qualities of the Russian large armored decks in the RYA were not disclosed not because of their allegedly insufficient characteristics, but because of unsatisfactory control.
      Even the supposedly low-speed Diana-class cruisers with their 19 knots were faster than the Japanese armored cruisers, which cruised from 15 to 17 knots for a long time.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 13 February 2021 09: 46
        +1
        "Peresvet" is definitely stronger than the Japanese armored "cruisers"

        The Japanese have a quirk on the basis of the "flying squadron", their role in the squadron battle is purely secondary, just like the old Russian battleships, it is no coincidence that Kamimura's squadron participated in the battle for less time than Togo's squadron.
        The battle of Tsushima was actually won by 4 EBRs of Togo with concentrated fire from their main battalions, sequentially knocking out all four Russian battleships of the 1st detachment. It was exactly 12 "armor-piercing shells that caused the roof to break off from the main turret and the aft tower exploded on Suvorov, the 6" tower exploded on Borodino, extensive holes in the bow of Alexander III and inflicted the most serious damage on the Orel.
  7. mmaxx
    mmaxx 11 February 2021 18: 49
    +19
    Seriality was obtained from economically powerful countries. This is the first thing. And second, it is that the sailors or whoever else is there, it is generally not clear what they wanted. We got the English drawings: wow, let's build it. Kramp drove in competently, got a battleship. The admiral-general stopped by (or maybe Kshesinskaya advised what?), Here is the Tsesarevich and Borodino.
    And what about maneuvering a squadron? And why is it? We are not going to run away from the enemy. Rozhdestvensky's tactics - this is our then naval art. And in the person of the chief of the main headquarters.
    Savings yet. And then how? You can only save on the essentials. And you can't save on Parisian wicks.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 11 February 2021 18: 58
      +1
      Seriality was obtained from economically powerful countries.

      This means that RI was "economically powerful", since it built "Poltava" and "Borodino" in series.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 11 February 2021 19: 15
        +5
        To Borodino has developed. It is unlikely to go to Poltava yet. Peresveta, perhaps, on the transition.
      2. lis-ik
        lis-ik 11 February 2021 23: 28
        +3
        Quote: strannik1985
        Seriality was obtained from economically powerful countries.

        This means that RI was "economically powerful", since it built "Poltava" and "Borodino" in series.

        In addition, in many ways, and advanced.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 February 2021 17: 15
          0
          Quote: lis-ik
          In addition, in many ways, and advanced.

          Duc ... "Poltava" has a conditional series - in it two ships with the same armor cannot be found. smile
          А largely advanced - did you mean that the cars for one of the three EBRs - "Sevastopol" were made at home, and not ordered in Britain?
          In "Gangut" were the memoirs of a representative of the Ministry of the Navy in Britain at the end of the XNUMXth century. So he complained that he did not have time to accept everything that was ordered for domestic ships (from CMU to casting and rental) and spent almost all the maintenance received from his native department only for travel and accommodation, there was not even left to replace worn-out clothes.
          1. unknown
            unknown 13 February 2021 01: 48
            0
            In this case, the series "asam" is also conditional. In fact, there are four subtypes.
            Yes, and the "Garibaldians" were very different. Not only in terms of armament, but also in terms of the type of CMU, and in terms of standard displacement.
  8. rytik32
    rytik32 11 February 2021 18: 53
    +14
    The peculiarity of the Russian fleet of that time was the presence of several possible opponents at once: the British, Japanese, Germans ... Therefore, they built ships for different tasks. And plus the rapid development of technology and technology. There was no point in repeating the previous type of building when it could be done better. Moreover, there was still little experience in construction. Three more Bayans were built after the RYAV - and what did they win? We got obsolete ships! If instead of "Sisoy" and "Poltava" there were "Navrins" - would that be good? And when they found the optimum - they rolled out five Borodinos at once. So I don't see any terrible problems with different types.
    And in vain you roll a barrel on the BBO - excellent ships for their tasks, and in Port Arthur they would be the very place with a shallow draft! Go out at low tide, carry out a passing fire ...
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 11 February 2021 20: 14
      +4
      Therefore, they built ships for different tasks.

      Two - the British (obviously stronger at sea) and everyone else. Therefore, attempts to build raiders for actions on communications and squadron battleships, as well as cross one with the other ("Peresvety"). The bad news is that RI is too poor to pull both programs, as a result, large cruisers against the Japanese were largely useless and battleships for squadron battles (instead of BBO, Peresvetov, BrKr) were not enough.
      1. unknown
        unknown 13 February 2021 01: 51
        0
        Large armored decks are heavily underrated ships.
        The Russians had enough ships for linear combat. In Tsushima - definitely.
        The other was missing. Not even professionalism, but motivation.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 13 February 2021 09: 59
          0
          Ships for linear combat.

          What you soon wrote in "enough" is very much outdated, it is no coincidence that old battleships and BBOs were in other units.
    2. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 11 February 2021 22: 18
      +3
      Quote: rytik32
      And in vain you roll a barrel on the BBO - excellent ships for their tasks, and in Port Arthur they would be the very place with a shallow draft! Go out at low tide, carry out a passing fire ...

      And in the Baltic Sea, the BBO is more than appropriate, you wouldn't have to throw in shallow water after the first hit, as with Slava.
    3. moreman78
      moreman78 12 February 2021 13: 50
      0
      Quote: rytik32
      And in vain you roll a barrel on the BBO - excellent ships for their tasks, and in Port Arthur they would be the very place with a shallow draft! Go out at low tide, carry out a passing fire ...

