Military Review

Great losers. Diana-class cruisers

198

The Diana-class cruisers came out very beautiful. For many lovers stories naval fleet, their recognizable, neat three-pipe silhouette became the hallmark of the domestic military shipbuilding of the pre-tsushima era.


Unfortunately, this list of advantages of cruisers of this type can be considered exhausted.

Why did this happen?

Prerequisites to create


"Something I wanted:
not the constitution,
not the stellate sturgeon with horseradish.

In the 80s of the nineteenth century, the shipbuilding programs of the Russian Empire in terms of cruisers were an extremely entertaining sight.

In 1881, two armored cruisers were laid down (more precisely, semi-armored frigates, but to avoid confusion I will call them armored cruisers) "Dmitry Donskoy" and "Vladimir Monomakh". Theoretically, they should have become the same type of ships of moderate displacement, designed for operations in the ocean. In practice, they turned out different types of ships with a moderate cruising range of 3 miles.

Nevertheless, the construction of such ships for the Russian fleet looked quite justified, because the main task of Russian cruisers in those years was considered to be fighting on British communications. For this purpose, an armored cruiser of moderate displacement at first glance was quite suitable: powerful enough to withstand any enemy that does not carry side armor, but at the same time it is still budgetary, which means that at the very least suitable for serial construction.

But in 1883, the Vityaz corvette was laid down, which did not have side armor, and with approximately the same cruising range - 3 miles. The ship had a significantly smaller size, 200 thousand tons versus 3,5 thousand for the Monomakh and, obviously, the price was much cheaper.

A year later, the laying of almost the strongest Admiral Nakhimov in the world followed: from the point of view of firepower, it could perhaps even be written down in battleships of the 2nd rank, but it did not differ in high cruising qualities.

Here, to an outside observer, it might seem that there is a reversal from the concept of a small armored raider for massacre on communications to large and powerful cruisers for squadron combat. In this case, the interruption of maritime trade in the ocean could be assigned to relatively cheap "second-rank" cruisers, which was hinted at by the construction of the Vityaz.

But after some two years, in 1886, the Monomakh and Donskoy line was continued - the Memory of Azov was laid with a normal displacement of about 6,7 thousand tons.

It would seem that the idea of ​​small armored raiders still prevailed, but in the same 1886, the cruiser Admiral Kornilov was ordered in France, which, in terms of displacement (5,3 thousand tons), was only slightly inferior to the Memory of Azov, but at the same time was just armored.

The question arises - why should the fleet build ships of similar sizes, but of different subclasses (armored and armored) to perform the same task?

But still, watching from the side, it could be assumed that the Russian fleet finally decided to rely on cruisers of 5-7 thousand tons of displacement, intended for operations on communications.

However, the next Russian armored cruiser "Rurik" became the forerunner of a completely different concept.

It was a giant ship, whose displacement exceeded the Navarin and Sisoy Veliky squadron battleships laid down at about the same time, but which was completely unsuitable for either a squadron battle or large-scale construction. But the estimated cruising range of 6 miles, excellent seaworthiness and a speed of 700 knots were unparalleled in our fleet.


However, the advantages and disadvantages of the Russian cruisers-raiders Rurik, Rossiya and Gromoboy, which amaze the imagination, are an excellent topic for a separate series of articles, and I will not delve into it now.

The fact is that over the course of 10 years, from 1881 to 1890, the Russian Empire managed to lay down 5 armored cruisers of three different concepts and at the same time interrupt the creation of armored cruisers for quite a long time, since the next ship of this subclass was ordered for construction only 10 years after Kornilov.

And yes, to say...

The history of the Svetlana, laid down in 1895, is certainly interesting, but from the point of view of the evolution of the views of Admiral General, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich on the characteristics of the yacht he desired.

By and large, the concepts of cruising war had nothing to do with it, although in fairness I’ll note that the Svetlana turned out to be not such a bad small cruiser.

Under such conditions, the Russian admirals came to the conclusion that our fleet still needs armored cruisers.

Design history


The performance characteristics of future cruisers were predetermined by the following three circumstances.

1. The construction of squadron battleships in the Baltic was gaining serious momentum. In 1889–1892 As many as five squadron battleships were laid down: "Navarin", "Sisoy the Great" and three ships of the "Poltava" type, while the Russian Empire was not at all going to stop there. Accordingly, a powerful armored squadron was formed, and cruisers were needed that could serve with it - perform reconnaissance and patrol functions, etc. Armored cruisers of the 2nd rank were very well suited for this.

2. Giant cruisers, like the Rurik, could not be built in numbers that would interrupt England's maritime trade. Accordingly, cheaper cruisers were needed, which, nevertheless, were distinguished by their great seaworthiness and cruising range. These requirements were fully met by armored cruisers of the 1st rank.

3. And, finally, the usual desire to save money: the maritime ministry really wanted the above tasks to be solved by one type of ship.

Accordingly, in 1894 a competition was announced among Russian shipbuilders. They were required to demonstrate the project of an armored cruiser with a displacement of no more than 8 tons, armed with 000 * 2-mm guns at the ends, 203 * 8-mm guns on board and a speed of at least 120 knots.

There were quite a few of them: with a displacement of 7,2–8 thousand tons, armament 2–3 * 203 mm and 8–9 * 120 mm, and the cruising range reached 9 miles.

But further work in this direction was stopped.

In my opinion, this was the right decision. Such ships would already be close in size and cost to the Japanese armored cruisers, having neither the weapons nor the protection of the latter, and their huge cruising range would be unclaimed.

Be that as it may, Vice-Admiral Chikhachev demanded a cruiser "with two closed decks, but artillery concentrated entirely on the upper deck", and by May 7, 1895, preliminary studies of cruiser projects were presented in 4,4; 4,7 and 5,6 thousand tons of normal displacement.

The speed of all cruisers was the same - 20 knots, but the cruising range grew along with the displacement - 3, 495 and 4 miles, respectively.

The armor was the same: the armored deck was 63,5 mm, the conning tower was 152 mm, the elevators and the lower parts of the chimneys were 38,1 mm, the glacis of the machine hatches were 127 mm.

But the composition of the weapons varied significantly: the “main caliber” of the smallest cruiser was represented by 2 * 152-mm and 8 * 120-mm, the average - 2 * 203-mm and 8 * 120-mm, and the largest - 2 * 203-mm mm, 4*152mm and 6*120mm.

In my opinion, reducing the displacement of future cruisers was completely justified. Both for service with a squadron and for raiding in the ocean, multiplicity is important, and large and, accordingly, expensive cruisers cannot be built in many.

The composition of the weapons raises questions.

On a cruiser of 4 tons, it would be more correct to leave a single main caliber of 400-mm or 120-mm guns. Placing 152-mm artillery on a cruiser of 203 tons is doubtful.

Simply put, the ship will not be a stable platform for such guns, which was quite well shown by the same Japanese Kasagi and Takasago. Each had a pair of 203-mm cannons, but during the entire war there was not a single confirmed hit from them (it is possible that they hit someone, but this is not certain).

Eight inches look justified only on the largest cruiser of 5 tons of displacement, but on it the designers managed to provide for two medium calibers at once - 600 and 120 mm, which is clearly unnecessary.

In my opinion, the terms of reference for a cruiser of 4,4-4,6 thousand tons with weapons from 7-8 152-mm guns and a speed of 20 knots would be optimal. Powerful enough to withstand most cruisers of the 2nd rank, but relatively small and quite suitable for large-scale construction: at the same time, it is quite seaworthy and with an acceptable cruising range (about 4 miles).

But it turned out differently.

The designers, of course, paid attention to world experience, looked at what the leading maritime powers were building. And they could not help but pay attention to the French "D'Entrecasteaux": it was very large, having 7 tons of normal displacement, and very powerfully armed - 995 * 2 mm in turrets and 238,8 * 12 mm guns, not counting anti-mine stuff. But the speed of this Frenchman was moderate - 138 knots.


As a result, another version of the future cruiser lay on the table of the MTK, now with a displacement of 6 tons, armed with two turret 000-mm guns, 203 * 8-mm and even 152 * 27-mm guns. The speed and thickness of the armor remained the same.

It was this option that became the main one, only by the will of the Admiral General, 203-mm artillery was replaced by 152-mm. Thus, the total number of 152-mm guns reached 10.

In the light of subsequent events, I am not inclined to criticize Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich for this decision.

Then the displacement during the design process began to grow, reaching 6 tons, and then 630 tons, and the main caliber was reduced to 6 * 731-mm guns. The speed also let us down - the coveted 8 knots were never achieved by either Diana, or Pallada, or Aurora, which showed 152 in tests; 20 and 19 knots, respectively.

Of course, when compared with analogues that were taken into account when designing Diana-class cruisers, then everything is not so bad.

The British Eclipses, laid down in 1894-1895, with a displacement of 5 tons, had a speed of 700 knots under natural thrust and 18,5 * 5-mm and 152 * 6-mm guns.

But Russian cruisers began to be built in 1896, and two years later the Askold was laid down, which, with a displacement of about 6 tons, had a dozen six-inch boats and a design speed of 000 knots. Domestic unfinished construction led to the fact that the Diana-class cruisers entered service simultaneously with the new generation of armored “six-thousanders”, against which the performance characteristics of the “goddesses” looked frankly miserable.

In fact, this is perhaps the main reason why the Diana, Pallas and Aurora are not considered successful ships among fans of the history of navies. But there are others.

By and large, the performance characteristics of ships are important not in themselves, but in conjunction with the tasks that this ship needs to solve. Alas, the Diana-class cruisers did not provide solutions to the tasks for which they were created.

Due to their low speed, they could not be scouts for the squadron without the support of heavier ships, and our shipbuilding program did not provide for such.

At the same time, their power plants turned out to be very voracious and consumed more coal than planned.

So, Admiral Stackelberg indicated in the report:

“The consumption of coal was enormous. "Diana" and "Pallada" took in Kronstadt before leaving the full supply, with which they were supposed to reach Plymouth, and upon arrival in Libau it turned out that both of them had used up half of this stock. Both cruisers will have to take on a full supply."

And it would be fine if it only concerned the transition to the city of Libava, where the ships got into a storm. But then history repeated itself - when crossing from Libava to Kiel, the consumption of coal was again such that another 150 tons had to be loaded.

But we are talking about 1902, when it was impossible to write off the increased consumption of coal for the deterioration of mechanisms!

In combat conditions, by the middle of summer 1904, the consumption of coal on the Diana could reach 110 tons per day when following a 10-knot course.

Thus, the actual range of the Diana-class cruisers was much more modest than the 4 miles defined by the project, which means that these ships were of little use for the role of an ocean raider.

There were also complaints about seaworthiness - cruisers of this type decently buried their noses in the wave.

Why didn't it work?


"I blinded him from what was."

In essence, the answer lies on the surface - just look at the weight reports of Russian armored cruisers.

Great losers. Diana-class cruisers

Simply put, the boilers and machines of the Diana-class cruisers turned out to be about 400 tons heavier than the boilers and machines of the Askold and Oleg.

For an armored cruiser, 400 tons is a huge weight; on the same Diana, artillery weighed less. But the Diana CMU, being 27,5% heavier than the Askold, developed much less power: 11 hp. With. - according to the project and a maximum of 610 liters. With. - in tests against 12 liters. With. and 200 19 l. With. at Askold, respectively.

If you look at the specific indicators, the gap becomes simply stunning.

