Military Review

Heavy naval artillery systems of Russia and Germany during the First World War: work on mistakes

54

This material is a work on errors and corrects inaccuracies I made in the article "Russian and German large-caliber naval guns of the First World War", and also provides additional information that I did not have at the time of writing.


In the very first lines, let me express my deep gratitude to the respected Undecim - a person whose comments are often more informative than the articles under which they are written, and without whose help this article would not have been published. I would also like to thank the esteemed Macsen_Wledig, whose comments and materials allowed me to clarify a number of unclear questions for me. I also thank all the other commentators who constructively criticized the article.

About the Russian 305 mm / 52 gun


Unfortunately, my earlier calculations of the armor penetration of our famous twelve-inch gun turned out to be somewhat overestimated. This is connected with this.

For the calculations, I took, without further ado, data on the maximum firing range of Russian dreadnought guns of 132 cables (kbt) at an elevation angle of 25 degrees, which are ubiquitous in sources. These data were fully confirmed by information provided by one of the largest domestic experts in the field of naval artillery of his time, professor of the RKKA Naval Academy L. G. Goncharov in his monograph “Course of naval tactics. Artillery and Armor ". This work provides data with reference to the "Basic shooting tables", compiled on the basis of real range shooting, which at an elevation angle of 24 degrees 45 minutes. (24,75 degrees.) The firing range was 130 kbt.


Accordingly, I did the ballistic calculations based on the firing range of the Russian gun of 132 kbt * 185,2 m = 24 446 m.

Alas, this was my mistake.

The thing is that I used the so-called international cables for the calculation (1/10 of a nautical mile, that is, 185,2 m). While it was necessary to use artillery, equal to 182,88 m. With the specified amendment, starting from the data of L. G. Goncharov, the estimated firing range at a maximum elevation angle of 25 degrees will be 130,68 artillery cables or 23 898 m.

I must say that there are other data that give an even shorter firing range of the Obukhov XNUMX-inch gun. The source is more than reliable, it is:

Heavy naval artillery systems of Russia and Germany during the First World War: work on mistakes

According to the source, at an elevation angle of 25 degrees, the 305-mm / 52 gun fired only 127 kbt or 23 m, which is significantly lower than the values ​​indicated by L. G. Goncharov.


But I still use the data of L.G. Goncharov for further calculations, and here's why.

His work was written in 1932. The "main shooting tables" from which he took the data, obviously, were compiled even earlier. At the same time, the document showing 127 kbt is based on the 1938 shooting. By this time, the guns should have already had a certain wear and tear, it is possible that the compositions of the propellants changed, there could be other reasons, as a result of which the firing range decreased slightly by the end of the 30s. We are interested in the capabilities of the Russian 305-mm / 52 gun during the First World War, and not at all on the eve of the Great Patriotic War.

It also became possible to clarify some points regarding shells for our 305 mm / 52 cannon. For her, high-explosive and armor-piercing shells mod. 1911, which had the same mass of 470,9 kg. At the same time, the content of explosives in the armor-piercing projectile was 12,8 kg, and not 12,96 kg, as I indicated earlier. There were no semi-armor-piercing shells. But there were two types of high-explosive shells: one (drawing No. 254) had 61,5 kg of explosives, the second (drawing No. 45108) - 58,8 kg. It is interesting that the "Album of Naval Artillery Shells", from which these data were taken, also reports on the presence of 305-mm high-explosive shells of American and Japanese (!) Manufacture. Their weight is also 470,9 kg, and the content of explosives is 41,3 and 45,9 kg, respectively.

About German 283mm / 45 and 283mm / 50 guns


The Germans themselves in the documents measured the caliber of the guns in centimeters. And these guns were designated by them as "28 cm". Nevertheless, sources often indicate both 279 mm and 280 mm and 283 mm. Not knowing which option is correct, I took 279 mm for my calculations, since a reduced caliber with the same projectile mass and speed on the armor maximizes armor penetration, and I did not want to "play along" with the Russian armor. Nevertheless, exactly 283 mm is correct.

Further. Most of the sources indicate that the 283-mm / 45 gun, when firing a 302 kg projectile with an initial speed of 850-855 m / s (here the data in the sources differ slightly) with an elevation angle of 20 degrees, had a range of 18 900 m. took for calculations. At the same time, for a 283-mm / 50 gun, when firing the same projectile, the maximum firing range of 18 100 m is usually indicated at an elevation angle of 13,5 degrees.

It is quite obvious that the flight range of the projectile, all other things being equal (elevation angle, initial velocity, mass, etc.), may differ depending on the shape of the projectile, its aerodynamic quality, if you like. The ballistic calculator takes this aerodynamic quality into account in the form of a special shape factor - the higher it is, the worse the projectile flies. And it is quite obvious that the projectile will always have the same aspect ratio, no matter what weapon it is fired from. Simply because the aspect ratio is purely a derivative of the shape of the projectile. And it, of course, remains unchanged, even if you launch it from a slingshot.