      They just built them for the Baltic, where they were going to use. However, when the roasted rooster pecked, they collected everything they could and sent with the 2nd squadron of Rozhdestvensky to the Far East.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 12 February 2021 14: 26
        0
        And if the BBO had been transferred to Port Arthur in advance, perhaps the Japanese would not have dared to land in Biziwo - it is very shallow there.
      2. unknown
        unknown 13 February 2021 01: 57
        0
        And how is the BBO in Tsushima worse than the Japanese "underdogs" Kamimura?
        Kamimura's detachment, due to "Azuma" in the best scenario, could not go more than 15 knots for a long time. In real life, due to strong operational overload, more than 14 knots.
        There were enough battleships of the Borodino and Oslyabi types against the first Japanese detachment.
        Everything else, including three battleships with 12 "guns, could well have been used against the" underdogs "of Kamimura.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 13 February 2021 10: 11
          0
          And how is the BBO in Tsushima worse than the Japanese "underdogs" Kamimura?

          Nothing, except that neither one nor the other influenced the outcome of the battle - the battle between the 1st armored detachment and the 1st class EBR of Togo.
  9. rytik32
    rytik32 11 February 2021 18: 56
    +2
    On the Second Squadron, six types were assembled, and the detachments could be put together only from four Borodintsy and three Ushakovs. And why didn't Zinovy ​​teach them how to maneuver?

    Strange somehow, right? How not to share, all the same a bunch will eventually come out.

    Have you ever wondered how the Japanese maneuvered with their Garibaldians?
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 11 February 2021 19: 17
      +5
      So Togo and his admirals were real naval commanders. And their headquarters worked as it should. I judge this by the consequences.
      1. unknown
        unknown 13 February 2021 02: 33
        -1
        Why would the Japanese be real naval commanders?
        Ancient Japanese history is fake. Almost completely copied from English.
        The real history of Japan began in the middle of the nineteenth century.
        when the Dutch, British, French and Americans began to bring the inhabitants of the Polynesian islands to the southern islands of the Kuril ridge. Those islands that are called Japanese today.
        The original inhabitants of these islands are the Ainu, representatives of the white race.
        How, in such a short period of time, the Europeans managed to create a new nation, raise an elite, create a new language and teach this language to a new people?
        And who did we really fight in that war?
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 13 February 2021 05: 11
          +2
          I don’t take my time with an alternative.
    2. unknown
      unknown 13 February 2021 01: 59
      0
      In the first Japanese detachment there were FIVE TYPES ships. Four types of battleships and one type of armored cruiser.
  10. mark1
    mark1 11 February 2021 19: 09
    +10
    Well, the fact that the series is better than piece production is true. But further ... excuse me. According to the EBR, the composition of the first squadron is quite balanced - 3 + 2 (you know the types yourself, the Peresvets are not EBR, but cruisers). The first squadron is generally a sin to complain about something other than its own stupidity, carelessness and disorganization. That is, the reason for the defeat is not at all in serial production. All this has already been pounded with a stupa in the sea of ​​Japan.
    1. unknown
      unknown 13 February 2021 02: 01
      +2
      "Peresvets" are battleships after all. The main caliber of battleships: from 240 mm to 343 mm.
      1. mark1
        mark1 13 February 2021 03: 15
        +1
        And the main caliber of cruisers from 75 to 320 mm is not an indicator of belonging to one class or another. "Peresvets" were originally built as cruisers and were classified in correspondence during construction.
  11. clerk
    clerk 11 February 2021 19: 19
    -1
    Another cry of the author is completely incomprehensible. Well, different types of ships, but 4 types in the Yellow Sea maneuvered normally. 12 2-3 TOEs are so different types that they cannot normally maneuver in the line - this problem is practically insoluble. So this reproach against the ZPR is unfair. The pretenses that the different types were laid are not serious - the number of types in the Baltic - like the British, it is another matter that the series are small. But this is an economic problem. By the way, Rostislav is a mix of Sisoi, Poltava and BBO, so it's not quite an independent type.
    1. Elturisto
      Elturisto 11 February 2021 19: 44
      0
      It remains only to figure out why different dreadnoughts were built at the BF and the Black Sea Fleet, what prevented them from standardizing?
      1. clerk
        clerk 11 February 2021 19: 59
        +2
        The Black Sea tanks were built according to the experience of the Baltic ones and were already sharpened for a specific enemy.
        1. Elturisto
          Elturisto 11 February 2021 21: 50
          -1
          And what do you think was this sharpening? In replacing mine artillery? In addition, the dreadnoughts of the Black Sea Fleet inherited all the shortcomings of the Baltic ones, well, they increased their booking ...
          1. clerk
            clerk 11 February 2021 22: 07
            +2
            "Well, we have strengthened the booking" - this is sharpening. The rest of the shortcomings for a particular theater of operations were not critical. Although the PMSM, the armor of the skating rink has become even weaker than the Gangut. Only at the expense of the bookings of the main companies and barrets can they conditionally be considered better booked.
        2. Elturisto
          Elturisto 11 February 2021 22: 08
          +3
          Here's another thing, admirals and strategists of the RI fleet were preparing for a new Russo-Japanese war, but that’s not even the point. Management of the very meager resources of the Republic of Ingushetia on the eve of the war. War with Germany was inevitable. Wouldn't it be better to spend money on ground forces. why all these expensive toys? There is nothing to say about the Ishmaels, they were planned for service in the Mediterranean Sea based on Bizerte. What do we have - the leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia, instead of solving the priority tasks of equipping the ground forces with modern artillery, under pressure from foreign powers and local lobbyists, utilized resources for a completely useless business?
          1. clerk
            clerk 13 February 2021 09: 09
            0
            As for heavy artillery for the army, here. The problem of the PMSM is not so much a lack of funds, but in their heads - they did not consider it necessary .. The Ganguts themselves for the BF - PMSM were a fairly successful project - they were suitable for raiding operations with the Kyrgyz Republic, and for protecting the Gulf of Finland and for countering large landings. And nothing more was actually required of them. The same Ishmaels were much less useful according to the criterion of "cost-effectiveness" - "bending fingers" in Bizerte was not particularly necessary, and they were morally outdated already at the time of laying.
      2. Potter
        Potter 11 February 2021 20: 00
        -3
        Baltic dreadnoughts are essentially battle cruisers. There are real battleships on the Black Sea. The speed is 2 knots less - the booking is much more powerful, the cost of building is less. True, these 2 knots did not allow both Mary and Catherine to catch up with Goeben. Each of them was given on occasion, but the bitch, even with loose turbines and an overgrown bottom, was able to hit the road. Within the framework of the fleet, the uniformity of the squadron was ensured. To do this, they did not even finish building the 4th ship, Imp.Nikolai 1, with 356 mm guns, as originally planned.
        1. Elturisto
          Elturisto 11 February 2021 21: 55
          0
          Reservation is much more powerful - by 40 mm?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 February 2021 14: 11
            +2
            Quote: ElTuristo
            Reservation is much more powerful - by 40 mm?

