Steam ships from the Crimean War

66
Steam ships from the Crimean War

On March 27, 1854, England and France declared war on Russia, and the Crimean War began. Since both powers had no land border with Russia, actions came to the fore fleet. In Russian-language literature there is an opinion that sailing ships had no chance against steam ships. Why? Well, just like that. We are asked to take this on faith.

Let's try to figure out what the Allied steam ships were like at that time.




Sail or steam?


Let's start with historical references.

In 1801, the paddle-wheeled steam ship Charlotte Dundas sailed the Clyde Canal against the wind for the first time. In 1812 the ship Themes covered the distance from Greenlock to London. In 1819 the steamship Savanah crossed the Atlantic. But for the time being, the steamships did not go into production - they had too many childhood diseases, common at the stage of crude technology.

So, in 1825, Thomas Cochrane ordered five steam corvettes for the Greek fleet, but within a year the English shipyards were able to build only one, moreover, before reaching Greece, the corvette changed from a steam corvette to a sailing corvette - the explosion of the boilers damaged the car so much that it was out of order . All five corvettes had constant problems with their boilers and spent more time undergoing repairs than sailing. As a result, the Greeks believed that they had thrown money away.

1
Greek steam corvette Kartería at the Battle of Itea.

In the 1820s and 1830s, sailing battleships and frigates continued to be the basis of the fleet. In England all this time there were disputes between supporters of the “young school” and “traditionalists”: the former believed that the fleet should switch to steam as quickly as possible, the latter said that wind, sails and the testaments of antiquity are quite enough, and all these steamships of yours are possible only on calm rivers and lakes, because in the sea, due to waves, all these paddle wheels and propellers simply cannot work.

To resolve this dispute, in 1844, the chief surveyor of the fleet, William Symonds, on his own initiative, created an “experimental squadron” of steam ships, which made several cruises around England and proved that steam ships were quite seaworthy.

The First Lord, who was then Edward Law, Earl of Ellenborough, a “traditionalist,” demanded that Symonds stop his experiments, but the surveyor did not pay attention to these demands. As a result, in 1848 he was dismissed.

In the same year, the Principal Storekeeper of the Ordnance, Thomas Hastings, proposed converting one of the old 74-guns - installing a steam engine there, sawing off the masts and using it as a self-propelled battery to defend Sheerness. The experience turned out to be successful, and to protect Portsmouth, Hastings proposed reformatting 4 more battleships and 6 frigates in the same vein.

Actually, this is how the famous English blockships appeared - the 60-gun Blenheim, Ajax, Hogue and Edinburgh. 200 thousand pounds were spent on their conversion, and all the ships turned out to be slow-moving, with a speed of 450–4 knots on a low-power steam engine (5 hp), and no more than 6 knots with sails.

Since the ships were being redesigned and not created according to the project, it was necessary to remove some of the guns, reduce the size of the provisions and water accepted, etc. As a result, the supply of coal on the blockships was calculated for exactly 4 days, and the reserve of provisions and water, instead of six months, was loaded only for two month.

1
Review of the English fleet at Spithead, August 1853.

A separate problem was vibration, which was present in all models of steam battleships of the 1840s. Because of it, the accuracy of artillery fire was greatly reduced; “traditionalists” more than once reproached this to representatives of the “young school” who advocated the widespread transfer of battleships to steam. Like, if warships are created for combat, then how will they shoot when it is impossible to aim due to vibration? It turns out that in battle our newest screw ships again become... sailing.

The solution was complex, from the mathematical calculation of the lengths and curvature of the blades to the scientific method. In 1851, the Admiralty's experiments to get rid of vibration ended in relative success - it was not possible to get rid of vibration completely, but it was greatly reduced.

It would seem that the project was unsuccessful, but in 1855 the British converted 5 more battleships using the same principle - Russell, Cornwallis, Hawke, Pembroke and Hastings. In the Crimean War, only HMS Pembroke was able to distinguish itself in sinking ships - it accidentally rammed and sank the English merchant brig Lady Sale off the Isle of May.

Actually, the French did the same thing, converting sailing ships into steam ones; they called such conversions with low-power machines mixte.