Nevertheless, according to my earlier calculations, a 302 kg projectile when fired from a 283 mm / 45 gun had a shape factor of 0,8977. And when firing from a 283 mm / 50 gun - 0,707. I noted this oddity in the previous article. But I could not find out the reasons for such a significant discrepancy. Now, thanks to the help provided to me, it seems that I managed to figure it out.

As you know, the last series of German battleships, armed with 283 mm / 40 guns, were equipped with shells weighing 240 kg. According to many sources, with the beginning of the construction of dreadnoughts and the transition to a more powerful 283 mm / 45 gun, the Germans also created a more powerful projectile for them, whose weight reached 302 kg.

However (according to the data provided by the respected Undecim) between 240 kg and 302 kg shells there was still some "intermediate" 283-mm shell.

Its mass was 285 kg, the content of explosives in armor-piercing was 8,55 kg (3%), and in semi-armor-piercing (or high-explosive, it is not clear what the Germans called it) - 18,33 kg (6,43%). Such shells were received by dreadnoughts of the "Nassau" type, battle cruisers "Von der Tann", "Moltke" and "Goeben". They fired them with an initial speed of 880 m / s from 283 mm / 45 guns and 905 m / s from 283 mm / 50 guns. And it was these shells that, when fired at an elevation angle of 20 degrees, flew to a range of 18 m. The aerodynamic quality of these shells left much to be desired - their shape factor was 900.

This is probably why the Germans switched to 302 kg shells. They were significantly longer - 3,3 caliber for armor-piercing and 3,57 for semi-armor-piercing projectiles versus 2,9 and 3,21 for 285 kg shells, respectively. They were also, so to speak, more "sharp-nosed" - the radius of the ogival part for 302 kg of shells was 4 versus 3 for 285 kg of shells. Thanks to this, the aerodynamic quality of 302 kg of projectiles has improved significantly.

Thus, the error in the sources is easily explainable - without information about the existence of 285 kg of shells, but knowing that the maximum firing range of a 283 mm / 45 gun at an elevation angle of 20 degrees was 18 m, the authors came to the obvious, but alas , an erroneous decision - they fired a 900 kg projectile. In fact, when shooting 302 kg with an elevation angle of 302 degrees and an initial speed of 20 m / s, it covered not 855, but 18 m, which corresponds to a form factor of 900. The same projectile, fired from a 21 mm / 000 gun with an initial speed of 0,7261 m / s at an angle of 283 degrees, covered 50 m, which corresponds to a form factor of 880. As you can see, the difference is already insignificant. And it can be explained by the error of measurements and calculations.

There is speculation that the new 302 kg projectile is an old 285 kg projectile, which has been fitted with a different ballistic cap. But this is somewhat doubtful. The fact is that, according to the data I received, there were 2 types of armor-piercing 302 kg shells. Moreover, the mass of the explosive in one of them was 7,79 kg of explosive (2,58%), and in the other - even 10,6 kg (3,51%). At the same time, a semi-armor-piercing (high-explosive?) 302 kg German projectile had 20,6 kg of explosives (6,82%). Thus, the 285 kg and 302 kg projectiles differed not only in mass and shape, but also in the content of explosives in the projectile, which does not allow us to speak of them as the same ammunition.

When did the transition from 285 kg of projectile to 302 kg take place?

Alas, I cannot give a precise answer to this question. Presumably, no later than 1915. But it is possible that this happened even earlier. It may well be that before the outbreak of the First World War. Probably 285 kg shells were unloaded from ships fleet and handed them over to coastal artillery.

In order not to multiply entities beyond what is necessary, in my calculations I will not take into account 285 kg shells at all. And I will take the form factor of 302 kg of the projectile as the best of the calculated ones, that is, 0,7196.

About the German 305mm / 50 gun


To calculate the armor penetration of this, in every respect, outstanding, German artillery system, I took the data of G. Staff - the firing range of a projectile weighing 405 kg in 19 100 m at an elevation angle of 13,5 degrees and an initial speed of 875 m / s. The shape factor of the projectile was 0,7009.


German 305 mm shell. Photo source: wargaming.net

However, such figures drew criticism from readers, who pointed out that in most sources, the muzzle velocity of the shells of this weapon is only 855 m / s.

To be honest, the figure of 875 m / s caused some doubts in me myself. But I accepted it for two reasons. First, G. Staff is a respected author specializing in the German navy of the First World War. Secondly, I would not like to artificially underestimate the power of the German guns.