            Not destiny to look at the booking scheme? Yes, much more powerful
      3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 February 2021 20: 16
        +7
        Quote: ElTuristo
        It remains only to figure out why different dreadnoughts were built at the BF and the Black Sea Fleet, what prevented them from standardizing?

        The Black Sea series of battleships was the development of the Baltic.
        For armadillos, evolution is also taking place. Bela was in something else - industrial facilities. The Kremlin, if I'm not mistaken, took seven years to build! Did it make sense to duplicate it? The answer is obvious. There was a similar problem with other projects! The same Peter the Great was founded earlier than his British classmates, but entered service three years later. Plus the constant desire of our Admiralty to save money - hence not a continuation of the rather successful Navarin project! Well, somewhere like that.
        1. Elturisto
          Elturisto 11 February 2021 21: 57
          +4
          Of course, the technical industry lagged behind, but then the question was, was it worth dreaming about overseas expansion without having an industrial base for its implementation?
      4. Orkraider
        Orkraider 11 February 2021 21: 11
        +2
        Quote: ElTuristo
        It remains only to figure out why different dreadnoughts were built at the BF and the Black Sea Fleet, what prevented them from standardizing?


        Welcome.
        Different opponents and tasks.

        The BF was built to confront the British, that is, a bias towards cruising and raiding on British communications. Based on this, the Baltic battleships had a huge range, speed, acceptable armament and disgusting booking. The crown of this school is the semi-battleship-semi-cruiser "Peresvet".
        And the Black Sea school was directed against the Turks and the goal was to capture the straits.
        Range ... Not needed)) Speed ​​... So, the target is on the shore, motionless, not needed)) But they did not save on armor and armament of battleships.
        1. Elturisto
          Elturisto 11 February 2021 22: 00
          +2
          By the time Sevastopol was laid in the Baltic, the British were already allies and provided extensive technological support - artillery (from 120 to 356 mm, created with the help of Vickers, the cruiser Rurik, turbines for LK and EM).
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 February 2021 17: 24
            0
            Quote: ElTuristo
            By the time Sevastopol was laid in the Baltic, the British were already allies and provided extensive technological support - artillery (from 120 to 356 mm, created with the help of Vickers, the cruiser Rurik, turbines for LK and EM).

            Well. Britain's ally was very conditional - just remember "Sultan Osman I" and a couple of "Reshad V".
            Start the war a little later - and, thanks to the British, the Turks would also have a full-fledged seven-turret LC.
            1. Elturisto
              Elturisto 12 February 2021 17: 39
              -1
              This is unlikely, and the seven-tower at first seemed to be intended for Brazil. And if Britain becomes an ally, then it does so solely out of its own interests, which means that Britain really helps the allies.
    2. unknown
      unknown 13 February 2021 02: 03
      0
      The Japanese have no less variety.
      Armadillos are of four types. Armored cruisers are of five types.
  12. Alf
    Alf 11 February 2021 19: 27
    +25
    And a scrap of the ship came out - "The Twelve Apostles".

    At the end of the 19th century, there was a big scandal in the House of Lords.
    `` Russia launched 15 (!) Battleships in the Black Sea !!! ''
    Then they figured out - THREE saints and TWELVE apostles ...
  13. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 11 February 2021 19: 43
    +26
    Y-yes ...
    There were only six battleships in the Japanese United Fleet. And six second-class cruisers or non-armored carriers.

    What is characteristic of the first three and the second four types :)))
    And they have five "Charles Martel" (Charles Martel-class ironclad) and three "Charlemagne" (Classe Charlemagne). Worse than others. But serial production also takes place.

    Seriality is very relative. They differed in the location of weapons, geometric dimensions and even the number of shafts. The latter is especially piquant in light of the author's lamentations about maneuverability :))
    And the Balts began, diligently copying the British (and this is just good, learning is not a sin), with rams. Two rams - "Emperor Alexander II" and "Emperor Nicholas I" seem to have set the right path. But going in the right direction is not our method.

    I'm embarrassed to ask where our rams are copied from the English ones?
    The next "Navarin" is one unit. Then "Sisoy the Great" - again alone.

    sorry, but if "Charlemagne" are of the same type, then "Sisoy" and "Navarin" are just twins :))
    Three battleships of coastal defense that were needed, I don't know who. Not enough for the defense of the Gulf of Finland. For the rest of the tasks ...

    That is, the existence of the Swedish and German BBOs and that they need to somehow resist the author is unknown?
    In fact, the Baltic is shallow, and ships with a shallow draft are simply needed to perform a number of tasks. I do not at all consider our BBOs to be successful, and that's just kapets as necessary ships, but there is quite a logic in their appearance.
    The passage about coastal batteries pleased me. Of course, they are the same in all fiords. on all islands :))
    By the way, the same story is with the Black Sea “Apostles” and “Rostislav.” There, suddenly, there is also shallow water.
    Total for 1904: the First Squadron - 4 types of ships. The most numerous is three units.
    How to divide this even into two groups? I don’t know.