3
French 130-gun ship Montebello, later converted into a steam ship.

It was only in the 1850s that it was understood that a full-fledged steam propeller-driven battleship had to be built from scratch, and a ship design had to be developed, with space for a vehicle, for coal, for supplies and weapons. As a result, the first full-fledged steam battleships entered service only in 1851–1852; in the English fleet these were Sans Pareil and Agamemnon. But... on both ships they again installed weak engines, 550 and 600 hp. With. accordingly, therefore their speed did not exceed 7,5 knots.

In 1850, the French launched the first full-fledged steam screw battleship Napoleon, and it was essentially the only normal ship the Allies had in the Crimean War - a 960-horsepower machine. sec., speed 12 knots, coal supply for 9 days at full speed, provisions reserve for 3 months.

But even in 1853–1854, steam ships and steam engines were very crude, and the basis of all fleets was still sailing ships.

Tactics of use


Let us give an example.

On October 22, 1853, the screw ships of the British and French, having raised anchors, tried to sail up the Dardanelles Strait, with sailing battleships in tow. But they were disappointed. Charlemagne (120 horsepower machine) with Valmy in tow found the opposing current so strong that it stopped towing even before it passed through the strait. The British screw ship of the line Sans Pareil (500 horsepower) attempted to tow the collier but also failed.

Only two towing attempts were successful: the most powerful (650 hp) in the French fleet, the wheeled steam frigate Homere towed Iéna - although very slowly.

Also, the newest screw battleship Napoleon (960 horsepower), taking the French flagship Ville de Paris in tow, crossed the strait with impressive ease, leaving behind most of the French and all the British ships. As a result, the Allies had to wait for favorable winds to enter the Bosporus.

The surface current in the Dardanelles is only 4 knots, but, as we see, it has become insurmountable for most of the steam ships of the allied squadron. Yes, of course, these steam ships were weighed down by tugs, but still.

4
HMS Agamemnon.

In total, the Allies in the Black Sea in 1854 had five screw battleships - these are three full-fledged battleships: Napoleon, Sans Pareil and Agamemnon, and two mixte: Charlemagne (120 hp) and Montebello (140 hp). The remaining Allied ships were sailing ships.

How were steam battleships supposed to be used in a hypothetical battle?

Oddly enough - but with the car turned off and under sail. Maneuvers on the Spithead roadstead in August 1853 showed that to successfully capture the enemy’s head or cut a line, not individual screw battleships are needed, but a fleet of screw battleships, since the bulk of sailing ships simply do not have time to come to their aid.

That is why Solomon’s decision was made - the speed of the squadron is determined by the speed of the slowest ship, therefore... it will use steam ships as sailing ships as part of a sailing squadron. They only need a steam engine on the transition to battle.

The Baltics


So, as we found out, the Allies sent only five screw battleships to the Black Sea. What was sent to the Baltic?

Composition of the Anglo-French squadron (LC only):

5

As you can see, there is a much larger number of propeller battleships here. But, if we carefully study the composition, we again see problems.

Firstly, 4 blockships, which we have already talked about, and one mixte with a weak car were inserted into the outfit.

120-gun Royal George - converted, but the number of guns had to be reduced to 89, coal was stowed on the accommodation deck, and the water supply was reduced to two weeks. After the conversion, the ship turned out to be so bad that even before the end of the Crimean War in 1856, it was converted into a troop transport.

The 91-gun Princess Royal is also a conversion. There was a supply of coal for exactly two days, the speed did not exceed 6 knots.

The 131-gun Duke of Wellington was originally built as a sailing ship, but then the design was changed and the ship was converted into a steam-powered one. A fairly powerful engine (780 hp) was installed on the ship, which turned out to be unreliable, its boilers constantly failed, so in the 1854 campaign the ship was used as a sailing ship, and in 1856 it was generally laid up for a long time in Devonport .

That is, of the English squadron, only St. was a full-fledged ship. Jean d'Acre and Cressy, all other battleships had big problems as steam ships.

Some conclusions


Despite the presence of a large number of steam battleships among the British and French during the Crimean War, the technology of steam engines had not yet been fully developed, it was simply crude. Some of the ships were converted sailing ships, on which weak-powered vehicles were installed, and due to a reduction in armament, a reduction in supplies of food and water, and a densification of the deployment of personnel.