However, in all likelihood, this approach of mine turned out to be wrong. And such data should be used for calculations - a range of 20 400 m at an elevation angle of 16 degrees at an initial speed of 405 kg of a projectile of 855 m / s. In this case, the shape factor of the projectile is practically equal to that calculated by me earlier and is exactly 0,7. Most likely, as one of the respected readers said, the initial speed of 875 m / s was really achieved somewhere in the tests, but "in everyday life" a smaller powder charge was used.

Taking into account all of the above, as well as the fact that, based on the results of the analysis of the test results of Russian and German armor, I came to the conclusion about their approximate identity (the coefficient "K" of Russian and German armor turned out to be equal to 2005), I present to you, dear readers , updated calculation of angles of incidence, projectile velocities on armor and armor penetration for heavy Russian and German naval guns of the First World War era.


At the same time, in order to summarize in one article all the necessary data for further calculations, I present information about the ballistics of the guns used to calculate the above data and shells for their guns:


conclusions


The amendments made led to significant changes in the armor penetration of the guns, relative to those calculated earlier. The German 283-mm / 45 artillery system no longer looks like a "whipping boy" - its estimated armor penetration has increased significantly. And only 10-12 mm inferior to the more advanced 283-mm / 50 gun. But the armor penetration of the domestic twelve-inch gun and the German 283-mm / 50 and 305-mm / 50 guns slightly decreased.

The "aerodynamic quality" turned out to be the expectedly best for the 380 mm / 50 cannon shells. As for the 305-mm ammunition, it is almost the same for the Russian and German shells, with a minimal superiority of the Russian (the difference is in thousandths). The outsiders were 283-mm shells, but their lag is relatively small.

Alas, lowering the initial speed of 405 kg of the German twelve-inch projectile from 875 m / s to 855 m / s played a cruel joke with him. If the previous calculation showed that in terms of armor penetration this artillery system was superior to the Russian at distances of less than 50 cables, now we see that in this parameter the German gun is inferior to our 304-mm / 52 cannon even by 45 cables.

In my opinion, the data obtained can be used to model a possible confrontation between Russian and German heavy ships during the First World War. But, before proceeding with it, I will read with great pleasure the constructive criticism of the materials presented above.

The word is yours, dear reader!
Author:
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Comrade
    Comrade 19 May 2021 18: 24
    +10
    Wow, great!
    Went for lunch break, relax and have a snack. I go to the site, and here is an article.
    Thank you very much, deeply respected Andrey, I read it with great interest and pleasure.
  2. Undecim
    Undecim 19 May 2021 20: 03
    +13
    The word is yours, dear reader!

    It seems to me that the topic has become too narrowly specialized. In today's contingent of the site in the bulk, such topics are not very popular. Maybe somehow link it with the theme of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 May 2021 08: 14
      +13
      Quote: Undecim
      Maybe somehow link it with the theme of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy?

      Without a doubt, the idea of ​​installing 305-mm guns on a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy will cause revival by 100500 comments. laughing
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 20 May 2021 09: 48
        +7
        And if you also connect Kaptsov and this aircraft carrier, you should book it properly !!!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 May 2021 09: 56
          +10
          Quote: Undecim
          And if you also connect Kaptsov and this aircraft carrier, you should book it properly !!!

          Of course, how could I forget ... And, of course, the aircraft carrier must be an ekranoplan. Although ... the possibility of at least a short-term dive to depths of up to 500 m, perhaps, should also be foreseen ...
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 20 May 2021 09: 58
            +8
            Now it turned out, as one site author would write, "a complete technical appearance of a promising Russian aircraft carrier - a diving armored aircraft carrier - an ekranoplan with heavy artillery weapons - NBAETAV."
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              20 May 2021 09: 59
              +6
              Quote: Undecim
              Now it turned out, as one site author would write, "a complete technical appearance of a promising Russian aircraft carrier."

              Sure. And taking into account the fact that one of our commanders was just talking about the "multi-medium" aircraft carrier, we understand that the Russian Navy sees it exactly like that. laughing
            2. Catfish
              Catfish 20 May 2021 13: 13
              +2
              Good afternoon, Victor, something like that?
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 20 May 2021 13: 28
                +5
                Something like that, only with three-gun turrets of twelve inches.
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 20 May 2021 13: 41
                  +1
                  There are already! Admirals' nightmare incarnate. laughing
                2. Kayuk
                  Kayuk 27 May 2021 14: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Undecim
                  Something like that, only with three-gun turrets of twelve inches.

                  We laugh in vain. It's just like in "Star Wars" or "Starship Troopers" laughing
          2. Kuroneko
            Kuroneko 20 May 2021 11: 08
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Of course, how could I forget ... And, of course, the aircraft carrier must be an ekranoplan. Although ... the possibility of at least a short-term dive to depths of up to 500 m, perhaps, should also be foreseen ...