    Yes? But Togo, for some reason, did not care about this question at all, and he brought all six battleships of three different types into one detachment and did not soar. And it turned out to maneuver ... maybe it's not about the diversity?
    Now let's remember the joint program of 1895-98 "For the needs of the Far East".
    According to it, it was assumed that the Pacific Fleet will have ten battleships: "Tsesarevich" and five "Borodino" (I hope that they are similar in type is obvious even for the author?); "Retvizan" and three "overexposures". Here are two units of ships that are close enough in type.
    That is, the problem by the leadership of the naval department was fully realized and solved ...
    As for the fact that the British built battleships in large batches, but we do not ... What can you do, being rich and healthy is better than being poor and sick. And if it is not possible to build a large series at once, then the variety of types has no alternative. progress was so fast that the ships became obsolete on the stocks and not only here. Therefore, the next ship often and densely radically differed from its predecessor.
    PS Dear author. You would read the articles on the fleet already posted on the site. There are both "overexposures" and "sevastopol" (which you in one fell swoop attributed to BBO :))))
    1. 27091965
      27091965 11 February 2021 20: 01
      +10
      Dear Ivan, your comment is better than the whole article. Thanks.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 February 2021 07: 54
        +9
        I support, and fiercely plus :))))
        For the sake of fairness, I note that there was a problem of joint maneuvering, but the anecdote is that it could arise even in ships of the same type ...
        1. unknown
          unknown 13 February 2021 02: 09
          0
          Absolutely right.
          Even ships of the same type, but built at different shipyards, could have, and had very different characteristics. And in terms of displacement, and maneuverability, and speed.
          The most obvious example: British battleships of the Majestic class.
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 February 2021 20: 19
      +7
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      sorry, but if "Charlemagne" are of the same type, then "Sisoy" and "Navarin" are just twins :))


      My applause, with all my paws and drum roll with my tail !!! good
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 11 February 2021 22: 13
        +2
        Mustache, paws and tail - these are my documents! drinks
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 February 2021 08: 01
          +4
          Quote: hohol95
          Mustache, paws and tail - these are my documents! drinks

          Good morning! Probably all the same - arguments !!! drinks
          1. unknown
            unknown 13 February 2021 02: 09
            +2
            Legs, wings ... - the main thing, the tail.
          2. hohol95
            hohol95 21 February 2021 13: 49
            +1
            Good morning! Probably all the same - arguments !!!

            Arguments - claws and fangs! drinks
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 21 February 2021 15: 21
              +2
              Hi Aleksey! Someone has already slapped a minus to you! Very negative thread, don't overwrite !!! We will look at them menacingly !!!!!
    3. strannik1985
      strannik1985 11 February 2021 21: 40
      +2
      Seriality is very relative.

      This thesis is not disclosed by the Author, for me it's not a matter of diversity armadillos, and in diversity ships, armored cruisers and large armored decks are not particularly suitable for operations as part of an battleship squadron. In theory, in the transition to the construction of a homogeneous fleet from the EBR, cruisers - scouts and destroyers by the end of 1903 in Port Arthur, you can have up to 10 - 12 battleships, which devalues ​​the Japanese attempts 6 + 6 to zero.

      That is, about the existence of Swedish and German BBOs

      A private enemy, there is not enough money to adapt to everyone, large pots will ensure dominance in the sea, and much cheaper gunboats can be built for work near the coast.
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 11 February 2021 21: 57
        +6
        Quote: strannik1985
        for me it's not about the variety of battleships, but about the variety of ships

        the author definitely emphasizes the different types of ships of the same class, which is why, in his opinion, they could not operate as part of detachments.
        as for me a very strange statement.
        Quote: strannik1985
        large armored decks are not particularly suitable for operations as part of an battleship squadron.

        It was not considered so at the time. Whether they are right or not is another question, but six-thousanders were also created for service with the squadron.
        Quote: strannik1985
        big pots

        Will they watch as alien BBOs in shallow water with impunity shake off cheaper gunboats?
        Quote: strannik1985
        In theory, in the transition to the construction of a homogeneous fleet from the EBR, cruisers - scouts and destroyers by the end of 1903 in Port Arthur, you can have up to 10 - 12 battleships, which devalues ​​the Japanese attempts 6 + 6 to zero.

        With sane financing, 10 EDB would be under the real program. And another plus to them is two dozen cruisers of I and II ranks.
        What do you mean by scouts?
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 12 February 2021 08: 37
          +2
          as for me a very strange statement

          The Author does not understand which ones and why, if you develop an idea, then for example, "Peresvets" are worse for squadron combat than "Poltava" and "Borodino", weaker main battery and booking.
          It was not considered so at the time.

          Yes, the Naval Ministry tried to adapt the "big cruiser" for squadron needs, but they are too big and expensive to work as scouts, except to drive Japanese small cruisers, but they go in detachments, often with a squadron.
          Will watch other people's BBOs

          During the described period, the Germans have up to 8 BBOs, the Norwegians have up to 4, the Swedes have up to 7 more or less new buildings, against 3 BBOs RIF. Those. if, in the event of a hypothetical conflict, the Fleet will conduct a landing operation somewhere in the Baltic, the target of the operation will be a port, the main striking force of the squadron from the 1st class EBR, for which the minesweepers will clear the way to the target. The need for BBO is a particular case.
          With sane financing

          Those. more money, and I proceeded from the money spent and the stockpile capacities.
          Cruiser rank 3.
          1. unknown
            unknown 13 February 2021 02: 25
            0
            "Peresvets" are better suited for squadron combat than Japanese "underdogs".
            Armored cruisers with a standard displacement of 6000 tons are excellent seaworthy ships.
            No wonder, the British believed that it was this displacement that was the minimum acceptable for an ocean cruiser. In terms of fire performance, they are stronger than Japanese armored decks. Their speed in waves is not lower than that of the small Japanese, and their combat stability is higher. This also applies to the allegedly unsuccessful Diana-class ships.
            Japanese armored cruisers are stronger, but slower. Even than a Diana-class cruiser.
            Even the most "high-speed" of them are the "British". Not to mention Yakumo, and even more so about Azuma.
          2. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 13 February 2021 10: 10
            +1
            Quote: strannik1985
            The Author does not understand which ones and why, if you develop an idea, then for example "Peresvets" are worse for squadron combat than "Poltava"

            The EMNIP author wrote in a previous article that the "Peresvets" were generally not suitable for squadron combat, which is absolutely not the case.
            Quote: strannik1985
            During the described period, the Germans have up to 8 BBOs, the Norwegians have up to 4, the Swedes have up to 7 more or less new buildings, against 3 BBOs RIF.