6
French steam battleship Napoleon.

These ships were not full-fledged combat steam ships, but, most likely, an attempt to somehow plug one or another gap in the admirals’ considerations. In battle, steam battleships were supposed to be used as ordinary sailing ships; they started talking about creating separate detachments of steam ships only after the Crimean War.

Well, a separate question - did the Russian sailors know about these problems?

The answer will be simple - yes, they knew. At the same maneuvers on the Speedhead roadstead, captain (future admiral) Butakov was present as an observer; the problems and childhood illnesses of steam ships were widely discussed in the English and French press (in particular in the Times), moreover, at the expert level, this is all studied by Russian representatives in England who were involved in the purchase of ships.

Moreover, it was during the Crimean War that steam ships found themselves in the conditions of real combat operations, all the difficulties of the Baltic and Black Sea navigation; in fact, in the conditions of a real war, their machines and engineering systems experienced failure.

And most of the problems and diseases of steam ships were corrected only by 1857, that is, after the Crimean War, and the very tactics of using steam ships were developed only in 1859.

Why didn’t Russian captains and admirals decide to fight a decisive battle either in the Black Sea or in the Baltic?

But we will leave this question unanswered, let everyone draw their own conclusions.

References:
1. Hamilton C. A. “Anglo-French naval rivalry, 1840–1870” - Military literature (militera.lib.ru), 2006.
2. Brereton V.M. “The British Fleet in the Black Sea” - London, 1856.
3. Baumgart, Winfried. "The Crimean War, 1853–1856" - London, UK and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
4. Chevalier, Louis E. “Histoire de la Marine Française de 1815 a 1870” – Paris, France, Librairie Hachette et Companie, 1900.
5. Clowes, Sir William Laird. “The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to the Present” (7 Volumes) – London, UK: Sampson, Low, Marston and Co., 1897–1903 [Volume VI: 1901].
6. Lambert, Andrew D. “The Crimean War. British Grand Strategy Against Russia, 1853–1856" - Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1991.
7. Tritten JJ “A Doctrine Reader: The Navies of the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Spain” - “Naval War College Newport Papers”, 2012.
8. Brown DK “Royal Navy in the Crimean war: technological advances” - “Colloque International Marine et Technique”, Paris, June, 1987.
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    17 October 2023 04: 52
    The author “swept the picture of the history of the steam fleet” with a broad stroke, excluding from the narratives both steamship-frigates and the first armored French monitors. The problem was much broader and more complex.
    Good day to all !!!
    1. +8
      17 October 2023 05: 20
      The author clearly showed with what the Allies entered the Baltic and the Black Sea in 1854, I won’t say anything about the passage of frigates, but armored monitors did not exist then and even if they were available they would not have participated in a squadron battle, and the opinion is that give the Russians a fight at the beginning of the war, especially in the Baltic, the Allies would have had a bad time because the training of the crews was terrible, it was common back in the 19th century.
      1. +3
        17 October 2023 06: 34
        I agree it was necessary to write “forerunners of monitors”. I write about Lava, Tonnan, Devastation, Foudroyant and Congreve. Which were essentially steam floating batteries with armor.
    2. +8
      17 October 2023 09: 15
      To start. Self-propelled armored batteries appeared only in 1855.
      Secondly, they did not influence the tactics of battles at sea at all; they were a means of fighting against the shore.
      1. +6
        17 October 2023 09: 36
        First Makhov on the site, then Makhov in the comments. Nice.
        No matter how much they criticize VO, people get involved
      2. +4
        17 October 2023 11: 40
        Quote: Sergey Makhov
        To start. Self-propelled armored batteries appeared only in 1855.
        Secondly, they did not influence the tactics of battles at sea at all; they were a means of fighting against the shore.

        You contradict yourself.
        From the article:
        That same year... Thomas Hastings proposed converting one of the old 74-guns - putting a steam engine there, sawing off the masts and using it as a self-propelled battery to defend Sheerness. The experience turned out to be successful, and to protect Portsmouth, Hastings proposed reformatting 4 more battleships and 6 frigates in the same vein.