            Everything has already been invented by the Japanese. In the anime "Agent Ike" there is a unique ship that:
            a) submarine
            b) battleship (on the surface)
            c) land battleship (can get out of the water on its own retractable landing gear)
            d) finally, a spaceship (got out of the water to the airfield, accelerated and took off into space)

            PS As far as I remember, he also knew how to launch airplanes. But there were only a couple of them on board.
            1. region58
              region58 22 May 2021 14: 07
              0
              Quote: Kuroneko
              got out of the water to the airfield, accelerated and took off into space

              Sucks ... if only without overclocking ... wassat
              1. Kuroneko
                Kuroneko 22 May 2021 14: 13
                0
                Quote: region58
                Sucks ... if only without overclocking ...

                Excuse me (though this is already a real sci-fi and the future, there was at least some claim to realism in Ike and the current time):

                Knows how, in principle, all the same. And under water, and on water, and fly, and into space. There is a protective field in addition to the most powerful armor. And on board a very serious number of fighters. She can also destroy planets with her superweapons.
                1. region58
                  region58 22 May 2021 14: 17
                  0
                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  Please

                  Well, that's a completely different matter. The main thing is not to catch the anchor on the celestial axis ... wassat
          3. ioan-e
            ioan-e 20 May 2021 14: 40
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: Undecim
            And if you also connect Kaptsov and this aircraft carrier, you should book it properly !!!

            Of course, how could I forget ... And, of course, the aircraft carrier must be an ekranoplan. Although ... the possibility of at least a short-term dive to depths of up to 500 m, perhaps, should also be foreseen ...

            With the obligatory entry into low-earth orbit!
      2. pin_code
        pin_code 21 May 2021 14: 29
        +2
        too small for an aircraft carrier, it is better to swing at 406 mm at once. Thank you for the article!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          21 May 2021 14: 33
          +1
          Quote: pin_code
          too small for an aircraft carrier, it is better to swing at 406 mm at once.

          Then let’s be 406 cm. What pity the foe! hi
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 21 May 2021 08: 35
      +2
      It seems to me that the topic has become too narrowly specialized. Today's contingent of the site in the bulk of such topics are not very popular.
      I like this. Even if I am not an expert. There are many highly specialized topics that will find their readers.
      It would be interesting for me to read an article on the topic of long-barreled and super-long-barreled firearms. It doesn't matter in what caliber. It has long been interesting to what extent an increase in barrel length (in calibers) gives an increase in bullet / projectile flight characteristics. And after what is the maximum length, friction in the bore and the pressure drop of the propellant gases will already begin to prevail. I would read it in the most concise and popular presentation. Unless, of course, such studies are not with a stamp.
      hi
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 21 May 2021 10: 39
        +1
        It has long been interesting to what extent an increase in barrel length (in calibers) gives an increase in bullet / projectile flight characteristics.

        Until the moment when the decreasing pressure of the powder gases at the bottom of the bullet is equal in magnitude to the resistances experienced by the bullet when it moves in the channel (friction).
        And after what is the maximum length, friction in the bore and the pressure drop of the propellant gases will already begin to prevail. I would read it in the most concise and popular presentation. Unless, of course, such studies are not with a stamp.

        The question looks somewhat different. First, the calculated curves of gas pressure, velocity and time of movement of the bullet are built, depending on the path of the bullet in the barrel bore for a specific ammunition, and then the barrel length is determined using this graph.
        This is summarized in the ninth paragraph of the book by V.M. Kirillov. "Foundations of the device and design of small arms", which is on the network.
        And it's best to start with the second chapter, with the choice of a ballistic solution. Then everything will become clear.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 21 May 2021 23: 25
          0
          Until the moment when the decreasing pressure of the powder gases at the bottom of the bullet is equal in magnitude to the resistances experienced by the bullet when it moves in the channel (friction).
          It seems as if it is obvious even to a schoolchild. Something like this: the sky is blue and the grass is green ...
          This is summarized in the ninth paragraph of the book by V.M. Kirillov. "Foundations of the device and design of small arms", which is on the network.
          Thanks for that. I downloaded it, read it ...
    3. yehat2
      yehat2 21 May 2021 16: 36
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      Maybe somehow link it with the theme of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy?

      link guns to aircraft carriers?
      but as ?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 24 May 2021 00: 49
        +1
        but as ?

        It can be so.

  3. Khibiny Plastun
    Khibiny Plastun 19 May 2021 21: 07
    +2
    Very interesting, thank you very much.
    The whole question is how much the calculated indicators correspond to practical ones in life? (It is clear that the Germans brilliantly tested their guns against the British in Jutland) But did the Germans conduct field tests of their shells on armor? Like those that were carried out in the Russian Empire and in the Union, which you analyzed in sufficient detail in your previous ones. articles?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 May 2021 08: 16
      +4
      Quote: Khibiny Plastun
      Very interesting, thank you very much.

      You are welcome!
      Quote: Khibiny Plastun
      The whole question is, to what extent do the calculated indicators correspond to practical ones in life?