            1) if you remember, we were not going to be limited to one triple.
            2) And the British in the "described period" have more battleships, cruisers and everything else ... that you don't need to build anything at all?
            somewhere in the Baltic, the target of the operation will be a port,

            And nothing else? In my opinion, you gave this as an example "special case"
            Quote: strannik1985
            Cruiser rank 3.

            Who is this anyway? advice note? mine cruiser? armed steamer?
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 13 February 2021 15: 56
              0
              EMNIP the author in the last article wrote

              Of course not, but in comparison ...
              And the British in the "described period"

              No, to single out the main vector and dance from it, a priori there is not enough money for everything.
              And nothing else?

              And what else? "Freedom of navigation" and everything connected with it will be provided by the line fleet.
              Who is this anyway?

              Novik / Bogatyr / Topaz type / Gazelle type
              1. Senior seaman
                Senior seaman 13 February 2021 16: 56
                +1
                Quote: strannik1985
                No, to single out the main vector and dance from it, a priori there is not enough money for everything.

                In principle, they did so ... just not right away :))
                And what else?

                Everything that the Baltic Fleet was doing in real life: covering the CMA, supporting the coastal flanks and other operations with which shallow-draft BBOs would have coped better than battleships. See the fate of "Glory"
                And colleague, please re-read my comment from which the branch began, otherwise it may be thought that I am a supporter of the construction of the BBO :)))
                I do not at all consider our BBOs to be successful, and that's just kapets as necessary ships, but there is quite a logic in their appearance.

                Quote: strannik1985
                Novik / Bogatyr

                where are they of the "third rank"?
                But I understood your message and ... I disagree with it. You see, they are small cruisers and small in capabilities. And if the sixties are somewhat redundant, then the "Pelorus" and all the different "Nymphs" are clearly insufficient. To support them, you will still need larger ships, and you can't catch up with battleships.
                In general, I see a kind of Russian "Elsvik" of 4500-4700 tons of displacement with a speed of 20 (instead of goddesses) to 23 knots and 8-10 six-inch weapons as optimal. And you still need a leader, "Bayan" or something like that.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 13 February 2021 20: 00
                  0
                  In principle, they did so ...

                  By 1907, but they went to the other extreme - they came up with an "ideal squadron" after scoring to renew the current composition, as a result of the PMA I found it with my pants down.
                  Everything that the baltflot did in real life

                  Why bury yourself in the trenches of the TsMAP? The homogeneous composition of the RIF in the Baltic covers the Germans up to 1904 inclusive, and then depends on the results of the RYV and financial policy. Shoot along the shore - there are gunboats and old battleships.
                  You see, small cruisers

                  For reconnaissance and lead destroyers against the same trifle is enough, but more is not needed. But they can be built in the same budget, roughly instead of a large armored deck 2 cruisers of the 3rd class.
                  1. Senior seaman
                    Senior seaman 13 February 2021 20: 14
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    old battleships.

                    One word is sediment.
                    And by the way, our BBs could well have been put in line behind the Poltava.
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    For reconnaissance and lead destroyers against the same trifle is enough, but more is not needed.

                    What if the weather is stormy? Or cruising?
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    roughly instead of a large armored deck 2 cruisers of the 3rd class.

                    So Yes. Only this pair will have no combat resistance.
                    here is such a hit "Pelorus" could not survive.
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 14 February 2021 13: 49
                      +1
                      One word-sediment.

                      So we decide where and in what situation the sediment in the Baltic will be the determining factor.
                      What if the weather is stormy?

                      And the weather strongly interfered with Novinka / Bogatyr / Gazelles / Topaz and even a bunch of ships?
                      Only combat resistance of this pair

                      Likewise, a single "Elsvik" against a detachment of Japanese small cruisers will have none, especially if Kamimura's BrKrs are hanging around.
                      1. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 14 February 2021 14: 11
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        So we decide where and in what situation the sediment in the Baltic will be the determining factor.

                        Everywhere and always. The Baltic is, in principle, shallow. In general, we remember the Franco-Prussian War, when France has an overwhelming advantage in large ships, and there is nothing to act in the shallow waters of the North Sea.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        New / Bogatyr

                        "Bogatyr" is a little six-thousanders :))) you will already decide whether you are playing for the scouts or not :)))
                        And "Novika" poor "Tsushima" stammered half to death.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Likewise, a single "Elswick" against a squad of Japanese small cruisers will have no

                        Japanese small cruisers are "Elsviks" with all their charms in the form of a weak hull, no seaworthiness and no overload of artillery.
                        I suggest a more balanced ship. No speed records like Novik's or weapons like Kasagi's. But with a sturdy hull, acceptable seakeeping and some kind of combat resistance. But at the same time it is cheaper than six-thousanders.
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 14 February 2021 21: 28
                        +1
                        The Baltic is, in principle, shallow.

                        Not for those who own the middle, the Germans went to the Gulf of Riga with new LCs without any problems. Moreover, the quality of the RIF will be stronger than the Germans up to the "Kaisers" (built 1895-1902) inclusive, because of the guns of the GK 240/40.
                        And "New" is poor

                        "Boyarin" of course, I beg your pardon.
                        I suggest a more balanced ship.

                        The nuance is that any possible enemy will be stronger with cruisers, the Japanese are the "flying squad", the Germans are the fighters of trade, the French and the British are the defenders of trade. What do they need combat resistance? What function will the battle of cruisers perform?
                      3. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 15 February 2021 13: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Not for those who own the middle, the Germans went to the Gulf of Riga with new LCs without any problems.