CMU cruisers of the "Diana" type provided 7,17 horsepower per ton of dead weight, while the CMU "Askold" - 14,96 liters. With. That is, the boilers and machines of Askold turned out to be twice as effective as those that were on our "goddesses". And this is if we count from the design 1 tons of the mass of the CMU, while in fact it amounted to 270 tons.

Of course, we must not forget that the Diana-class cruisers received Belleville boilers, while the Askold received Thornycroft-Schultz, and the Bogatyr received Norman. Different design, of course, mattered, Belleville boilers were rated as a reliable, but difficult solution.

However, if we look at the CMU of other ships equipped with Belleville boilers, we will see that on the same "Svetlana" the power indicator (design) per ton of weight of the CMU is 9,87 hp / t, and on the armored "Bayan" - 12,12 hp/t

Thus, even in comparison with the CMU with boilers of the same design, the boilers and machines of the Diana-class cruisers look like obvious outsiders.


Accordingly, it can be stated that the inability of the domestic industry to create a competitive CMU in those years was the main reason for the failure of the Diana-class cruisers.

The boilers and machines of these cruisers were frankly weak, but occupied 24% of the normal displacement, while for Oleg and Askold these figures were 18,6% and 21,2%, respectively.

Of course, the designers of the "goddesses" had no choice but to save literally on everything, including weapons.

And here another significant mistake was made.

Could the situation have been somehow corrected?

The easiest way is to order machines and boilers abroad, in principle, there were no obstacles to this. But this is a road to a dead end, to nowhere, because the Russian Empire had to develop technically and create its own competitive production. In this sense, the order of the CMU of cruisers of the Diana type to a domestic manufacturer is an unconditional blessing.

But, of course, the Soviet scheme used in the construction of cruisers of projects 26 and 26 bis would be much more effective - the purchase of an imported installation for the lead cruiser and technical assistance in organizing its own production.

About weapons


As mentioned above, the initial armament of the cruiser in 2 * 203 mm and 8 * 152 mm with 27 * 57 mm anti-mine guns inspired serious respect, and even after replacing 203 mm with 152 mm it still looked good.

But then various trends began - the composition of the artillery was proposed to be adjusted to 6 * 152-mm, 6 * 120-mm, 27 * 47-mm and 8 * 37-mm guns.

Fortunately, they paid attention in time to the latest German armored cruisers, with their 2 * 210-mm, 8 * 150-mm and 10 * 88-mm guns, with which the Dianas might have had to fight, and again changed the composition of the artillery , now up to 10 * 152 mm, 20 * 75 mm and 8 * 37 mm guns.

On the one hand, the desire to put two dozen quick-firing "almost three-inch guns" on the cruiser is quite understandable and understandable. The range of artillery combat was then expected to be small, and the destroyers grew in size by leaps and bounds: a subclass of "counter-destroyers" appeared, which were larger and faster than ordinary destroyers.

Over the range of "self-propelled mines" also worked constantly.

At the same time, domestic 75-mm guns were equipped only with armor-piercing ammunition: a real hail of such shells was needed in order to stop the counter-destroyer at a short distance.

Such an approach, for all its logic, was wrong.

In order to successfully fight counter-destroyers, whose displacement had reached 350 tons or more by the Russo-Japanese War, 120-152-mm artillery was required, and this was the number that needed to be maximized.

Interestingly, a little later, when planning to order "six-thousanders" abroad, the number of 75-mm guns on them was reduced to 12 units. A similar composition of weapons - 12 * 152-mm and 12 * 75-mm guns could well be placed on Diana-class cruisers.

Unfortunately, this did not happen, and even more regrettable, when the cruiser's displacement crept up again, it was not 75-mm guns that were sequestered, but six-inch guns, of which only 8 units remained in the end. Although 10 * 152-mm and 12 * 75-mm would have even less weight and require fewer crews than 8 * 152-mm and 20 * 75-mm guns.

In other words, the desire for austerity of weights when creating Diana-class cruisers is quite understandable and justified by the anomalous mass of the CMU. But in terms of weapons for this economy, the accents were incorrectly placed.

About the range


For a cruiser whose task is to interrupt enemy communications, this is an extremely important parameter, perhaps even more important than the same speed.

And here, of course, I want to again blame everything on the quality of machines and boilers, but there is another important aspect, the name of which is a new type of boilers.

For the first time in the Russian Imperial Navy, water-tube boilers were used back in 1887, when, in the course of modernization, the armored frigate Minin received the latest Belleville steam boilers at that time.


They demonstrated themselves extremely well, so that subsequently the Naval Ministry, represented by the MTK, demanded their use on any large ships.

But at the same time, the large-scale introduction of Belleville boilers was delayed by as much as 6 years.

The first large ships to receive Belleville boilers were: the armored cruiser Rossiya, laid down in 1893, and the Svetlana ordered in France (laid down in 1895). But the squadron battleships Navarin, Sisoy the Great, Three Saints, Rostislav, as well as a series of battleships of the Poltava type - they were all equipped with old-type fire-tube boilers.

Why, then, was the "aubelville" of our fleet delayed by as much as six years?

Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to this question.

It is possible that the Naval Ministry, guided by the logic “if there was something useful here, then in England all this would have been introduced long ago and would have worked everywhere, and if there is nothing like that, then it’s all nonsense!”, looked with surprise at “ Minin", resolutely not understanding how this armored frigate, equipped with "an invention of the devil, rather called a water-tube boiler", has not yet taken off into the air.

Perhaps our admirals and engineers have been subconsciously waiting all these years for the Minin to perish in agony, fire and steam, thereby confirming the inviolability of the authority of British design thought, which delayed the mass introduction of Belleville boilers on ships of the Royal Navy.

In England, only in 1893, boilers of this type were received by the gunboat Sharpshooter, and a year later, the British cruisers Powerful and Terrible were laid down - the first large ships of Her Majesty's fleet to be "Obelville".

Everything can be.

But the fact is that the Diana-class cruisers and the Peresvet-class battleships became somewhat large series of large ships equipped with Belleville boilers in the Russian Imperial Navy. Accordingly, for the crews of the ships, "bellevilles" have become a novelty, and it is possible that excessive fuel consumption is associated not only (and maybe not so much) with the quality of manufacture of the CMU of our "goddesses", but also with their improper operation.

And, of course, my jokes about the introduction of Belleville boilers should not hide from the respected reader that in the good and progressive work of mastering the modern type of boilers in the fleet, the Russian Empire did not lag behind Great Britain.

And it's worth something.
Author:
198 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sergo1914
    sergo1914 2 February 2022 05: 59
    0
    . In the light of subsequent events, I am not inclined to criticize Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich for this decision.


    Modesty adorns...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 06: 21
      +15
      Quote: sergo1914
      Modesty adorns...

      Is it immodest to criticize the Admiral General? :)
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 2 February 2022 08: 18
        +3
        Thank you, Andrew.
        I did not know that "Aurora" and her sisters were born in such "torments".
        As a land person, I know them only in the footsteps of the Istrian Revolution and Tsushima)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 11: 50
          +4
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          Thank you, Andrew.

          You're welcome! hi
        2. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 2 February 2022 13: 13
          +2
          If you are interested in this question, there is Tsvetkov's book "Cruiser Aurora", much more informative and detailed. Similarly for armored cruisers, Melnikov's book "Rurik was the first."
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 2 February 2022 13: 58
            +4
            Everyone is different in taste and color, but Polenov is the best in Aurora hi
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer 2 February 2022 18: 58
              +2
              Sorry, wrong. Tsvetkov - "Battleship "October Revolution", "Cruiser" Aurora "I also have Polenov.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            2 February 2022 14: 44
            +11
            Quote: TermNachTER
            If you are interested in this question, there is Tsvetkov's book "Cruiser Aurora"

            There is a lot of literature, and I would not call Tsvetkov the best by far. It is necessary to read both Skvortsov and Polenov. But most importantly, there are many people who simply won't do it. They are interested in the topic, but not to that extent. It’s like a story of ancient times to me - I personally don’t want to pick it, but if someone tells you briefly in which cases a saber is better than a sword, how much knightly armor weighed, etc. etc. - read with pleasure
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Similarly for armored cruisers, Melnikov's book "Rurik was the first."

            It's not enough either. Pakhomov is required reading
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 2 February 2022 18: 29
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It is necessary to read both Skvortsov and Polenov. But most importantly, there are many people who simply won't do it. They are interested in the topic, but not to that extent.

              I have Polenov. I read it three times as a kid.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                2 February 2022 19: 06
                0
                Quote: Rurikovich
                I read it three times as a kid.

                Yes, who would doubt it! hi
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 2 February 2022 19: 32
                  +3
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Yes, who would doubt it!

                  Greetings, dear drinks hi
                  Plus, it’s been standing since the morning, I wanted to comment, but I was too lazy repeat Getting ready for work in the morning, time is short repeat
                  The project is weak, as is its argumentation and execution. The only thing they could do, if anyone had brains at that time, was to strengthen the weapons, and not weaken them. After the war, when it came to what was happening, 14 main gun barrels were shoved in ... And so, in principle, the low level of technological discipline led to the low quality of the assembly of ships, their individual mechanisms, which affected their operation. Alas, this is the reality request
                  And then neither go into reconnaissance, nor into raiding ... As one of the members of the forum said, only protect the water in the roadstead smile
                  C y hi
            2. unknown
              unknown 2 February 2022 20: 56
              +1
              Skvortsova is not necessarily dry.
              Better, Novikov and Sergeev "Goddesses of the Russian Navy".
            3. balabol
              balabol 3 February 2022 01: 43
              +3
              Andrey, good afternoon. A couple of questions/remarks if I may:
              1. It is unfortunate that articles on the site are not often provided with a list of used literature, which could encourage site visitors to become more deeply familiar with the topic. Maybe, on occasion, such a list would be included in the article?
              2. The book by Burov and Yukhnin "Cruiser Aurora" provides information that, in accordance with the contract, all mechanisms, machines, boilers and pipes must be made in Russia. Import substitution, as you write, is the right decision. But the weight of the power plant is indicated - 1471,6 tons and not 1618 tons. Where is the truth?
              3. The problems of poor water circulation in the Belleville boilers (the main reason for their failure) were solved using Dolgolenko's invention. The right to use the invention was acquired by Belleville and improved boilers were installed on the Aurora during modernization. From your point of view, was it really a significant decision?
              4. Well, if the ships of the series are losers, then the Aurora is completely a loser in the square. Its renovation in the 80s created a terrible cadavers. Back in 1967, the Aurora, albeit in tow, moved along the Neva. And in 1980 - "modernization".
              In the 70s, as a teenager, I had the opportunity to often come to the Aurora and "wander" around the ship. A grandiose sense of the beauty and power of the technology of the age of steam and electricity. Giant triple expansion steam engines with a low pressure cylinder with a diameter of 2 meters.
              And a picture of Aurora in 1960 on the Neva. and a rare type of draw span of the Trinity Bridge (before modernization).
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                3 February 2022 06: 35
                +2
                Vladimir, good afternoon!
                Quote: balabol
                It is a pity that articles on the site are not often supplied with a list of used literature.

                Lazily, honestly :))) You know many things, but you can’t immediately tell where exactly
                Quote: balabol
                But the weight of the power plant is indicated - 1471,6 tons and not 1618 tons. Where is the truth?

                I think both numbers are true, although only work in the archives would dot the i here. Simply put, the huge problem of all "weight distributions" is that they estimate the mass of various mechanisms in different ways. If we give absolutely blatant examples, then, God forbid, in Germany (or in the USA, anyway?) Horizontal booking was included in the mass of the hull, although other countries took it into account in booking.
                As for the CMU, when ordering on the side, the mass of the mechanisms themselves was usually taken into account, and in the ship's weight distribution - the mass of the mechanisms + water for the normal functioning of the boilers, and even more + boiler water supplies. Therefore, comparing weight reports is such a thing, you need to use them carefully. The figures that I have given are comparable with a fairly high degree of probability.