      So I took real tests by shelling Russian and German armor as the basis for calculations :)
      https://topwar.ru/180899-o-stojkosti-germanskoj-korabelnoj-broni-jepohi-pervoj-mirovoj-vojny.html
      1. Khibiny Plastun
        Khibiny Plastun 21 May 2021 05: 13
        +1
        Yes, thank you. I skipped this article.
  4. Alien From
    Alien From 19 May 2021 21: 53
    +2
    Thanks to the author! Interesting and informative!
  5. nikon7717
    nikon7717 20 May 2021 00: 03
    +3
    Great article !!! good
    We wish we had more such authors
  6. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 20 May 2021 00: 34
    0
    The article is good ...
    But the main enemy of ships was not shells, but mines and torpedoes, and with the advent of aviation, bombs also became (in the pre-missile era).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 May 2021 08: 19
      +8
      Quote: cat Rusich
      But the main enemy of the ships was not shells, but mines and torpedoes

      Nevertheless, the British in WWI lost 1 dreadnought on mines, and 3 battle cruisers from artillery fire, the Germans lost 1 battle cruiser from artillery fire, and not a single capital ship on mines and torpedoes.
      1. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 20 May 2021 20: 38
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: cat Rusich
        But the main enemy of the ships was not shells, but mines and torpedoes

        Nevertheless, the British in WWI lost 1 dreadnought on mines, and 3 battle cruisers from artillery fire, the Germans lost 1 battle cruiser from artillery fire, and not a single capital ship on mines and torpedoes.
        I'm talking about general statistics and I won't argue about it ...
        Here is a link to the site about the loss of ships in WWI
        seriovillaggio.livejournal.com/402647.html
        come in read ...
        As an example of the strength and capabilities of submarines and and their torpedoes ...
        September 22, 1914 German submarine U-9, sank 1,5 British cruisers of the Cressy class in 3 hours. In total, U-9 made 7 combat missions - sank 13 ships (10 "fishermen" and 3 steamers), 5 warships (4 British cruisers, 1 Russian minesweeper No. 4).
        I can add that PMV submarines often sank "small-tonnage peacekeepers" from guns, but the caliber of such guns did not exceed 120mm.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          21 May 2021 07: 30
          +1
          Quote: cat Rusich
          I'm talking about general statistics and I won't argue about it ..

          And general statistics are useless here. I am discussing the issues of confrontation between heavy surface ships, in which submarines did not play a significant role
          Quote: cat Rusich
          As an example of the strength and capabilities of submarines and and their torpedoes ...
          On September 22, 1914, the German submarine U-9 sank 1,5 British cruisers of the Cressy class in 3 hours.

          This is not an example of the effectiveness of submarines, but an example of the fantastic stupidity of the commanders of the cruisers, who were substituted for slaughter. In the future, the British no longer made such mistakes.
          Quote: cat Rusich
          In total, U-9 made 7 combat missions - sank 13 ships (10 "fishermen" and 3 steamers), 5 warships (4 British cruisers, 1 Russian minesweeper No. 4).

          In the years of WWII, submarines achieved even greater results, the Germans EMNIP sank something about 20 million tons of merchant tonnage. What did not stop the Germans from losing the Battle of the Atlantic
          1. cat Rusich
            cat Rusich 21 May 2021 20: 09
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            And general statistics are useless here. I am discussing the issues of confrontation between heavy surface ships, in which submarines did not play a significant role
            I initially talked about the threat to ships and vessels that arose from the outside mines and torpedoes.
            You can continue to argue aside how many ships and vessels were sunk by mines and torpedoes, and how many shots main calibers.
            Battleships and heavy cruisers burned coal and fuels and lubricants furrowing the seas and oceans ... And almost all the damage to the crew was caused mines and torpedoes - only torpedo carriers and mine planners differed - destroyers (destroyers), submarines, torpedo bombers, naval aviation (when it appeared and got stronger).
            I can only add one more thing, but about the WWII - "Bismarck", "Yamato", "Musashi" - were sunk with the overwhelming participation of torpedoes ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              23 May 2021 09: 11
              +2
              Quote: cat Rusich
              I initially talked about the threat to ships and vessels that arose from mines and torpedoes.

              And I answered you
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I am examining the issues of confrontation between heavy surface ships, in which submarines did not play a significant role

              I don't quite understand what can be ambiguous here.
              Quote: cat Rusich
              Battleships and heavy cruisers burned coal and fuels and lubricants furrowing the seas and oceans ... And almost all the damage to the crew was caused by mines and torpedoes - only torpedo carriers and mine planners differed - destroyers (destroyers), submarines, torpedo bombers, naval aviation (when and got stronger).