                        Wait a second. Russian BBOs were founded in 1892. Then the battleships were different and the firing range and so on and so forth. And, as it were, the fact that in fifteen years dreadnoughts will appear is completely unclear.
                        However, I am sure that if they had to live up to WWI, they would have turned out to be quite popular ships with their own niche.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        "Boyarin" of course,

                        In general, it is also not a fountain ...
                        You see, none of the countries that built small cruisers were limited only to them. Because there are different options at sea and the scouts from all of them will not close with all their desire.
                        In addition, perhaps, the Germans with their "gazelles" (although there were also "Gerts"), but the trick is that the descendants of gazelles for WWI have grown in size to quite decent cruisers, as well as the fact that the Germans are already very done a lot in ... one place :)))
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        The nuance is that any possible enemy will be stronger with cruisers.

                        Well, not a fact ...
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Japanese - "flying squad"

                        Who is this?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        the French and British are the defenders of trade.

                        ??? !!!
                        French armored decks are even weirder than ours, thanks to the "young school". Take the Chatoreno, with a displacement of 8000 tons, and the armament is weaker than our six-thousanders. The range with speed is really great, but he is a raider, not an anti-raider. Well, an ally plus everything :)))
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What do they need combat stability for?

                        we look at the fate of the Russian cruisers ("Askold" and "Diana" in ZhM; "Oleg" and "Aurora") and project their damage onto the ship in half.
                        That's for this.
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 15 February 2021 16: 44
                        0
                        Wait a second. Russian BBOs were founded in 1892.

                        I wrote about the draft.
                        Who is this?

                        Kamimura's 2nd squadron, based on Tsubai's "flying squadron" in the war with China.
                        watching the fate of Russian krezser

                        Please note that you cited a rank I cruiser as an example, the EBRD determines the success, the squadron seized the sea - they won everything, up to the last destroyer, lost - the Japanese will drown or force everyone to be interned, regardless of the qualities of a single ship.
                      5. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 15 February 2021 17: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        I wrote about the draft

                        And I, in general, about her, but ... In 1892, the BBO can show off in front of it in shallow water in front of a 60 kb battleship in front of it, and it will not do anything. And in 1915 the conditional "Kaiser" will reach from the fairway along any coast of the Gulf of Riga (exaggerating of course :))
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        2nd squadron of Kamimura, based on the "flying squadron"

                        it has never been used in this capacity in the entire RYaV. In general, the usefulness of "asamoids" in the context of "price-quality" against the background of battleships is also a debatable issue.
                        But look.
                        For example, with God's permission, our squadron, consisting exclusively of battleships and scouts, gouged the Japanese in a linear battle. And who will chase their surviving cruisers, blockade the islands and interrupt the supply of the army on the mainland? A crowd of one and a half dozen scouts?
                        I'm afraid they will do badly :))
                        And battleships will not catch up with everyone, and it will come out a little expensive.
                        That is, in any case, ships of different classes will be needed, including cruisers larger and stronger than scouts, but faster than their possible opponents.
                        In general, I believe that a balanced fleet is needed, and any bias, even in the direction of battleships (as with the same Americans at that time), even cruisers-scouts, is evil in its purest form.
                        P.S. Don't you find it strange that the author of the post does not participate in the discussion?
                      6. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 15 February 2021 19: 01
                        0
                        In 1892, the BBO can, in front of an armadillo in 60 kbl in shallow water

                        And again we come to the question - what will be so important in shallow water?
                        never in the whole RYAV

                        So I don't argue, but there were ships.
                        For example, with God's permission, our squadron consisting exclusively of battleships and scouts

                        Why do we need the surviving cruisers? To land in the ports of Korea, if necessary, bring an army from Vladivostok and smash everything that their hands can reach, the Japanese will not be able to fight without supplies. Profit.
                        PS Don't you find it strange that the author of the post does not participate in the discussion?

                        Why should he? The discussion is going on, the article has caused some kind of resonance, you look there and the next one will pass better.
                      7. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 15 February 2021 20: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        And again we come to the question - what will be so important in shallow water?

                        Enemy coast with troops or other important objects.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        So I don't argue, but there were ships.

                        And you propose to be limited to battleships and scouts. Or am I missing something? :)))
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Why do we need the surviving cruisers?

                        N ... yes.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        without supply

                        Will the battleships interrupt the supply?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Why should he? The discussion is going on, the article has caused some kind of resonance, you look there and the next one will pass better.

                        With the same illiterate blizzard?
                      8. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 15 February 2021 21: 35
                        0
                        Enemy coast with troops or other important objects

                        Suppose we are at war with Germany, they built 6 + 2 BBOs for shallow water, all the same, the enemy has a decisive advantage. Does it make sense to compete?
                        And you propose to limit

                        I suggest, quite right.
                        Will the battleships interrupt the supply?

                        Who else? To supply large armies, hundreds of tons of cargo are needed daily. The traffic intensity was very high, with at least 5 transport vessels carrying troops and supplies of the 14nd Army unloaded in the Antoa Bay alone between May 209 and June 2.
                        With the same illiterate blizzard?

                        But there are more than a hundred comments, we ourselves contribute to the popularity of the author lol
                      9. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 15 February 2021 22: 59
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Suppose we are at war with Germany ... Is there any point in competing?

                        And England has under a hundred EBR. That also makes no sense?
                        In fact, if we are going to fight with Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then, at least, together with France. And the German ships will have something to do without us. That is, divide in half.
                        Again, if we start the operation, then we ourselves choose the time and place, and enemy ships cannot be everywhere at the same time.
                        It is quite possible with small forces to create problems for large ones, except for one case ... when these forces are not at all.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        at least 209 transport ships with troops and supplies of the 2nd Army.

                        And a dozen battleships, which are also repaired after the battle, they will not be overfished.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        we ourselves contribute to the popularity of the author

                        Then is it worth continuing?
                      10. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 16 February 2021 15: 15
                        0
                        And England has under a hundred EBR?