                Quote: balabol
                The problems of poor water circulation in the Belleville boilers (the main reason for their failure) were solved using Dolgolenko's invention.

                I wouldn't call it the main reason. With adequate and qualified operation, Belleville boilers showed good results.
                Quote: balabol
                In the 70s, as a teenager, I had the opportunity to often come to Aurora

                Been there several times - the same feeling :)
      2. Catfish
        Catfish 2 February 2022 08: 25
        +7
        Good morning Andrey! smile
        Thanks for the article, I read it with interest and pleasure. Almost since childhood, I was surprised by the low speed of the "goddesses", it seems that the ships have beautiful contours, but there is no speed, now it's more or less clear what's going on. And with artillery, they generally have utter stupidity, people who didn’t understand what they were doing? 75-mimi, of course, is a terrible weapon (the cinematic Admiral made holes in cruisers from it)))), but it clearly does not pull against a six-inch.
        In general, with these cruisers, it seems that it turned out purely in our way - "We wanted the best, but it turned out as always." But after all, we built good cruisers - "Novik", "Emerald" with "Pearl" and it turned out.
        By the way, I don’t remember where, but I read that there were also some problems with Askold (cars), but I don’t remember the details anymore.
        Yes, I always wanted to ask, for what reason was the main caliber of 130 mm chosen for Svetlan? For example, the Germans, during the war, on their light cruisers replaced the feet with 6-inch guns.
        1. Niko
          Niko 2 February 2022 08: 53
          +8
          Well, in fairness: Novik was still built by the Germans
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 2 February 2022 09: 04
            +1
            "For the needs of the Far East". The basic project (cruiser "Novik") was developed by the firm "Shihau" according to the terms of reference of the Russian Marine Technical Committee (MTK). In the series in 1901-1904 at the Nevsky Shipyard, according to a modified project, two ships were built: "Pearl" and "Emerald"

            In the series in 1901-1904 at the Nevsky Shipyard, according to a modified project, two ships were built: "Pearl" and "Emerald"
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 10: 13
          +13
          Good afternoon, Konstantin! hi
          Quote: Sea Cat
          And with artillery, they generally have utter stupidity, people who didn’t understand what they were doing?

          They were afraid, apparently, that they would not have time to get into the destroyer from the 6-dm.
          Quote: Sea Cat
          By the way, I don’t remember where, but I read that there were also some problems with Askold (cars), but I don’t remember the details anymore.

          Yes, not that ... that's just Askold with relatively no problems in this regard. I’m thinking just about him now to arrange a small series of articles
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 2 February 2022 11: 07
            +6
            I’m thinking just about him now to arrange a small series of articles


            It would be interesting. I don’t remember which author, in his book, called “Askold” - “opera”, because of the five pipes, probably? smile

            1. Constanty
              Constanty 2 February 2022 22: 42
              +2
              Beautiful ship!
              In Poland, "Askold" was given the name "Pięciopapierosowa paczka" - "a pack of five cigarettes" after the title of one of the first articles about him in one of the magazines several decades ago.
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 2 February 2022 22: 51
                0
                Good evening, Kostya! smile
                I hear about "Puchka" for the first time, a funny nickname, but what kind of magazine was it, not "Maybe", a case? In the seventies, I subscribed to it and read it with a dictionary, the only one in the Union was an intelligent magazine about warships and fleets. drinks
                1. Constanty
                  Constanty 2 February 2022 23: 07
                  +2
                  Good evening, namesake. hi

                  Exactly - "Morze" and an article probably by Andrzej Jaskula - JASKUŁA Andrzej M.: "Pięcio- papierosowa paczka". Morze 1986 no. 8

                  .I just found out that this is an older term - Because of the five tall pipes, the Russian ship was nicknamed by British, Australian and French sailors and soldiers "Pack of Woodbines" (these were thin long cigarettes issued to British sailors).

                  .The ship is mentioned in Poland in connection with the service on it and Wlodzimierz Steyer - the commander of the defense of Hel in September 1939 and the commander of the Polish Navy in the fleet in 1947-1950, or Captain V. 1st rank Kazimierz Ketlinsky - the commander of the ship in time of the First World War.
          2. Comrade
            Comrade 3 February 2022 04: 36
            +1
            My respect, deeply respected Andrew!
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            that's just Askold relatively no problems in this regard. I’m thinking just about him now to arrange a small series of articles

            Hello, great idea.
            On this topic.
            There is information that the "Pallada" of the Japanese "ran" faster than ours. Unfortunately, there are no details. It can be assumed that the ship was unloaded a little (judging by the photo, lighter pipes were installed), and their service could have been better. Or the load has been reduced. Perhaps all of these factors were present.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              3 February 2022 06: 39
              +2
              Greetings, dear colleague!
              Quote: Comrade
              There is information that the Japanese "Pallada" was faster than ours, "ran"

              Yes, there was such a thing, they even discussed it at Tsushima. We came to the conclusion that the source that indicated this (and he indicated more than 22 knots) is unreliable. But after Pallas was converted into something there (minzag?) - some kind of increase was possible there, but from memory (you need to climb, search to say for sure) its displacement was reduced by as much as 1000 tons.
              1. Comrade
                Comrade 4 February 2022 02: 14
                0
                Hello, dear Andrey!
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Yes, there was such a thing, they even discussed it at Tsushima. We came to the conclusion that the source that indicated this (and he indicated more than 22 knots) is unreliable.

                Quite possibly, I only have open sources at hand.

                - H. Jentschura, D. Jung "Die Japanischen Kriegsschiffe 1869-1945" 22,75 uz. on acceptance tests
                - "Brassey's Naval Annual" 20 knots in daily service. During the repair, Miyabara boilers (11 hp) were installed.

                And as you know, during the sea trials of the Pallada, the average maximum speed was 19,17 knots. It can be assumed that the Russians and the Japanese took the cruiser for sea trials with different displacements. Well, nobody canceled the quality of coal and the professionalism of the factory delivery teams.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  4 February 2022 06: 39
                  0
                  Quote: Comrade
                  H. Jentschura, D. Jung "Die Japanischen Kriegsschiffe 1869-1945" 22,75 knots on acceptance tests

                  Ishibashi "Japanese cruisers" indicated a speed of 19,268 knots. hi
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 10: 43
          +12
          Quote: Sea Cat
          Yes, I always wanted to ask, for what reason was the main caliber of 130 mm chosen for Svetlan?

          So great choice :)
          Simply put, a 36 kg high-explosive projectile with 3,9 or even 4,7 kg of explosives was an excellent tool both against large destroyers like the same Novik, and against light cruisers. But it was not as difficult to turn over as the 152 mm, whose weight exceeded 49 kg. In general, a very good combination of rate of fire and firepower.
          Quote: Sea Cat
          For example, the Germans, during the war, on their light cruisers replaced the feet with 6-inch guns.

          So for a 105-mm high-explosive projectile, it weighed 17,4 kg in total. Of course, for a cruiser, this is, to put it mildly, not very
          1. unknown
            unknown 2 February 2022 21: 11
            0
            What is the rate of fire if the wedge gate was replaced with a piston, and the sleeve with a cap?
            The 152 mm projectile was heavy for the Japanese, which is not surprising, given their average weight is 10-20 kg less than that of the Europeans. 50 kg loader with 45 kg projectile.
            And for how many minutes is such a loader enough?
            Therefore, they switched to 140 mm as soon as the British had such a gun.
            From the experience of the WWI, the British realized that 152 mm was also heavy for a European.
            And they themselves began the transition to 140 mm.
            And according to the experience of WWII, they came to the conclusion that a caliber of 120-127 mm is optimal for manual loading, with a projectile mass of 20-28 kg, with separate loading.
            1. Alf
              Alf 2 February 2022 21: 19
              +2
              Quote: ignoto
              And for how many minutes is such a loader enough?

              Have you heard about replacing chargers? Although yes, the Japanese are by no means Hercules. Eating rice with fish without meat all your life just doesn’t work.
            2. Constanty
              Constanty 3 February 2022 02: 39
              0
              In fact, it probably started with the Greeks choosing 140mm guns for their British-built cruisers Antinavarchos Kontouriotis and Lambros Katsonis before the First World War. The development of these guns began in 1913.
              The Japanese started working on their 140mm gun a year later - independently of the British.
            3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              3 February 2022 06: 48
              0
              Quote: ignoto
              What is the rate of fire if the wedge gate was replaced with a piston, and the sleeve with a cap?

              5-8 shots per minute. But it was really possible to withstand such a (close to such) rate of fire for a short period of time than the same 10 rounds / min 152-mm Kane
        4. mmaxx
          mmaxx 2 February 2022 14: 16
          +1
          All armored cruisers were re-equipped with 130 mm. Aurora was the last
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 2 February 2022 21: 53
            +1
            All armored cruisers were re-equipped with 130 mm. Aurora was the last

            And which one was RE-ARMED first? laughing
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 3 February 2022 07: 46
              +1
              I won’t look for who was the first, but I still remember.
              Well, and lied for the red word, that's all. Not all, but 130 mm cruisers were transferred. In the Baltic, both "Oleg" and "Diana" were already with 130 mm. And after the Civil, the Aurora was armed with 130 mm.
              There was no new 6 dm gun. Therefore, there is nothing to talk about. As wear was set to 130 mm. Good tool.
        5. Alf
          Alf 2 February 2022 19: 30
          +2
          Quote: Sea Cat
          Yes, I always wanted to ask, for what reason was the main caliber of 130 mm chosen for Svetlan?

          Hello! I heard a version that the 130-mm maximum caliber, which retained the possibility of manual loading. By the way, for the 152-mm there was a unitary, but it was completely unbearable, 60-61 kg.
          1. unknown
            unknown 2 February 2022 21: 13
            +1
            The Germans considered this caliber 170 mm.
            1. Alf
              Alf 2 February 2022 21: 16
              +1
              Quote: ignoto
              The Germans considered this caliber 170 mm.

              The British generally considered that Hercules-loaders could manually throw 234-mm. But what was the rate of fire they technically kept silent ...
            2. Catfish
              Catfish 2 February 2022 22: 53
              0
              170 mm.

              Right? And what ships did they equip with this caliber?
              1. rytik32
                rytik32 2 February 2022 23: 07
                +3
                "Deutschlands" battleships
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 2 February 2022 23: 35
                  +1
                  The Deutschlands and Braunschweigs had an average caliber of 170 mm, but all subsequent series, starting with the Wittelsbach, were armed with 150 mm guns. So it’s not worth talking about which caliber the Germans considered the most “convenient”, all the more so since the article is about cruisers, and the Germans never put 170mm on them.
                  1. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 3 February 2022 07: 52
                    +2
                    Most likely, the admirals believed that if two or four people were raised, then the norms. And then the ships were built and it became clear - pitching, fatigue. And the shells have become heavier over time.
                    Although the British "Hawkins" made with 190 mm. Also, the projectile should have been 80-90 kg. But four of them could take it with ticks.
                    The Chinese have well preserved our B-13s. There is a special table for the projectile. Then they sent him to the treasury. He is in Dalian on the destroyer and on the battery in Arthur. In general, the 130-mm gun is high. It is necessary to raise the projectile very high. Especially on the coastal gun. The same 6 dm Kane, in fact, do not need to be raised. The tool is low.
                    The French at 138 mm also had tables adapted so that the projectile was not immediately thrust into the barrel.
                    Yet the deck is not a training room. And 50 kg on hand is a lot.
        6. rytik32
          rytik32 2 February 2022 19: 49
          +3
          Quote: Sea Cat
          Yes, I always wanted to ask, for what reason was the main caliber of 130 mm chosen for Svetlan?