              If we are talking about PMA (and I am writing about PMA), then in 1914, for example, out of 32 ships of the main classes (from a light cruiser and above), 5 mines, 10 torpedoes, 12 artillery, were sunk by other reasons - 5.
              If we are talking about the losses of small warships (destroyers and below) and transport ships, then we need to understand one simple thing.
              The battleships and cruisers of Britain provided the solution to 2 of the most important tasks of England in WWI
              1) They did not allow a naval blockade of England by surface ships of the Germans
              2) Provided a naval blockade of Germany
              Thus, the task of the fleet was completed. The Germans, not being able to challenge the dominance of England in surface ships, tried to go to the palliative - PL. This had some effect, greatly hampering British transport, but did not help the Germans to win the naval war.
              From this it is easy to conclude: the basis of the PMA's naval power was precisely the heavy artillery ships. In World War II, the role of artillery ships was taken over by aircraft carriers.
              1. cat Rusich
                cat Rusich 23 May 2021 20: 22
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In World War II, the role of artillery ships was taken over by aircraft carriers.
                Only "Yamato", "Musashi" drowned torpedoes, albeit launched from aircraft, but torpedo bombers ....
                You can remember how the Germans blocked in the Second World War minami and networks of the Gulf of Finland.
                In WWI and WWII, Germany lost a submarine war only after the United States entered the war and the Kriegsmarine was simply overwhelmed.
                Battleships - spearhead
                the rest of the crew - the staff,
                frail, weak shaft with a strong tip - will lose to a simple but strong stick, even without a tip
                .
                hi
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  24 May 2021 07: 17
                  +2
                  Quote: cat Rusich
                  Only "Yamato", "Musashi" drowned torpedoes, albeit launched from aircraft, but torpedo bombers ....

                  Everything is correct. Only - one caveat. These ships died after the Japanese had lost the war at sea completely and irrevocably. They did not play any significant role in it. If we are looking for a battle where the Japanese lost the war at sea, it would be Midway, and the decisive weapon would be the bombers that destroyed the nichon kaigun aircraft carriers.
                  Quote: cat Rusich
                  You can remember how the Germans in the Second World War blocked the Gulf of Finland with mines and nets.

                  Yes. But you can still remember that these obstacles were made impassable by enemy aircraft, without whose domination it was difficult to place them and it was impossible to prevent trawling.
                  Quote: cat Rusich
                  In WWI and WWII, Germany lost a submarine war only after the United States entered the war and the Kriegsmarine was simply overwhelmed.

                  No :))) There was no question of numbers, especially since the Americans at the beginning of the war with PLO were full of seams, and German submarines went to their shores to have fun, there was the issue of the appearance of escort aircraft carriers that broke the tactics of wolf packs.
                  Quote: cat Rusich
                  Battleships - spearhead
                  the rest of the crew - the staff

                  So no one argues that it is not the class of ships that wins, but the balanced fleet :) hi
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 21 May 2021 16: 38
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the Germans lost 1 battle cruiser from artillery fire, and not a single capital ship on mines and torpedoes.

        but how many Fritzes got up for a long repair because of mines and torpedoes!
        and how much insolent they lost on torpedoes!
  7. Comrade
    Comrade 20 May 2021 04: 42
    +4
    Dear Andrew,
    I will contribute to the discussion :-)
    the following data should be used for calculations - a range of 20 400 m at an elevation angle of 16 degrees at an initial speed of 405 kg of a projectile of 855 m / s. In this case, the shape factor of the projectile is practically equal to that calculated by me earlier and is exactly 0,7. Most likely, as one of the respected readers said, the initial speed of 875 m / s was really achieved somewhere in the tests, but "in everyday life" a smaller powder charge was used.

    I would not dismiss Gary Staff's data on the grounds that
    in most sources, the muzzle velocity of this gun is only 855 m / s.

    If we look at Staff's bibliography, we will see sources from the German archives, including Derfflinger. I see no reason not to trust Staff, who wrote the following:
    The 30,5 cm barrel weighed 44 kg and could fire an armor-piercing projectile weighing 000 kg with an initial muzzle velocity of 405 m / s. The service life of the barrel is approximately 875 shots, which is much higher than that of its contemporaries. A rate of fire of two to three rounds per minute could be achieved. The L / 200 armor-piercing projectile weighed 3.4 kg, and the L / 405 high-explosive projectile weighed 3.8 kg. Usually, there were two propelling charges: a front charge of RP C / 415 powder in a silk bag weighing 12 kg and a main charge in a brass case weighing 34,5 kg. With the so-called low combat load, using only a brass cartridge, an initial speed of about 91 m / s was achieved. The Derffiinger carried a total of sixty-five armor-piercing rounds and twenty-five high-explosive rounds per gun, for a total of ninety rounds per barrel.