        Actually, this is how the famous English blockships appeared - the 60-gun Blenheim, Ajax, Hogue and Edinburgh. 200 thousand pounds were spent on their conversion, and all the ships turned out to be slow-moving, with a speed of 450–4 knots on a low-power steam engine (5 hp), and no more than 6 knots with sails.

        Essentially the same floating batteries with a steam engine for the defense of ports from the surface forces of the adversary.
        Even earlier, the Demosthenes (a steamship with a catamaran design) was launched in the USA, the main purpose of which was to protect the roadstead.
        Just because the French used their self-propelled batteries against fortifications does not mean that they were built for that purpose.
        In the fleets of the sea powers of that time there were several types of ships of this class, from rowing (steam) gunboats to prams and bombardment ships.
        In essence, when assessing the fleet of the Crimean Company, it is not productive to ignore the emergence of the “armor and projectile” dispute.
        At least you remembered about “Napoleon”, but for some reason you forgot to mention the fact that it received wooden armor.
        1. +5
          17 October 2023 13: 13
          No, I'm not contradicting myself. It is you who equate Lave-type self-propelled batteries with blockships.
          The speed of these batteries was 4-5 knots; at the slightest disturbance they threatened to sink, and they were originally developed as a means against fortresses. By the way, the previous article quite touches on this issue.
    3. +6
      17 October 2023 09: 15
      To start. Self-propelled armored batteries appeared only in 1855.
      Secondly, they did not influence the tactics of battles at sea at all; they were a means of fighting against the shore.
    4. +2
      17 October 2023 17: 06
      Hello namesake. Unfortunately, the author is not: Andrey from Chelyabinsk.
      Perhaps I'm biased? Then I apologize. I am that I am
      1. +4
        17 October 2023 18: 55
        Perhaps I'm biased?

        Rather, yes, the author has written many articles and several books on the Age of Sail and is perhaps the main enthusiast and popularizer of the topic in RuNet.
        1. +1
          17 October 2023 19: 35
          Quote: Engineer
          Perhaps I'm biased?

          Rather, yes, the author has written many articles and several books on the Age of Sail and is perhaps the main enthusiast and popularizer of the topic in RuNet.

          I have a decent Russian-language library of several thousand books, including about the fleet. Unfortunately, I have not seen or purchased the author’s works. Although I update it regularly.
          Regarding “popularization”, it can be different. There are Medical and Shirokorads, and there are Dotsenko, Katorin and Ivanov.
          So far, local Andrey from Chelyabinsk is much more interesting to me. By the way, I do not claim exclusivity, but the company at Military Review was toothy, erudite and knowledgeable. The last hamster in the History section was “harassed” a year and a half ago. Therefore, there is a sincere and secret desire to read the author’s interesting and deep works on marine topics, and not articles for “neophytes.”
          By the way, the Author is definitely a plus for starting the discussion. I won’t even be offended by him if he flattens me into a pancake, as you did on topics close to you.
          Sincerely, Kote!
          1. +4
            17 October 2023 21: 32
            Unfortunately, I have not seen or purchased the author’s works.


            https://www.moscowbooks.ru/book/645509/
            https://www.labirint.ru/books/259740/

            I personally read this one and can recommend it.
            https://www.labirint.ru/books/576830/

            From the point of view of specialization (sailing), the author has practically no competitors in Russia. And especially in VO, don’t blame me. And it is not expected. The author writes monographs, even if in a popular presentation, and does not measure Schvorts.