          The 152-mm projectile was considered too heavy for manual loading - it limited the rate of fire. We figured out the maximum "convenient" weight, and then a 130-mm caliber came up under it.
          1. unknown
            unknown 2 February 2022 21: 14
            +2
            The mass of a 130 mm projectile is 36 kg.
            Weight of 140 mm projectile (English) 38 kg.
            For a European, the difference is small.
        7. unknown
          unknown 2 February 2022 21: 03
          +6
          The problem was not in the allegedly unsuccessful contours, but in the unfortunate arrangement of variable loads. The ships had a trim on the bow, that is, they sat like a pig.
          As a result, a decrease in speed and controllability.
          Oddly enough, on the Pallada, the Japanese understood what was going on and dealt with the problem.
          And with a clear conscience, they wrote down 19,5 knots in the form.
          The commander of the "Aurora" during the campaign to Tsushima also understood everything, and decided.
      3. bk0010
        bk0010 2 February 2022 11: 54
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Is it immodest to criticize the Admiral General? :)

        Very modestly: they usually offer to hang him for the results of the REV, and you are not even going to criticize for the distribution of calibers!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 12: 30
          +6
          Quote: bk0010
          Very modestly: they usually offer to hang him for the results of the REV, and you are not even going to criticize for the distribution of calibers!

          You can shoot him for preparing for the REV, but hardly for the reduction of artillery at Dian. You can understand his logic here. hi
    2. Jura 27
      Jura 27 3 February 2022 09: 09
      0
      These are not cruisers - losers, these are RIF admirals - losers, or rather incompetent ones.
      Dashi were built as, with respect to Rurik, cheap raiders with good seaworthiness. But, they were not used in this capacity, from the word at all, hence their uselessness in the REV. But it would be a different matter if they were cruising somewhere in the Philippines - the southern coast of China, taking coal in Saigon and the bays of Annam, from the ships of the Volunteer Fleet.
      And here, armament and speed would not play a special role.
      Construction :
      - boilers without economizers (have you saved something?), hence the coal zhor, Aurora in 2TOE, consumed 74 tons / day;
      - outdated model of boilers arr. 1894, hence the great weight;
      - 75 / 50mm guns, - this is the second medium caliber, to which there was also the then HE shell (cast iron grenade) and shrapnel;
      - trim on the nose, easily eliminated, if desired and competence;
      - not competent design of the CMU, - extra 4 boilers., but on the other hand, - the stock does not pull the pocket, in the ocean.

      How is it that the dogs from 8 "did not get anywhere - they just got - right into the Aurora.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        3 February 2022 10: 06
        +2
        Quote: Jura 27
        How is it that the dogs from 8 "did not get anywhere - they just got - right into the Aurora.

        Not a fact, it could be a shell with a RBKR
  2. Alex 1970
    Alex 1970 2 February 2022 08: 01
    +7
    You haven't posted for a long time. I read it with interest, since I read about a series of these ships as a teenager, there was such a book of Young shipbuilders, in my opinion, it was called. There were only laudatory reviews, probably due to the fact that Aurora is from this series. And the ship of the revolution could not be "not very" a priori. And the book was interesting, divided into two parts, and unusually. In the upper part was on ship modeling, about two thirds of the page, then a line and in the lower part historical essays on the Russian fleet.
    1. Andy
      Andy 2 February 2022 08: 37
      +2
      you're right. I still have the same one
      1. Alex 1970
        Alex 1970 2 February 2022 08: 42
        +3
        He was engaged in modeling at school, even took third place once, I forgot the truth as the event was called, it was in 1982 in April and the city was then called Tselinograd, from all the Tselinnaya railway schools gathered at the railway technical school. And they were awarded with a diploma and a set of files, though they left the files at school laughing
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 10: 11
      +6
      Quote: Alexey 1970
      I read it as a teenager, there was such a book by Young shipbuilders, in my opinion it was called

      It's a pity, at one time she passed me by.
      1. Alex 1970
        Alex 1970 2 February 2022 10: 37
        +1
        The boys liked it, because then there was no Internet. I gave it to my neighbor, he also read it, though he was not engaged in modeling, a talented guy, but lazy smile
    3. unknown
      unknown 2 February 2022 21: 16
      +1
      "Young shipbuilders" - this is for modeling.
      According to history - "The Book of Future Admirals".
      1. Alex 1970
        Alex 1970 3 February 2022 07: 12
        +1
        This is how the book looks like, at the top is modeling, the bottom is the history of the fleet
  3. Undecim
    Undecim 2 February 2022 08: 16
    +17
    Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to this question.

    Perhaps our admirals and engineers have been subconsciously waiting all these years for the Minin to perish in agony, fire and steam, thereby confirming the inviolability of the authority of British design thought, which delayed the mass introduction of Belleville boilers on ships of the Royal Navy.

    There is no mysticism in this matter. You just need to remember that there are two types of boilers - fire tube and water tube. The former were widely used in all military fleets of the world until the beginning of the XNUMXth century.
    The water-tube boiler, despite the fact that it was patented in England in the middle of the 1857th century, began to be widely used on warships, in fact, only at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. And by no means because of the conservatism of engineers and admirals. The British themselves began experiments with the operation of water-tube boilers in the navy since XNUMX, having tried Perkins, Rowan, Howard, Root and others boilers and found out that the advantages of water-tube boilers over fire-tube boilers (large steam output, less weight, fast steam distribution, the possibility of strong forcing and fast change of operating modes) are completely nullified by their shortcomings. It turned out that the disadvantages of water-tube boilers are:
    - the need to supply them with clean, desalinated water, since even a small salinity of water at high degrees of forcing causes the rapid formation of a thick layer of scale on the tubes, which leads to overheating of the metal and rupture of the tubes;
    - coal heating of boilers should be methodical, that is, coal should be supplied evenly at short intervals in small portions;
    - water supply must be carried out continuously, which greatly complicates the care;
    - boilers require frequent cleaning (leaching) to remove scale and oil. Cleaning takes a very long time due to the large number of tubes;
    - to fulfill all the above requirements, highly qualified personnel are needed, otherwise it is not possible to realize the advantages of water-tube boilers.
    Therefore, it seems that the water-tube boiler already existed, but it took time to ensure its full operation and create the appropriate equipment for this (desalination plants, feed pumps, etc.). And only after all these issues were resolved, water-tube boilers, including Belleville boilers, began to be widely introduced in fleets.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 10: 06
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      There is no mysticism in this matter.

      I agree.
      Quote: Undecim
      Therefore, it seems that the water-tube boiler already existed, but it took time to ensure its full operation and create the appropriate equipment for this (desalination plants, feed pumps, etc.).

      Again, I agree. It's just that, in my opinion, everything needed could have been done much faster - the same 6 years with Minin look like an excessive period for eliminating technical problems. But the problems of preparation
      Quote: Undecim
      to fulfill all the above requirements, highly qualified personnel are needed

      obviously not been eliminated by the time of implementation.
      Dear Undecim, maybe you know what needs to be done so that the article does not come out in the format - "one sentence = one paragraph"? This is both uncomfortable to read, and in some places violates the author's thought ....
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 2 February 2022 17: 11
        +4
        It's just that, in my opinion, everything needed could have been done much faster - the same 6 years with Minin look like an excessive period for eliminating technical problems.

        Yes how to say. Desalters with a capacity to satisfy the power of the boilers appeared just at the time when water-tube boilers began to be used.
        1. Motorist
          Motorist 2 February 2022 22: 20
          +1
          Quote: Undecim
          Desalters with a capacity to satisfy the power of the boilers appeared just at the time when water-tube boilers began to be used.

          And there, the steam after the machine (turbine) did not go to the condenser? In this case, desalinated water is needed only to compensate for the volume of leaks, and a large capacity of the desalination plant is not needed. But domestic needs require a lot of water.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 3 February 2022 00: 16
            +3
            And there, the steam after the machine (turbine) did not go to the condenser? In this case, desalinated water is needed only to compensate for the volume of leaks.

            To the capacitor. But even at modern CHP plants, recovery of feedwater losses can be as high as 6 percent. There are clearly more on reciprocating steam engines.
            If the steam consumption for the old man "Minin" is assumed to be at least 20 tons per hour, then about 2 tons of feed water will be needed per hour.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 February 2022 13: 14
      +9
      Quote: Undecim
      - to fulfill all the above requirements, highly qualified personnel are needed, otherwise it is not possible to realize the advantages of water-tube boilers.

      The classic is:
      Looking closely at the personal machine personnel on the ships of the fleet during the acceptance factory tests, I am simply amazed at the almost complete inconsistency of it in relation to such complex and expensive mechanisms that they have to manage. The weakness and inconsistency of this personnel is almost a universal fact on the ships of our fleet ... Due to a complete misunderstanding of the control of fire, water, bottoms, automatic feeders, etc.
      © Assistant to the head of the Baltic Plant, mechanical engineer I.P. Pavlov, regarding the operation of the CMU EBR Pobeda - with the same Belleville boilers.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 2 February 2022 14: 07
        +7
        So this is our old approach. Instead of teaching the staff and getting them interested, they begin to spread rot with discipline. People begin to hate both the service and everything connected with it. They are on the side. They just become pests.
        This is not to mention basic illiteracy.
    3. unknown
      unknown 2 February 2022 21: 20
      +2
      The British had a lot of trouble with water-tube boilers.
      On some cruisers, they installed both fire-tube and water-tube boilers together.
      And since 1893 they began to gradually abandon the forced blast into the boilers.
      On the Duncans, the power plant was already designed without relying on forced blast.
  4. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 2 February 2022 08: 39
    +5
    They also fumbled with the concept of armored decks for a long time.
    "Vityaz" the second, KMK, was an attempt to modernize the concept of sail-steam wooden "trade fighters", but it did not work out very well.
    With "Kornilov" - they also played around conceptually, but then they matured to the transition from the concept of cruising war to the concept of squadron combat, and there they already needed scouts for the squadron.
    Only now the imperatives of the cruising war continued to dominate both the admirals and shipbuilders, which is why we have such amusing armored decks (and armored cruisers, by the way) and turned out ...
  5. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  6. Glory1974
    Glory1974 2 February 2022 09: 14
    +4
    it can be stated that the inability of the domestic industry to create a competitive CMU in those years was the main reason for the failure of the Diana-class cruisers.

    What is it. We have been lagging behind in engines since tsarist times. And in our time, there are problems with engines, both with marine engines for the fleet, for aviation, even for cars, and we often buy them abroad.
    1. faiver
      faiver 2 February 2022 11: 41
      +1
      Quite right, we constantly have a technical lag, both then and now ...
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 3 February 2022 09: 58
        0
        we are constantly technically behind, both then and now

        You can't say it's in everything. But it is in the engines, yes.
        1. faiver
          faiver 3 February 2022 12: 59
          +1
          I mean engines... hi
  7. Termit1309
    Termit1309 2 February 2022 09: 30
    +1
    If you look at the specific indicators, the gap becomes simply stunning.