    The above suggests that the Germans, depending on the situation, varied the charges, and 855 m / s is one of the options for the initial speed.
    The latter, obviously, was not a certain constant.
    And the maximum is just indicated by Staff 875 m / s. If there is a "low combat load" (620 m / s), why not have a "large combat load" (875 m / s)?
    This, of course, is only my subjective opinion, therefore, wishing to understand the issue, I will gladly familiarize myself with the documents, if they are presented, confirming 855 m / s.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 May 2021 08: 13
      +4
      Good day, dear colleague!
      Quote: Comrade
      If we look at Staff's bibliography, we will see sources from the German archives, including Derfflinger. I see no reason not to trust Staff

      Certainly. However, with all the weight of Staff's sources, he did not figure out the situation around the German 285-302 kg shells, simply taking the widespread existing data. At the same time, as it turned out, many people abroad are engaged in clarifying the problem of the performance characteristics of naval guns, including those with doctoral degrees. Dear Undecim showed something on this topic Crawford KR Mathematics and the analysis of naval gun performance and projectiles, William Jurens, hereinafter - D. Schmidt-Tapken, Deutsche Artillerie- und Minenwerfer- Munition 1914 - 1918, DONALD E. CARLUCCI
      SIDNEY S. JACOBSON, BALLISTICS DESIGN OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION, GV Bull Paris Kanonen - the Paris Guns (Wilhelmgeschutze) and Project HARP, KR Crawford, NW Mitiukov. Identification of the Parameters of Naval Artillery.
      Apparently, G. Staff still focused in his research on the design of ships, the history of their design and use, but not on the nuances of their artillery.
      Quote: Comrade
      If there is a "low combat load" (620 m / s), then why not a "large combat load" (875 m / s)?

      I absolutely agree with you. But there are nuances. Firstly, I do not know of any cases when artillerymen used an intense combat charge in battle. This does not mean that there were no such cases, I generally do not know a lot of things, but ... nevertheless.
      Secondly, even at a speed of 855 m / s, the German gun gives more energy to its projectile than the Russian, "Skoda" and British 305-mm / 50 guns, and is very close to the full (analogue of the heavy-combat) for the American 305-mm / 50 guns. At the same time, as we know, the British 50-caliber cannon was very far from ideal, and I remember EMNIP reading somewhere that the barrels of the Americans, too, quickly burned out on the intensive combat.
      And it turns out this way - I'm quite ready to accept that the skill of the German gunsmiths allowed them to create an artillery system that shoots perfectly and hits at the energy level where the British and Americans stumbled - that is, at 855 m / s for a 405 kg projectile. They paid for this only with a reduced barrel resource (only 200 rounds).
      Therefore, I do not at all exclude the presence of an intensified combat charge in the German fleet, but I highly doubt that it was used in practice.
      1. 27091965
        27091965 20 May 2021 12: 00
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Certainly. However, for all the weight of Staff's sources, he did not figure out the situation around the German 285-302 kg shells, simply taking the widespread existing data.


        Dear Andrey, thanks for the interesting article. There is no time for discussion, work is "above the roof", I will put up a scan with regards to the weight of German 305 mm shells in the Jutland battle. Edition 1921. Perhaps it will be of interest to you.
      2. Comrade
        Comrade 21 May 2021 04: 39
        0
        Hello, dear Andrey!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        for all the weight of Staff's sources, he did not understand the situation around the German 285-302 kg of shells, simply taking the widespread existing data

        I do not think.
        G. Staff, although he was an amateur, but he was one of those amateurs who can easily plug many professionals into the belt.
        He devoted most of his life to studying the history of the Kaiserliche Marine.
        Trained as an Engineer, he worked as a Maintenance Engineer for Australian Airlines, ending his career as an Instructor Captain.
        While living in Melbourne, I visited Germany and other countries many times for the opportunity to work in the archives.
        He has personally translated many documents related to the Kaiserliche Marine and amassed a unique collection of photographs from that period.
        For his books, he used primary sources, in addition, in Germany, he repeatedly met with the families of the descendants of German sailors, who provided an amateur historian with the opportunity to touch unique artifacts - family relics.
        Gary Staff did not become in early August 2017, the words of one of the members of the forum, who personally knew the deceased from discussions, can serve as a kind of epitaph
        when myths are fixed in concrete, they are difficult to destroy, even if people put a mountain of evidence under their noses


        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I absolutely do not exclude the presence of an intensified combat charge in the German fleet, but I highly doubt that it was used in practice

        What do we really know about Kaiserliche Marine? The fleet has gone into oblivion, and attempts to study its history in an adult way, to put it mildly, are discouraged.
        Opportunity for the Germans was, and by no means on paper, in this we, deeply respected colleague, agree on this.
        The rest is a debatable issue, alas, neither you nor I have the necessary documents in this situation.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          21 May 2021 07: 45
          +1
          Quote: Comrade
          I do not think.