                        Quite right, it does not stand at sea, perhaps in a separate theater of operations, like the Black Sea, subject to the capture of the Straits.
                        In fact, if we fight Germany in the 19th century

                        Likewise, a separate theater of operations, which will be a headache for the GPM and nothing more.
                        And a dozen battleships

                        Why are you fixated on transports? It is also important for us to interrupt the delivery of goods, to destroy the already unloaded stocks, which the troops will quickly use up in time. As a result, a large camp of armed prisoners of war will turn out from the Japanese army in Korea.
                        Then is it worth continuing?

                        What difference does it make, this is just a platform for discussion?
  • unknown
    unknown 13 February 2021 02: 06
    +1
    If the battleships of the "model fleet" are considered serial, then the large armored cruisers of the 1898 program of the year should be considered one series.
  • Potter
    Potter 11 February 2021 19: 52
    +5
    For children article. The majority of VO visitors interested in the fleet have a number of serious naval literature in many thousands (if not tens of thousands) of pages.
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 11 February 2021 19: 57
    +1
    And it's sad to look at the throwing between the types of frigates and corvettes these days, when the series is ripped off for the sake of wishes.
    Everything is as it was then.
    The past does not teach.


    The problem is not in the past. When it is not the efficiency of the business that rules, but private "wishlist", this is called voluntarism, but simply - tyranny. And already voluntarism will invariably lead to consistently bad results in the past, in the present, and in the future. It looks like Russia has not yet gorged itself on delicious voluntarism and somewhere in the depths of people's thoughts there is still a glimmer of hope that the Most Serene Prince / wise general secretary / chess geopolitician will rule everything beautifully and exclusively on their own, to everyone's satisfaction. True, reality only does what it regularly refutes such naive expectations.
  • faiver
    faiver 11 February 2021 20: 04
    +4
    I'm sorry, where is the article?
  • Undecim
    Undecim 11 February 2021 20: 54
    +8
    Limes in the last quarter of the XNUMXth century were trendsetters and ardent supporters of large-scale production, which greatly simplified the actions in battle. In terms of managing ships and squads. And it made production and service cheaper.
    The author outlined the time frame for the beginning of his story in the last quarter of the 1875th century, in XNUMX. Then you need to start not with HMS Victoria, but with two Ajax-class battleships.

    Then there were two battleships Colossus class.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 11 February 2021 20: 59
      +8
      Then there was a series of six Admiral-class battleships.

      And only after them did the Victoria-class mastless turret ships go.
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 11 February 2021 22: 52
        +3
        Viktor hi,
        nevertheless, the advanced maritime powers (Japan, of course, does not appear on this list), as far as I know, did not experiment with the import of ships of the line. Heard about boilers, armor and artillery, but so, "turnkey", no. Correct if I'm wrong.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 11 February 2021 23: 10
          +3
          Here we need to decide which powers are still considering the time frame.
          1. Lexus
            Lexus 11 February 2021 23: 16
            +2
            Covered in the article. From 1890 to the Dreadnought, I believe. Italy and Austria-Hungary, in fact, still could not do without the import of basic "components". The first - British, the second - of course, German. Small caliber and machine guns don't count.
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 11 February 2021 23: 19
              +6
              In the indicated period for the USA, Britain, France, Germany it is unlikely. There was no need. Everyone coped on their own.
              1. Lexus
                Lexus 11 February 2021 23: 23
                +3
                The imported needle is fraught, because it is not known who will have to be friends tomorrow. I checked myself - I haven't replenished the knowledge base in this direction for a long time. I forgot something.
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 11 February 2021 23: 25
                  +4
                  And if there is no other way out? Everything rests on the balance of needs - production possibilities.
                  1. Lexus
                    Lexus 11 February 2021 23: 28
                    +2
                    Leading countries always have high needs. And if opportunities do not have time
                    to satisfy them means someone is stealing and gluttony. Has lost the sense of proportion.
            2. unknown
              unknown 13 February 2021 02: 36
              +1
              The most industrially developed part of Austria-Hungary is the territory of the future Czechoslovakia, mainly inhabited by Germans.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 11 February 2021 23: 16
    -3
    a respected author mostly describes seriality as a key factor. then it was not so important, it is important that all the listed countries did not really needed ebr ... they tried to create a universal ship for all occasions, the tower and front and rear artillery and large-caliber and medium caliber and small ... it turned out an aurora in size with a battleship with small cannons ... but a lot or a massive battleship firing one turret. Admiral Makarov proposed to reduce the displacement to 3000 tons, therefore, it would turn out to be a seaworthy gunboat = cruiser. either with large-caliber artillery (one tower), or with medium artillery, and each has its own task ... some gunboats sink enemy ebr who are not able to shoot their turrets at the same time, while other gunboats sink enemy destroyers and cruisers ... it seems to me that would be a way out ... but contemporaries did not understand the genius Makarov, only over time they realized that they needed speed and striking force, and not universality and the ability for all-round defense ...
  • IgorIP
    IgorIP 11 February 2021 23: 28
    +5
    Why were the French better? The author did not mention some of the French battleships of that time ... Open up: Osh and Brennus. Both are custom projects ...
  • rytik32
    rytik32 12 February 2021 08: 47
    +4
    Question to the author. Why isn't Italy in the article? The macaroni had very noticeable vacillations in the construction of battleships.
    1. 27091965
      27091965 12 February 2021 15: 06
      0
      Quote: rytik32
      The macaroni had very noticeable vacillations in the construction of battleships.


      Everyone had vacillation, but under Ferdinando Acton in 1882, they determined what armored ships they needed and went down this path. Prior to that, the Italians were arguing which cruiser or battleship was better.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 12 February 2021 10: 02
    +4
    No, well, the Black Sea line "Three Saints" - "Ephstathius" can also be regarded as a serial line, simply stretched out in time. These four had similar characteristics and could act together. Everything is relative. Let's not forget about the bureaucracy of the Naval Department. So, in the period of the end of the century before last, this kind of confusion and vacillation is quite explainable, if we consider that it is necessary to build ships for THREE theaters of action. When preparing for a war with Japan, the set series of 5 Borodino was normal. In 1905, on the Far East there would be 7 EBRs identical in characteristics - "Retvizan" and "Tsarevich" with 5 "Borodino". And do not forget that the ships were aging rapidly at that time. You still have to try to build an adequate series ...
  • Mark kalendarov
    Mark kalendarov 12 February 2021 13: 41
    +1
    "But going the right way is not our method."
    Prophetic words ...
    The sad motto of the glorious Fatherland!
  • dmmyak40
    dmmyak40 12 February 2021 16: 26
    +4
    Author:
    And why didn't Zinovy ​​teach them how to maneuver?