    You somehow forgot to mention, Diana was three-shaft. Can such low specific rates and high consumption of coal grow from here? Plus, they messed up a lot with the contours.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 10: 02
      +9
      Quote: Termit1309
      You somehow forgot to mention, Diana was three-shaft.

      Therefore, I compare it with the three-shaft "Askold" - and he had no problems with either power density or coal consumption
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 2 February 2022 12: 25
        +5
        The Germans, nevertheless, have long been engaged in three-shaft installations and managed to finish them. But domestic ones, frankly, did not shine. Is "Russia" even more or less.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 12: 35
          +7
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          The Germans, nevertheless, have long been engaged in three-shaft installations and managed to finish them. But domestic, frankly, did not shine

          On the one hand, it is. And on the other hand, the specific power still should not greatly depend on the number of shafts, but the consumption of coal ... here the question is rather how exactly it was supposed to go to the economic one. On one machine, on two, the resistance of the screws of the non-working machine(s), the presence of a mechanism that ensures the rotation of 3 screws when 1-2 machines are working, etc.
  8. moreman78
    moreman78 2 February 2022 09: 32
    +4
    Quote: Sea Cat
    Good morning Andrey! smile
    But after all, we built good cruisers - "Novik", "Emerald" with "Pearl" and it turned out.
    By the way, I don’t remember where, but I read that there were also some problems with Askold (cars), but I don’t remember the details anymore.

    And what happened there?
    "Novik" - a project and construction in Germany ("F. Shihau"), "Askold" - also in Germany (in Kiel), "Bogatyr" - again in Germany (Volkan company), and these are the best cruisers of the 1st and 2nd rank in the fleet of the Republic of Ingushetia by the time of the REV!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 10: 10
      +4
      Quote: moreman78
      And what happened there?

      well, how? Bogatyr was copied, Novik - finalized, it turned out well. And our own CMUs later became better, but no one gave us detailed drawings for them
      1. Alf
        Alf 2 February 2022 19: 35
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Novik - finalized, it turned out well.

        Only on the Stones did the speed drop from 25 to 22 knots.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 20: 01
          +3
          Quote: Alf
          Only on the Stones did the speed drop from 25 to 22 knots.

          This is not true. The ships went into battle unfinished and did not pass the full course of tests. Zhemchug developed 23,04 knots at 15 hp, they simply did not add power further. And if you count by adm. coefficient, then at full power he would have shown the 000 knots assigned to him.
          Novik was re-lightened, the fleet didn’t want to repeat such a thing, so going down to the node was done quite deliberately
          1. Alf
            Alf 2 February 2022 20: 08
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: Alf
            Only on the Stones did the speed drop from 25 to 22 knots.

            This is not true. The ships went into battle unfinished and did not pass the full course of tests. Zhemchug developed 23,04 knots at 15 hp, they simply did not add power further. And if you count by adm. coefficient, then at full power he would have shown the 000 knots assigned to him.
            Novik was re-lightened, the fleet didn’t want to repeat such a thing, so going down to the node was done quite deliberately

            I don’t argue, but Novik’s speed was not there ..
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And if you count by adm. coefficient,

            In theory..
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 2 February 2022 20: 39
              +1
              Quote: Alf
              I don’t argue, but Novik’s speed was not there ..

              In fact, "Novik" in Arthur also did not give more than 23.
              1. Alf
                Alf 2 February 2022 20: 51
                0
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                Quote: Alf
                I don’t argue, but Novik’s speed was not there ..

                In fact, "Novik" in Arthur also did not give more than 23.

                Where did the firewood come from?
                1. Senior seaman
                  Senior seaman 3 February 2022 16: 25
                  0
                  Look at the series of articles about "Novik" by the same author. there at the end there are all the sources on the topic.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 3 February 2022 18: 28
                    +1
                    Quote: Senior Sailor
                    Look at the series of articles about "Novik" by the same author. there at the end there are all the sources on the topic.

                    Thank you!
              2. unknown
                unknown 2 February 2022 21: 26
                0
                "Boyarin" had less speed, but was more seaworthy.
                Therefore, it was valued higher.
              3. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 2 February 2022 22: 55
                +2
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                In fact, "Novik" in Arthur also did not give more than 23.

                Novik in P-A on Thornycroft's boilers got into trouble. They, as it turned out, do not tolerate a torn mode of operation. When the boiler seems to be extinguished, but the water does not completely descend. Top tubes fail quickly.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              3 February 2022 06: 44
              +2
              Quote: Alf
              I don’t argue, but Novik’s speed was not there ..

              Once again - giving up 25 knots was a conscious decision. The Germans, in order to reach it, overly lightened the cruiser, this was considered unacceptable
      2. unknown
        unknown 2 February 2022 21: 24
        0
        One transfer from the metric to the inch system led to an overload of more than 600 tons on the "bogatyrs". The Novik project was finalized, it turned out badly: the same overload and drop in speed.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          3 February 2022 19: 26
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          One transfer from the metric to the inch system led to an overload of more than 600 tons on the "bogatyrs".

          :))))) No comment:)
  9. Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 2 February 2022 09: 35
    +12
    I will add an excellent story of the author
    These are the boilers now on the Aurora -


    View from the boiler room to the aft engine room -

    In the battle room. View from the helmsman's seat -

    In the same place - artillery fire control devices -

    Doesn't let pictures anymore (((It will be interesting to write. I'll post more
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 10: 07
      +3
      Thanks a lot, great photos :)
      1. Region-25.rus
        Region-25.rus 2 February 2022 10: 24
        +11
        great photo:)
        I've been to the Aurora three times. This is the last time I organized a tour for my colleagues to the maximum))) True, there is little left inside ((((
        Well, ss .. let's continue. Hope the audience doesn't mind
        Steam engine connecting rod

        Steam engine base with cylinder pressure indicators -

        Negotiation post of the stern MO. In the background are clinket doors to the boiler room -

        Ship infirmary -

        Engine telegraph in the wheelhouse -
  10. Grossvater
    Grossvater 2 February 2022 09: 53
    +6
    To be honest, the 75 mm Kane gun is probably the most pointless gun in history. It was always possible to put something bigger on a large ship, and the destroyer of those years, her high ballistics, was needed like a side pocket for a dog. One horseradish shot at point-blank range, or, let's say, hit only when shooting point-blank. All the same, the main drawback of the "Goddesses" is underarmament. The "October" version of the Aurora with fourteen six-inch would bring significantly more benefits.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 10: 09
      +8
      Quote: Grossvater
      All the same, the main drawback of the "Goddesses" is underarmament. The "October" version of the Aurora with fourteen six-inch would bring significantly more benefits.

      In RYAV? Yes, I would not say. It was impossible to let them go for reconnaissance due to their low speed, and 14 * 152-mm did little to help when meeting with the Japanese BRKR
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 2 February 2022 12: 23
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        It was impossible to let them go for reconnaissance due to their low speed, and 14 * 152-mm did little to help when meeting with the Japanese BRKR

        How to say ... when on duty on the outer roadstead, they would be very kosher.
        Again, shoot ashore ... sad
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 14: 53
          +4
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          How to say ... when on duty on the outer roadstead, they would be very kosher.

          laughing Yes :)) But you must admit - this is rather an undocumented function for a cruiser of the 1st rank :)
        2. Alf
          Alf 2 February 2022 19: 39
          +1
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          when on duty on the outer roadstead, they would be very kosher.

          Wouldn't it be fat to keep a six-thousander on the road as a watchman?
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 2 February 2022 19: 46
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            Wouldn't it be fat to keep a six-thousander on the road as a watchman?

            That is how they were kept. They made a nook from the flooded ships and mine nets, in which the duty cruiser stood, in case the Japanese destroyers or fireships go.
            1. Alf
              Alf 2 February 2022 19: 52
              0
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              Quote: Alf
              Wouldn't it be fat to keep a six-thousander on the road as a watchman?

              That is how they were kept. They made a nook from the flooded ships and mine nets, in which the duty cruiser stood, in case the Japanese destroyers or fireships go.

              I mean that Korean, Beaver and Gilyak would be more useful in such a role with their 8-dm, which have "one shot, one corpse." And the cruiser would be freed up for core tasks and it would come out cheaper.
              1. Senior seaman
                Senior seaman 2 February 2022 20: 10
                +2
                Quote: Alf
                I mean that Korean, Beaver and Gilyak would be more useful in such a role with their 8-inch

                1) 8" only for "Korean". For "Beaver" - 1x229mm and 1x152, for "Gilyak" -1x120mm.5x75mm
                2) Gunboats also participated in all these affairs.
                Quote: Alf
                "one shot one kill"

                If you get there.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 2 February 2022 20: 23
                  -1
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  1) 8" only for "Korean". For "Beaver" - 1x229mm and 1x152, for "Gilyak" -1x120mm.5x75mm

                  Sorry, Manchu.
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  If you get there.

                  Shooting at 40 cables or in line of sight? And if the team does not know how to shoot, then it doesn’t matter what to miss from, even from the B-37.
                  1. Senior seaman
                    Senior seaman 2 February 2022 20: 37
                    +3
                    Quote: Alf
                    Shooting at 40 cables or in line of sight?

                    At night in conditions of poor visibility and stormy weather.
                    Quote: Alf
                    And if the team doesn’t know how to shoot, then it doesn’t matter what to miss from

                    No. If the gun is fast-firing, then there is time to correct the sight. Sobsno, therefore, "Gilyak" with its only 120mm was no less valuable combat unit than other gunboats. By the way, the same "Beaver" when the barrel of its ancient 30-caliber nine-gauge model 1877 was shot into the trash. re-equipped with a six-inch Kane, which was placed right on top of the casemate. And on the "Manjura" after the war, instead of 8 "the same 152mm Kane guns were also installed.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 2 February 2022 21: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Senior Sailor
                      At night in conditions of poor visibility and stormy weather.

                      And what's the difference from what to shoot? 8-dm or 75-mm?
                      Quote: Senior Sailor
                      If the gun is fast-firing, then there is time to correct the sight.

                      Conversely, a longer reload time gives more time to correct aiming than hasty shooting. Within reason, of course.
                      Quote: Senior Sailor
                      wow "Beaver" when the barrel of his ancient 30-caliber nine-gauge model 1877 was shot into the trash. re-equipped with a six-inch Kane, which was placed right on top of the casemate.

                      When did this happen? I personally did not find any mention of rearmament.
                      Quote: Senior Sailor
                      And on the "Manjura" after the war, instead of 8 "the same 152mm Kane guns were also installed.

                      That's right, because the 8dm / 35 gun was no longer in Russia.
                      1. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 3 February 2022 16: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: Alf
                        That's right, because the 8dm / 35 gun was no longer in Russia.

                        But there were 45 caliber. But "Brave" was also rearmed.
                      2. Alf
                        Alf 3 February 2022 18: 17
                        +1
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        But there were 45 caliber

                        Was there a difference in weight?
                        What about Beaver?
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        But "Brave" was also rearmed.

                        They couldn’t RE-ARM the Brave, he was originally with such weapons.
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        But there were 45 caliber.

                        And they were all distributed in advance. In addition to those I brought to other ships, there was not enough.
                      3. Senior seaman
                        Senior seaman 3 February 2022 19: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Alf
                        Was there a difference in weight?

                        The gun mod 1892 is about a ton lighter :)))
                        Quote: Alf
                        What about Beaver?

                        At least I don't remember. When I wrote Basilisk, I shoveled so much literature that now I simply don’t remember all the sources. By the way, perhaps it was about someone close to the "Beaver" in the type of armored boats.
                        Quote: Alf
                        They couldn’t RE-ARM the Brave, he was originally with such weapons.