          Dear colleague, this is a fact. G. Staff leads exactly 18 m at an elevation of 900 degrees for 20 projectiles. Which is a mistake that was noticed not only by me, but also by a number of foreign researchers.
          Quote: Comrade
          G. Staff, although he was an amateur, but he was one of those amateurs who can easily plug many professionals into the belt.

          No doubt about it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't immune to mistakes.
          Quote: Comrade
          The Germans had the opportunity, and by no means on paper

          Rather, just on paper, since shooting with intense combat leads to increased barrel wear and can change ballistics in the course of one battle.
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 22 May 2021 02: 31
            0
            Hello, dear Andrey!
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            G. Staff leads exactly 18 m at an elevation of 900 degrees for 20 projectiles

            I have in my hands his book about German battlecruisers, but I did not find such information there.
            On page 208 it is stated that the main battery guns of the cruiser "Derfflinger" originally had an elevation angle of 13 1/2 degrees, with a firing range of 19 meters. After 100, the ascent angle was increased to 1916 degrees, the firing range increased to 16 meters.
            There is a diagram of an armor-piercing projectile with a cap, next to yours truly attached an image of a German 305 mm projectile from your article.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Rather - just on paper

            If so, and Staff's data are incorrect, then what was the charge that provided the initial velocity of 855 m / s?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              23 May 2021 08: 47
              0
              Good day, dear Valentine!
              Quote: Comrade
              I have in my hands his book about German battlecruisers, but I did not find such information there.

              And yet it is there. Unfortunately, I am now not writing from my computer, and I can hardly name the pages, the book is in electronic form. And here is a screenshot - I will attach it without problems, I will send it in the evening.
              Quote: Comrade
              On page 208 it is stated that the main battery guns of the cruiser "Derfflinger" originally had an elevation angle of 13 1/2 degrees, with a firing range of 19 meters. After 100, the ascent angle was increased to 1916 degrees, the firing range increased to 16 meters.

              This exactly corresponds to an initial speed of 855 m / s with a sufficiently high ballistic quality of the projectile (almost like our 470,9 kg). If we assume that the projectile had such a range at an initial speed of 875 m / s, then the shape factor of the projectile should be worsened.
              Quote: Comrade
              If so, and Staff's data are incorrect, then what was the charge that provided the initial velocity of 855 m / s?

              I think that Staff's data are correct in everything except the initial speed, that is, all the values ​​given by him refer to a speed of 855 m / s.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                23 May 2021 15: 46
                0
                Once again - good day! Here is a screen
                1. Comrade
                  Comrade 23 May 2021 18: 42
                  0
                  Dear Andrew,
                  The text circled in red states that the 30,5 cm barrel weighed 44 kg and could fire 000 kg armor-piercing shells with an initial velocity of 405 m / s.
                  Alas, there is no information about the distance and the elevation angle of this weapon.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    24 May 2021 07: 19
                    +2
                    Good day, dear Valentine!
                    Quote: Comrade
                    Alas, there is no information about the distance and the elevation angle of this weapon.

                    Yes, in this particular place - no, but in another place, where he gives data on the angles of elevation and range - there is no initial speed. But Staff does not give any other speed except 875 m / s.
                    1. Comrade
                      Comrade 25 May 2021 02: 24
                      0
                      Hello, dear Andrey!
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      elsewhere, where he gives data on the angles of elevation and range

                      At least kill me, dear colleague, I did not find twenty degrees at Staff for 30,5 cm guns. Hindenburg has sixteen and a half degrees, and Derfflinger after 1916 has sixteen.
                      It became interesting. Maybe it’s not at Staff?
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        25 May 2021 06: 42
                        0
                        Good day, dear Valentine!
                        Quote: Comrade
                        At least kill me, dear colleague, I did not find twenty degrees at Staff for 30,5 cm guns.

                        20 degrees for 283 mm guns :))))))))
                      2. Comrade
                        Comrade 25 May 2021 22: 02
                        +1
                        But..
                        Dear Andrew,
                        I'm not a drinker!
                        laughing
  • NF68
    NF68 20 May 2021 16: 15
    +2
    Good day, Andrey. German 380 mm. was not 50, but 45 caliber.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      21 May 2021 07: 46
      +2
      Ugh-you ... Of course! I don't know what came over me, thanks!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 22 May 2021 18: 11
    +1
    Nevertheless, sources often indicate both 279 mm and 280 mm and 283 mm. Not knowing which option is correct, I took 279 mm for my calculations,

    I will not say for sure about the PMV shells, but given the continuity of calibers with later guns, the numbers are as follows:
    Diameter at the centering bulge (actual caliber) - 282,5 mm
    Shell glass diameter - 281,2 ... 282,5 mm
  • yehat2
    yehat2 22 June 2021 10: 25
    0
    Alas, this was my mistake.

    so in this system there was also a transition from a light to a heavy projectile, so it would be a mistake to name any number of range and penetration parameters without reservations