    Reminded:
    With Pushkin on a friendly footing. Sometimes I often say to him: "Well, brother Pushkin?" - "Yes, brother," he answered, it happened, "because somehow everything ..." Great original.
  • unknown
    unknown 13 February 2021 01: 29
    0
    What kind of "cross-cruisers" or "second-rank non-armored carriers" of the Japanese fleet are mentioned by the author of the article?
    What about cruisers like "Asama" or "Garibaldi" "Cross-cruise"?
    The only advantage of these types of "cruisers" is their armor, which allows them to be formally placed in a battle line with squadron battleships. In fact, this is a dubious merit. Due to this "advantage", ships of these types could not develop a course that would allow them to act as a "fast wing". Overbooking with a limited displacement forced the designers to save on CMU by equipping them with a re-lightened power plant, which showed design values ​​only during acceptance tests. A similar story happened with the Zara-class heavy cruisers, which went 35 knots during acceptance trials, and 29-30 knots in actual operation. The real move that the Japanese armored "cruisers" could hold for a long time did not exceed the real long move of their contemporary squadron battleships. This is the best case for these "cruisers". For example, the slowest of them, the Azuma, had a long stroke of 15 knots. Accordingly, the compound into which he entered could not have a long stroke more than this value.
    And what, in ships of the "Asama" or "Garibaldi" types from battleships of the second rank?
    Nothing. The main caliber is 8 ", with shells of the light" colonial "type, weighing 93,5 kg.
    "Peresveta" carried 10 ", the mass of the projectile - 225 kg.
    And besides 12 "and 10" guns, battleship-class ships carried 280 mm, 274 mm and 240 mm guns.
    Ships of the Austro-Hungarian fleet had a heavy shell for 240 mm guns, the mass of which corresponded to the mass of a Russian 10 "shell. Ships of the German fleet for 240 mm guns had a light shell weighing 140 kg. That is also more than that of the Japanese armored cruisers.
    The average caliber of the Japanese armored "cruisers" did not stand out either in terms of the caliber of their guns or in terms of their number from those of their modern squadron battleships.
    Japanese armored cruisers are not "cross-cruisers", not prototypes of battle cruisers, and not second rank battleships, but just SILENT armored cruisers, in which speed is sacrificed for armor.
    Unsuccessful ships that were only very lucky.
    However, not all.
    The Spanish "Cristobal Colon", even underloaded, since it lacked main battery guns, could not get away from the slow-moving American battleships.
  • Comrade
    Comrade 13 February 2021 04: 08
    +3
    United Kingdom
    And we will start with the Victoria-type rams, which were produced by two units in 1890-1991. They were followed by HMS Trafalgar - 2 units in the same period. Further - "Royal Sovereigns" (HMS Royal Sovereign) - 8 units from 1892 to 1894. Following them - as many as 9 "Majestic" (RMS Majestic). Then 6 "Canopus" (HMS Canopus). And 8 "Formidable" (HMS Formidable).

    The author, let me ask you why the following battleships are missing from the list. 1894-1905 city ​​of:
    a) type "Barfler" (2 units)
    b) Renown type (1 unit)
    c) type Canopus (5 units)
    d) Duncan type (6 units)
    e) type King Edward VII (5 units (out of 8))

    Three battleships of coastal defense that were needed, I don't know who. Not enough for the defense of the Gulf of Finland. For the rest of the tasks ...

    The author, having condemned the coastal defense battleships, for some reason you did not kick the American "Arkansas" type. Four units, a displacement of over three thousand tons, the main caliber is 12 (twelve) inches. Who were they supposed to fight and where?

    On the picture.
    "Wyoming" during sea trials, stroke 12,4 knots, in October 1902 Mr.

    By the way, why didn't you mention the single battleship "Iowa" so that it would be more convenient to scold Russian shipbuilders for building single ships?

    It seems to have improved. But again, no - now it was not between the types, but between the schools.

    Again a question on the same topic. Here you write about the vacillation in the Russian fleet, but for some reason do not say that a similar picture was observed in the US Navy - from turret battleships to casemate ones, and then back to turret ships.
    It's not about whether it was good or bad, but about the fact that you are deliberately trying to manipulate the minds of the readers of your illiterately written spam, exposing domestic shipbuilders in an unsightly way.
  • Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 14 February 2021 12: 28
    0
    For the first time I hear about the class of ships "battering ram", relative to the 19th century and not ancient times. What is it?
    1. Lynnot
      Lynnot 22 March 2021 17: 04
      0
      This is an "armored ram", a very popular trend in the second half of the 19th century, when armor prevailed for a while. It was assumed that he would drown the enemy with impunity with one blow.
  • Lynnot
    Lynnot 22 March 2021 16: 47
    0
    misunderstanding "Rostislav"

    specially built on the type of BBO. Its main task was to shell the coastal territories and suppress strongpoints. The "highlight" was the reduced draft for the possibility of passing through shallow places and approaching the shore itself. Such a kind of seaworthy monitor was needed for a specific theater of action. In WWI it fully justified the plan.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 2 May 2021 17: 46
    0
    "And it's sad to watch these days tossing between types of frigates and corvettes, when episodes are ripped off for the sake of wishes."
    You are sad.
    And for me, as a shipbuilder working on iron, it is sad.
    Our plans change every three minutes!
    I don't understand what we are doing / not doing / what is happening at all?
    Yesterday, plans were burning for the Comet. They are no longer burning today! But at the same time they burn!

    Excuse me, I got here with civil orders.
    Once again I apologize ... It just hurt.
    That for the military is similar.