                        Oh really:)))
                        They also re-armed them, but with light rapid-fire guns. First, on the German 105mm taken from the Magdeburg, and then on the latest 130mm guns.
                        Quote: Alf
                        And they were all distributed in advance.

                        It's not about that. It’s just that the uselessness of large-caliber monstrous cannons on such small ships as gunboats became obvious and they began to be re-equipped with medium-caliber rapid-fire artillery. And what you wrote about aiming ... it's such a game that I don't even know how to comment :)))
        3. unknown
          unknown 2 February 2022 21: 43
          0
          Yes, they were not slower than the Japanese armored cruisers.
          Japanese armored cruisers are unsuccessful ships.
          Neither fire performance (light "colonial projectile weighing 95,3 kg), nor speed (from 15 to 17 knots for a long time) ..
          It's time to distinguish passport data from real ones.
          My favorite example.
          In Soviet historiography, the La-7 fighter for decades was served as the fastest fighter of the USSR during the war. 680 km/h
          And in real life? Serial, from 630 to 656 km / h. Yak -9U and even faster. In real life, 668 km / h.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            3 February 2022 06: 43
            +1
            Quote: ignoto
            It's time to distinguish passport data from real ones.

            You haven't been able to do this for years...
        4. Constanty
          Constanty 2 February 2022 22: 50
          0
          I always wondered why a much more useful for the fleet was sent to Chemulpo in the form of a high-speed reconnaissance ship "Varyag" and not "Pallada"
          As a stationer, all his shortcomings did not matter much, and in the event of an increasingly real conflict, the losses would have been less serious.
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 3 February 2022 16: 23
            0
            As far as I understand, they were in the armed reserve.
          2. Alf
            Alf 3 February 2022 18: 20
            0
            Quote: Constanty
            I always wondered why a much more useful for the fleet was sent to Chemulpo in the form of a high-speed reconnaissance ship "Varyag",

            And how much could the Varangian really squeeze out because of problems with cars?
            Quote: Constanty
            and in the event of an increasingly real conflict

            Until the start of the war in St. Petersburg, no one believed that Japan would dare to fight with the Republic of Ingushetia.
      2. Grossvater
        Grossvater 2 February 2022 15: 00
        +1
        On the roadstead of the PA, armored decks were more often hung around, for them an onboard volley of very six-inch shots would be eight unpleasant. And so, yes! Stupid ships turned out.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 15: 47
          0
          Quote: Grossvater
          On the roadstead of the PA, armored decks more often hung around

          Not within 6-inch firing range
      3. unknown
        unknown 2 February 2022 21: 36
        0
        And who could catch up with them and provide real opposition?
        Japanese armored cruisers were slower.
        Four "Englishmen" and "Italians" had a long stroke of 17 knots.
        "German" for a long time 16 knots.
        "French" for a long time 15 knots.
        "Goddesses" are faster.
        Of the armored cruisers, only a pair of "Kasagi" - "Chitose". But, you yourself wrote that there was not a single hit from 203 mm guns. The platform is failing.
        The rest of the armored decks are a trifle.
        By the way, in the Yellow Sea "Askold" had a side salvo of 6 152 mm guns. Two guns, one from the side were missing. "Goddesses" had a side salvo of 5 152 mm guns. The "Askold" went to the breakthrough at 17 knots.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          3 February 2022 06: 48
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          Japanese armored cruisers were slower.

          Only in your fantasies, supported by data taken out of context
    2. Alf
      Alf 2 February 2022 19: 38
      +1
      Quote: Grossvater
      To be honest, the 75 mm Kane gun is probably the most pointless gun in history.

      The gun is normal, that would be an HE shell for it ...
      1. unknown
        unknown 2 February 2022 21: 45
        0
        The Japanese, or rather, the British, also had only blanks in this caliber.
        1. Constanty
          Constanty 3 February 2022 03: 11
          +1
          Not completely. Since 1900, shells for English 3-inch guns have also been produced.
          12 Pdr 6cwt Mk lV BL shrapnel projectile
  11. Constanty
    Constanty 2 February 2022 11: 00
    +5
    At the same time, domestic 75-mm guns were equipped only with armor-piercing ammunition: a real hail of such shells was needed in order to stop the counter-destroyer at a short distance.


    Since the 75mm artillery on these cruisers was originally conceived as a weapon against destroyers, and these, by their very nature, did not have even the smallest armor, the selection and production of only armor-piercing ammunition for these guns is a strange thing. In addition to even increasing the displacement of destroyers

    In order to successfully fight counter-destroyers, whose displacement had reached 350 tons or more by the Russo-Japanese War, 120-152-mm artillery was required, and this was the number that needed to be maximized.

    True, but at that time it was not so obvious - let's not forget that even in 1906 on the "Dreadnought" anti-mine artillery consisted of 76-mm guns, and no less, for example, 102-mm guns
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 11: 49
      +6
      Quote: Constanty
      Since the 75mm artillery on these cruisers was originally conceived as a weapon against destroyers, and these, by their very nature, did not have even the smallest armor, the selection and production of only armor-piercing ammunition for these guns is a strange thing.

      not as much as it might seem at first glance :)
      The EMNIP idea was this - a high-explosive projectile detonates on the skin of a destroyer, and the explosive charge is not that great. But an armor-piercing projectile will pass through the hull right into the boiler rooms and engine rooms, and make a big commotion there ...
      Quote: Constanty
      True, but it wasn't so obvious at the time

      What I am writing about. The idea of ​​​​mass anti-mine 75-mm artillery for those years is very logical. But erroneous - as we understand, having an afterthought
      1. Alf
        Alf 2 February 2022 21: 14
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        a high-explosive projectile detonates on the hull of a destroyer,

        And if the fuse is set to slow down? The side of the destroyers, as it were, is not 30 or 50 mm.
      2. unknown
        unknown 2 February 2022 21: 46
        0
        Not wrong.
        With a displacement of destroyers of 250-350 tons, that's it.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 2 February 2022 12: 01
      +3
      Quote: Constanty
      and these, by their very nature, did not have even the smallest armor, then the selection and production of only armor-piercing ammunition for these guns is a strange thing.
      Not very strange: the idea was to pierce the cauldron or machine of the destroyer in order to deprive him of his course.
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 2 February 2022 12: 38
        +1
        The practical firing range of 75mm is small, and even a stopped destroyer can fire torpedoes. a ship with broken fire and fragments, the crew and command are already smaller.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 2 February 2022 12: 43
          +4
          Quote: Constanty
          even a stopped destroyer can fire torpedoes
          You VERY overestimate the torpedoes of that time. They had limited range. In addition, even if the range is enough, then even an armadillo managed to turn away from a torpedo fired not at close range, the main thing here is to notice it.
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 2 February 2022 12: 50
            +3
            Yes, it was an imperfect weapon at that time (I am writing an article related to this just right), but it was practically the only weapon of the destroyers. It could be neutralized either by preventing the enemy from firing at a distance (which, however, meant accurate long-range fire and the destruction of the ship's engine room), or simply by killing the crew of the launcher with high-explosive shells - the latter, in my opinion, was easier.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 2 February 2022 12: 55
              +1
              Quote: Constanty
              or simply killing the calculation of the launcher with high-explosive shells
              Initially, the anti-mine caliber was 47 mm. His high-explosive effect would have been extremely modest, given the characteristics of the shells and explosives of that time. The destroyers have grown up and the anti-mine caliber has also grown, but the main idea has not changed.
            2. unknown
              unknown 2 February 2022 21: 48
              0
              According to the personnel who were on the deck, revolving guns of 47-37 mm caliber, and even less, worked better.
        2. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 2 February 2022 12: 56
          +3
          Quote: Constanty
          The practical firing range of 75mm is short

          Yes, not so ... 7000 m compared to 9800 for 6 ".
          here it is also necessary to remember that initially the PMK was supposed to consist of 27 - 47mm Hotchkiss guns, where with all of the above it is even sadder
          Initially, it was decided to replace fifteen 47-mm guns on the cruiser with ten 75-mm guns, that is, instead of twenty-seven 47-mm guns, have ten 75-mm and twelve 47-mm guns. However, the artillery department of the MTK justified the replacement of all twenty-seven 47-mm guns with 75-mm guns, since 75-mm guns "almost not inferior in their rate of fire to 47-mm guns, can be used from long distances against destroyers and light cruisers, and in their flatness more labels. Therefore, it would seem desirable to have on the newly built cruisers "Pallada" and "Diana" mainly 75-mm caliber guns, with the exception of those installed on the Mars and on boats, especially since the installation of these guns leads to the uniformity of the guns, and therefore eliminates practical inconveniences arising from the diversity of guns"
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 2 February 2022 13: 23
            +2
            I wrote about the practical range of the shot for a reason. Also, what was the armor penetration rate of a 75mm shell at that distance (in the sense that they would be able to penetrate the skin and reach the inside of the ship)?

            Personally, I believe that the armor penetration of the 75mm Canet gun at 7000 meters was close to zero
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 2 February 2022 13: 56
              +4
              Quote: Constanty
              what was the armor penetration of a 75-mm armored projectile at such a distance (in the sense that they could penetrate the skin

              So the lining was very thin. Judging by the descriptions, she was literally breathing.
              Quote: Constanty
              Personally, I believe that the armor penetration of the 75mm Canet gun at 7000 meters was close to zero

              37 kb? Naturally! I'll tell you more, in 1896 it was not supposed to fight at such distances at all.
              But on more real ones, it was in every way better than the 47mm Hotchkiss guns.
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 2 February 2022 14: 05
                +1
                But on more real ones, it was in every way better than the 47mm Hotchkiss guns.


                Yes, better than 47mm, no doubt, but still unable to fulfill the main task - protection against torpedo attacks by mine ships.
                1. Senior seaman
                  Senior seaman 2 February 2022 14: 11
                  +2
                  Quote: Constanty
                  are still unable to fulfill the main task - protection against torpedo attacks by mine ships.

                  And here is the aftermath.
                  1. Constanty
                    Constanty 2 February 2022 14: 28
                    +1
                    But the fact that such a task was set before them was known. However, the fleet is a pillar of conservatism and rigidity, which cannot look for new solutions, but only duplicates, slightly improving the old ones.
                    And what can be achieved using other solutions showed Tsushima mines and the decisive share of high-explosive fragmentation shells, and not armor-piercing
              2. 27091965
                27091965 2 February 2022 17: 18
                +3
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                But on more real ones, it was in every way better than the 47mm Hotchkiss guns.

                Dear Ivan. In countries where there was a navy, 47 mm guns were treated differently. Somewhere it was believed that these guns had already "outlived their usefulness", and in others, such as in the USA, before the Russo-Japanese War, they tried to improve their effectiveness in the fight against destroyers. They created and produced a 3-pounder automatic gun, but they never finished it. The Russo-Japanese War, as you know, put an end to them as weapons to fight destroyers.

              3. Alf
                Alf 2 February 2022 19: 42
                0
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                So the lining was very thin. Judging by the descriptions, she was literally breathing.

                I heard about the case when the driver, having jumped off the ladder, broke through the bottom with his heel ...
            2. unknown
              unknown 2 February 2022 21: 51
              -1
              That is, the 75 mm gun was useless?
              And the Japanese on their destroyers replaced the stern 57 mm gun with a second 76 mm one.
              So they had two useless guns on the destroyers?
    3. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 2 February 2022 12: 06
      +6
      Quote: Constanty
      Since the 75mm artillery on these cruisers was originally conceived as a weapon against destroyers, and these, by their very nature, did not have even the smallest armor, the selection and production of only armor-piercing ammunition for these guns is a strange thing.

      There's nothing strange here. They just wanted a 75mm projectile to get to the boilers, bypassing some kind of steel side and coal pits. That is, the calculation was, albeit incorrect.
    4. 27091965
      27091965 2 February 2022 13: 35
      +3
      Quote: Constanty
      Since the 75mm artillery on these cruisers was originally conceived as a weapon against destroyers, and these, by their very nature, did not have even the smallest armor, the selection and production of only armor-piercing ammunition for these guns is a strange thing.

      Dear Konstantin. Such destroyers and destroyers were built, all vulnerable parts of these ships, including mechanisms and boilers, are protected by one-inch steel armor plates. The cabins had 3-inch protection. The British gave them a niche in the "armored first-class torpedo boat" classifications, later they changed the classification, but later abandoned it.
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 2 February 2022 13: 56
        0
        Moreover, the hope that 75mm armor-piercing shells would be effective here (and at a distance that did not allow the use of torpedoes) was an illusion.

        By the way, what kind of armor can there be for the Cabin?

        Whole team outside, maybe canvas walls at best
        1. 27091965
          27091965 2 February 2022 14: 34
          +2
          Quote: Constanty
          By the way, what kind of armor can there be for the Cabin?

          The cabin is lower or not much further, depending on the design, 3-inch sheets were installed on both sides of it.


          Moreover, the hope that 75mm armor-piercing shells would be effective here (and at a distance that did not allow the use of torpedoes) was an illusion


          When meeting with such a "protected" destroyer or destroyer, I think the high-explosive projectile of the 75 mm gun did not guarantee penetration, while the armor-piercing one would have penetrated this "protection" in any case.
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 2 February 2022 14: 47
            +3
            When meeting with such a "protected" destroyer or destroyer, I think the high-explosive projectile of the 75 mm gun did not guarantee penetration, while the armor-piercing one would have penetrated this "protection" in any case
            The thing is that you do not need to break through anything (in the case of a destroyer) in order to eliminate the threat from it. weapon calculations are unshielded and high-explosive shells will be more effective against it than armor-piercing armored shells
            1. 27091965
              27091965 2 February 2022 15: 07
              +2
              Quote: Constanty
              The thing is that you do not need to break through anything (in the case of a destroyer) in order to eliminate the threat from it. weapon calculations are unshielded and high-explosive shells will be more effective against it than armor-piercing armored shells


              I agree with you, but the thoughts of the admirals of that time, in our modern opinion, sometimes seem strange, but it was their time and their views. Although if you read the literature of that time, they also had enough disagreements.
            2. Denimax
              Denimax 4 February 2022 03: 46
              +1
              In the event that only destroyers are encountered, it would be preferable to use 47 mm, as I think. There is a shoulder rest and a pistol grip, which means that the carriage is freely swinging, it will be easier to keep the sight on the target. If the distances are small, then it is better to shoot alternately with buckshot and a blank.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. faiver
    faiver 2 February 2022 11: 45
    +1
    Thanks to the namesake from Chelyabinsk for an excellent article, as always. good
  14. moreman78
    moreman78 2 February 2022 11: 46
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: moreman78
    And what happened there?

    well, how? Bogatyr was copied, Novik - finalized, it turned out well. And our own CMUs later became better, but no one gave us detailed drawings for them

    With Bogatyr - the series turned out to be really very good (albeit small), but only Bogatyr had time for the war. Newcomers - also a small series came out, although it had time for the war.
    1. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 2 February 2022 12: 59
      +4
      Quote: moreman78
      but
      only Bogatyr managed to go to war
      . Newcomers - also a small series came out, although it was in time for the war.

      Enquist's flagship cruiser "Oleg" is looking at you with a feeling of deep bewilderment.
      1. Region-25.rus
        Region-25.rus 2 February 2022 13: 40
        +2
        Enquista's flagship cruiser "Oleg" looks at you with a feeling of deep bewilderment
        scratching the nose turret of the main caliber ..... what laughing
      2. moreman78
        moreman78 2 February 2022 14: 27
        0
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        Quote: moreman78
        but
        only Bogatyr managed to go to war
        . Newcomers - also a small series came out, although it was in time for the war.

        Enquist's flagship cruiser "Oleg" is looking at you with a feeling of deep bewilderment.

        Let him look - but this does not in any way affect the fact that the ship did not have time to start the war, Yes, it was completed quickly, in a hurry. They only managed to reach Tsushima, as with many other ships - the entire Borodino series, Aurora with Oslyabey and Almaz too ...
        1. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 2 February 2022 14: 32
          0
          Quote: moreman78
          ship at the beginning of the war did not have time,

          Quote: moreman78
          Newcomers - also a series, then a small one came out, although had time to war

          Be at least a little consistent. Pebbles, like "Oleg", also "managed" only to Tsushima.
          P.S. As I understand it, it was your comment that was rubbed?
    2. unknown
      unknown 2 February 2022 21: 53
      0
      Both types, due to the conversion from the metric system to the inch, turned out with a significant construction overload, and a lower travel speed.
  15. Grossvater
    Grossvater 2 February 2022 15: 14
    +1
    About 75/50 kaneshek. To hell with him, with the caliber. It is my deep conviction that these excellent guns with excellent ballistics turned out to be insufficient for large ships, and redundant for destroyers. And if, as a PMA, one could hope that good flatness would allow hitting mimonos winked at longer distances, where they were going to shoot from the destroyers dangling like a flower in the hole, raises a very big question.
    The British, by the way, although they are rare bastards, but in their 3 "limited themselves to a barrel length of 40 calibers.
    With minimal mental effort, nothing prevented the creation of a marine version of the famous 3 ", with its powerful high-explosive projectile. And put two guns within the same weight. And if you remove 47 mm, then three.
    I understand that the OFS for 3 "was able to pile only towards the end of the war, but this only confirms the stupidity of the military and naval leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 February 2022 15: 48
      +2
      Quote: Grossvater
      I understand that the OFS for 3 "was able to pile only towards the end of the war

      They didn't make it to the war, Alexey. Even in ground forces
      1. Grossvater
        Grossvater 2 February 2022 16: 59
        +1
        Yes, I understand that it smacks of an alternative, but I don’t see a single reason preventing the RIF from having anything similar to the F35 or 36 in service at the beginning of the century, I confuse them all the time.
        1. Alf
          Alf 2 February 2022 19: 53
          0
          Quote: Grossvater
          F35 or 36

          What is this???
          1. Grossvater
            Grossvater 3 February 2022 19: 13
            0
            ? Naval guns 76,2/50, division cartridge. Nothing fundamentally complicated. 35th for submarines, 36th for surface ships. The guns were already rejected by the Soviet sailors. Obviously, some, as the British wrote, lack of imagination, was present in the thirties.
        2. Alf
          Alf 3 February 2022 19: 50
          0
          Quote: Grossvater
          Yes, I understand that it smacks of an alternative, but I don’t see a single reason preventing the RIF from having anything similar to the F35 or 36 in service at the beginning of the century, I confuse them all the time.

          So 75/50 had about the same performance characteristics. What is the point of planting a garden? Moreover, for Kane, the initial velocity of the projectile is higher with approximately the same mass of explosives.
      2. Alf
        Alf 2 February 2022 19: 50
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Grossvater
        I understand that the OFS for 3 "was able to pile only towards the end of the war

        They didn't make it to the war, Alexey. Even in ground forces

        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 February 2022 19: 56
          +5
          Sample 1907 RYAV ended in 1905.
          1. Alf
            Alf 2 February 2022 19: 58
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Sample 1907 RYAV ended in 1905.

            Come on ? Thanks for enlightening me. laughing
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              2 February 2022 20: 03
              +1
              You're welcome. Contact
        2. Grossvater
          Grossvater 3 February 2022 19: 20
          0
          For 75/50! The weight of the gun on a light machine is a little more than 2 tons. Three-inch on a wheeled carriage weighed a little more than a ton. Instead of one kaneshki, you could put two three-inch. 600 capes are more than enough for shooting those hundreds of meters on which the destroyers of that time fought.
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 3 February 2022 21: 08
            0
            Quote: Grossvater
            Instead of one kaneshki, you could put two three-inch.

            The Japanese did something similar on the Kamikaze type.
    2. Alf
      Alf 2 February 2022 19: 47
      0
      Quote: Grossvater
      but this only confirms the stupidity of the military and naval leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia.

      Destroyers for the Japanese Empire were designed in Britain, armed with 1-75 and 2-3 57-mm. Dumb?
      1. unknown
        unknown 2 February 2022 21: 55
        0
        1 76 mm gun, 5 57 mm guns.
        Then the aft 57 mm gun was replaced by a second 76 mm gun.
        There were no high-explosive shells for 76 mm guns either.
        1. Grossvater
          Grossvater 3 February 2022 19: 35
          0
          76,2 / 40 weight is indicated 580 kg. Even if it is only a pipe with a shutter, then all together it will be no more than a ton. 47 and 57 mm each. At 57 mm, the projectile is TWO times heavier. By the way, the initial speed of the insolent three-inch was a little less than 700 capes. So the British were not so stupid. Even surprising winked!
    3. mmaxx
      mmaxx 3 February 2022 13: 26
      0
      The "Russian" three-inch rifle had a projectile and a charge that did not fully utilize the capabilities of the caliber. Because of these shells, all Soviet three-inch guns were weak.
      The French were friendly.
      1. Grossvater
        Grossvater 3 February 2022 19: 17
        0
        It depends on what is considered the capabilities of the caliber. OFS was more than powerful. Large muzzle energy was required either for firing at long distances or for firing at armor. Which of the options do you think is likely when shooting at or from mimonos?
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 5 February 2022 04: 18
          0
          So, those are just omissions. Nobody bothered to create a normal OFS for 75 mm. And 3 inches initially had, roughly speaking, a small projectile and a small charge, that is, the entire cartridge. All possible ballistics of the caliber were not used. And the USSR suffered from this. There were a lot of shells and we had to make cannons for them and shells again for the cannons. The Germans on captured guns of this caliber bored out the chamber and got an excellent gun for their shells.
  16. andron352
    andron352 2 February 2022 21: 56
    +5
    Some fifteen years ago, my wife and I decided to go to the Aurora. A cadet Nakhimovets approached us and offered to climb into the conning tower, for a fee, of course. I agreed and we went. There he began to talk about the felling device and then, pointing to the log dial, said that Aurora developed up to 30 knots. To my remark, a hundred this is not at all true, I began to prove that it’s up to 30 or a little more on the dial, I don’t remember. I had to do a little educating.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 February 2022 14: 46
      -1
      Quote: andron352
      There he began to talk about the felling device and then, pointing to the log dial, said that Aurora developed up to 30 knots. To my remark, one hundred is not at all true, I began to prove that here on the dial up to 30 or a little more, I don’t remember. I had to do a little educating.

      Did you tell him about the ZAZ-968 "constipation" speedometer, marked up to 160 km / h? wink
  17. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 2 February 2022 23: 03
    +1
    The author missed an interesting story with Pallas in Japan. It is believed that after the overhaul, the Pallas showed a speed well above 20 knots in Japanese hands. With the same machines and contours. True, in addition to correcting the construction trim, the Japanese seem to have changed the boilers as well.

    Apparently, conclusions about the reasons for the low speed of the goddesses should have been made primarily by studying the experience of increasing it.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 February 2022 06: 50
      +2
      Quote: Saxahorse
      It is believed that after the overhaul, Pallas showed a speed well above 20 knots in Japanese hands.

      they dismantled it at Tsushima, and came to the conclusion that this was incorrect information. Japanese sources were cited, which stated the exact opposite - 19,2 or 19,5 knots, I don’t remember, like 19,28
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 3 February 2022 22: 21
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        they dismantled it at Tsushima, and came to the conclusion that this was incorrect information.

        It may be wrong, but references to this story are still found on every corner. It was worth disassembling once they took up the search for the reasons for the low speed of the goddesses.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 3 February 2022 13: 30
      0
      I read somewhere that on "Diana" the maximum power was not achieved on all boilers. 4 were redundant. We miscalculated...
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 3 February 2022 16: 35
        +1
        In the event of damage to part of the boilers or pipes during the battle, the excess steam production from the ballast becomes a boon.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 3 February 2022 17: 13
          +1
          This is the first time I've heard of such foresight. New word.
          1. Grossvater
            Grossvater 3 February 2022 19: 38
            +2
            If I don’t confuse, such foresight was present, for example, in the latest projects of the RIF battleships. Do not take it for work, get up from the sofa, stretch out your hand and take off Vinogradov's shelf, "The Last Giants ..."
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 5 February 2022 04: 23
              0
              I still need to find this book. I have a bad copy. Falls apart into leaves. If I find it, I won't look for it. And then the last one will fall apart laughing
              But they also did not build steamships. Everything is good to have in stock. But engineering is wrong.
          2. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 3 February 2022 22: 18
            +2
            Quote: mmaxx
            This is the first time I've heard of such foresight. New word.

            Rurik II in the same way had 4 extra boilers. In this way, they tried to compensate for problems with fuel quality. Coal differed in quality and, as a result, calorie content in a very wide range. As a result, on a cardif, the boiler has one steam capacity, and on some kind of brown coal it is much less. This is another reason for switching to oil.
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 5 February 2022 04: 26
              +1
              It is easier to rely on bad coal for boilers initially. On the good and so everything will be fine.
              Some strange things. Have a spare boiler room with boilers, stokers, etc.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 5 February 2022 17: 32
                +1
                Quote: mmaxx
                It is easier to rely on bad coal for boilers initially.

                Well, in Russia, this is exactly how the maritime department expected! Plus 4 boilers of 50-80 tons, just in case. But in England and Japan, "just in case," the cardiff was stored at naval bases. Also an option.
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 5 February 2022 20: 19
                  +1
                  It's not 50-80. Plus a boiler room. What foresight! But the stock of displacement to lay down to correct the chronic overload of the mind was not enough on any ship. And everyone knows that displacement is constantly growing in operation. It's easier to remove the guns. And the main ones. And to instruct 20 (!) mallets is normal. Yes, even transport is a problem to sink with blanks. It seems like these cruisers are trade fighters?
                  Therefore, I do not believe that the extra boilers were made on purpose. They just screwed up with the cars. Power was not enough. And they screwed up with the boilers, because their capacity became redundant.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 5 February 2022 21: 04
                    0
                    Quote: mmaxx
                    Therefore, I do not believe that the extra boilers were made on purpose. They just screwed up with the cars.

                    Probably you misunderstand the word "specially". wink

                    The requirements for the excess heating area of ​​the boiler grate were originally laid down in the performance characteristics, as well as the requirements for power output by natural draft without forced inflation.

                    This has its plus, oddly enough, but Russian ships, as a rule, really showed their tabular performance characteristics even in war conditions, which cannot be said, for example, about Japanese ships made within the framework of British standards.
  18. 27091965
    27091965 3 February 2022 13: 34
    +1
    Dear Andrey. Thanks for the interesting article.

    As mentioned above, the initial armament of the cruiser in 2 * 203 mm and 8 * 152 mm with 27 * 57 mm anti-mine guns inspired serious respect, and even after replacing 203 mm with 152 mm it still looked good.

    Fortunately, they paid attention in time to the latest German armored cruisers, with their 2 * 210-mm, 8 * 150-mm and 10 * 88-mm guns, with which the Dianas might have had to fight, and again changed the composition of the artillery , now up to 10 * 152 mm, 20 * 75 mm and 8 * 37 mm guns.


    As I think, the English influence is also visible in the issue of weapons. At that time, the British were considering strengthening the armament of armored cruisers with a displacement of 5000-7000 tons by installing guns of a larger caliber than 6 inches. After conducting experimental firing and calculations, they came to a conclusion.

    " An unarmored design where a high explosive projectile will hit, and where equal if not more damage can be done by a large number of projectile hits with a moderate individual destructive effect. The number of quick-firing guns, 6 inch or 4 inch, would have been preferable to fewer larger caliber guns with shells of greater individual bursting power but firing more slowly. The total energy in this case would not be taken into account as the hit of one projectile of a larger caliber, but as the number of hits and the total energy of the explosions."

    I think that these conclusions did not go unnoticed in our Naval Department.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 February 2022 17: 35
      +1
      Quote: 27091965i
      I think that these conclusions did not go unnoticed in our Naval Department.

      I'm pretty sure of it. But this was hardly the basis for replacing 203 mm with 152 mm for Dian. Nevertheless, the conclusions of the British implied that a larger amount of 152 mm would be more effective than a smaller one - 203 mm, and then a one-to-one replacement hi
      1. 27091965
        27091965 3 February 2022 18: 03
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But this was hardly the basis for replacing 203 mm with 152 mm for Dian. Nevertheless, the conclusions of the British implied that a larger amount of 152 mm would be more effective than a smaller one - 203 mm, and then a one-to-one replacement

        It is clear that this cannot be considered the main reason, the British still had complaints about the deck 8-inch installations, although they re-equipped several old battleships. But these ships were designed for coastal defense and convoy escort.
        1. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 3 February 2022 19: 22
          +1
          Quote: 27091965i
          the British still had complaints about deck 8-inch installations, although they re-equipped several old ironclads.

          Were they even using them at the time?
          EMNIP the Angles themselves used 234mm, and 203 were exclusively for export.
          1. 27091965
            27091965 3 February 2022 19: 50
            0
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            Were they even using them at the time?
            EMNIP the Angles themselves used 234mm, and 203 were exclusively for export.

            Dear Ivan, I answered you this question. W. Armstrong's attempts to promote his 8 inches into the English fleet at that time failed, and J. Fisher did not help either. In my opinion, three old battleships were rearmed with these guns, I can see their names. You are right, they were mainly exported and used in coastal artillery. One of the disadvantages of deck installations was the difficulty of using a heavy projectile, the British believed that if this weapon was adopted, it should be included in the ammunition load. In terms of a heavy projectile, they had their own requirements. When using it on armored cruisers of 5000-7000 tons of these guns, it will be necessary to install towers. This was considered, in the Admiralty, not rational. When in 1898 it was proposed to increase the caliber of medium guns on battleships W. White replied that if such a decision was made, then preference would be given to 234 mm guns. I cannot write why he had no desire to cooperate with W. Armstrong, although this can be attributed to his unflattering reviews of the Elswick cruisers.
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 3 February 2022 19: 57
              0
              Quote: 27091965i
              Dear Ivan, I answered you this question.

              So I remembered request
              Sori
              Quote: 27091965i
              One of the disadvantages of deck installations was the difficulty of using a heavy projectile, the British believed that if this weapon was adopted, it should be included in the ammunition load. In terms of a heavy projectile, they had their own requirements. When using it on armored cruisers of 5000-7000 tons of these guns, it will be necessary to install towers.

              It seems that on the "Edgars" they once got confused with deck 234mm guns and did not hunt like that anymore.
              1. 27091965
                27091965 3 February 2022 21: 17
                +1
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                It seems that on the "Edgars" they once got confused with deck 234mm guns and did not hunt like that anymore.

                It's not much about that. When the "Diadem" was being designed in England, they came to the conclusion that it makes no sense to install 234 mm guns. The reason was that 6 inch guns pierced the armor of the armored cruiser "Dupuy-de-Lôme" and the cruisers that became the continuation of the series, 234 mm guns did not pierce the armor belt of the French battleships, but were too powerful against the "Dupuy-de-Lôme". Enough 6 inch, so we decided not to use them. As for the duel "Diadem" and the armored cruiser "Rurik", it was considered quite enough to have 6 inch guns for inflicting serious damage to non-armored parts of the ship and guns. At the same time, "Diadem" most of the guns had good protection.
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 5 February 2022 04: 30
                  +1
                  This is correct. Even at a new level, in the end, 6-dm was enough. And the cruiser as a class ended with this caliber. There were handsome "Des Moines", and then somehow everything.
                  1. 27091965
                    27091965 5 February 2022 15: 52
                    +2
                    Quote: mmaxx
                    This is correct. Even at a new level, in the end, 6-dm was enough. And the cruiser as a class ended with this caliber

                    Different countries approached this issue in different ways. The US Navy believed that 12 - 13 inch guns were designed to penetrate thick belt armor, 8 inch guns for breaking through casemates, 5 and 6 inch guns for unarmored parts of the ship. Everyone had different views, where they were similar, where they were different.
                    1. mmaxx
                      mmaxx 5 February 2022 20: 30
                      0
                      I write with future tenses in mind. And then yes, confusion and vacillation. But in general, the cruiser does not need more than 6-dm. Even later.
                      And it’s also interesting how the Americans were going to get into the casemates and into the armor belt, and that’s right with the right caliber. Snipers.
                      1. 27091965
                        27091965 6 February 2022 08: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: mmaxx
                        And it’s also interesting how the Americans were going to get into the casemates and into the armor belt, and that’s right with the right caliber. Snipers.

                        These desires date back to 1895. The Spanish-American War showed that 8 inch guns and turrets had design flaws, it was hot, smoky and difficult to observe enemy ships. As the saying goes "to want and have two big differences." Therefore, the number of hits was less than one shell per gun.
                      2. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 6 February 2022 08: 51
                        +1
                        It was Churchill who said, like: "Americans will always find the right solution. Before trying all the others."
  19. Suleimanvtoroi
    Suleimanvtoroi 4 February 2022 12: 53
    +1
    In short, they riveted garbage after garbage, but all this was technically justified. And there is absolutely nothing to criticize the Grand Duke for ...
  20. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 5 February 2022 00: 13
    +1
    In the light of subsequent events, I am not inclined to criticize Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich for this decision.
    - I'm inclined
    Because the idea of ​​​​building ships and their laying always takes place for a period of at least 30 - 50 years. To do this, you need to engage in politics, and not with the women to twist and support, for kickbacks from the construction of warships. That is, the force that provides your power. But he didn’t have enough brains, just like his now “holy” brother, who, having learned about his brother’s deeds, did not punish him because of his gentle nature, but lost power and Russia.
  21. mmaxx
    mmaxx 5 February 2022 04: 37
    +1
    Nevertheless, reducing the number of six-inchers is a mistake and a very big one. I do not think that the enemies suffered much from the crackling of 75 mm blanks. A hole from them in the board was hammered like a crowbar. If flat - a little more. And I don’t think that their location below the main deck is good. And shooting along the shore is generally useless. Here are 14 guns in WWI on the Aurora - that's right. Such a ship should have been, if you think with your head.
  22. Andybuts
    Andybuts 9 February 2022 15: 36
    0
    Great losers. Diana-class cruisers

    these ships cannot be called completely losers. The blank shot of the Aurora will be remembered for centuries. How many equally famous ship shots do we know, even if they are battle shots from famous battleships?
  23. Alex trunin
    Alex trunin 21 February 2022 14: 09
    0
    Tsushima was screwed. AND .