            In general, it’s very cool that such people have appeared here (Kozlenko would be here too). And it’s better not to start a discussion (any kind) with the sacramental domestic “Who are you?”
  2. +5
    17 October 2023 06: 10
    It's funny, but in 1855 the Baltic Fleet had the opportunity to defeat the Anglo-French squadron at a mine and artillery position near Kronstadt.
    The command of the Anglo-French squadron held several military councils and came to the conclusion that “an attack on Kronstadt would be tantamount to suicide.” Obviously, the pessimistic assessment was caused by what happened on June 8 (20), 1855, when a detachment of steam ships of the Anglo-French squadron entered a Russian minefield. Almost simultaneously, the steam frigate and 3 steamships were blown up.
    The power of the powder charges of the first Russian anchor mines was insignificant. All the British ships that were blown up remained afloat. The moral effect of the first combat use of mine weapons in history far outweighed the material losses of the enemy. The mine explosions caused panic. When it subsided, the enemy ships and vessels began to retreat. Having discovered and caught about 70 mines, the Allies came to the conclusion that the minefield was set up over a large area, its boundaries were impossible to determine, and it was possible that the Russians would use more powerful mines, which could cause the ships to sink or be damaged for a long time. Having abandoned the attack on Kronstadt, the admirals decided to limit themselves to a long-range blockade.
    (1854–1855 – Defense of Kronstadt and St. Petersburg)
    1. +8
      17 October 2023 06: 32
      At the initial stage, even the Black Sea Fleet could counter the Allied landing operations, but...
      1. -3
        17 October 2023 09: 17
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        At the initial stage, even the Black Sea Fleet could counter the Allied landing operations, but...

        The Black Sea Fleet is still preserved in Novorossiysk. Instead of participating in hostilities. The fleet does not fulfill its intended purpose and the Black Sea was lost to a country without a fleet. Pigs roam to Crimea on a regular basis. Ships go to their ports. And the fleet hid in Novorossiysk. His next base is the bottom of Tsemes Bay.
        1. +1
          17 October 2023 14: 53
          Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
          The Black Sea Fleet is still preserved in Novorossiysk. Instead of participating in hostilities.

          In the wet dreams of Finnish LGBT advertisers. Corvettes and MRKs are constantly coming out. Actually, the constant cries of the ball, gybar and tsipsoshniks about the “next sinking” of “Derzhavin” seem to directly confirm this.
        2. 0
          17 October 2023 17: 16
          Actually, Feodosia is also Crimea, but it won’t reach the point of flooding in Tsemes Bay.
          Another era
      2. +2
        17 October 2023 14: 51
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        At the initial stage, even the Black Sea Fleet could counter the Allied landing operations, but...

        Likewise, the Azov squadron could have been scratched at the end. But it was simply flooded.
      3. +1
        26 October 2023 11: 43
        Hardly. Nakhimov, Kornilov, Istomin do not give the impression of cowards. If there was a real opportunity to inflict significant damage on the Allied fleet, they would take advantage of it. Apparently, there is something about the real state of the Black Sea Fleet that they knew very well, but which we can now only guess about.
    2. +1
      17 October 2023 17: 14
      “It’s impossible to define its boundaries” especially if fear has large eyes
      1. +1
        30 October 2023 14: 20
        According to the expert assessment of the three leading commanders of the Black Sea Fleet, the game was not worth the candle. Well, I suspect that it was a surprise for them that, having a numerical superiority, the Russian army would generally be defeated in Crimea. Not to mention Sevastopol.
  3. +1
    17 October 2023 08: 04
    As always, the struggle between innovators and retrogrades. Man figured out how to use steam to propel ships, but bosses, admirals, lords, usually older people, old people cannot understand what it is and how to use it. And so it is in all countries, at any time and under any government. Everything new comes with a terrible creak. Unfortunately, Russia is no different from others. soldier
    1. 0
      17 October 2023 10: 46
      And so it is in all countries, at any time and under any government. Everything new comes with a terrible creak. Unfortunately, Russia is no different from others.

      Well, sometimes that's not a bad thing. Look at the "new values" in the West.
  4. +2
    17 October 2023 09: 24
    On December 12.12.1853, 25.05.1856, the wooden screw frigate “Ilya Muromets” was laid down at the Arkhangelsk Admiralty, launched on May 1858, 64,4, and entered service in 15,2. Length - 6,7 m, width -3199 m, draft - 700 m, displacement - 7,5 tons. Machine power - 1 hp, speed under steam - 200 knots, enough coal for 46 miles . Armament: 10 smoothbore guns - 196 36 mm bomb guns and 164 1860 mm conventional guns. Crew (in 18) - 458 officers and 11.09.1863 lower ranks. After two years of service in the Mediterranean Sea, the ship was excluded from the lists of the fleet on September 1863, XNUMX, and timbering was recognized as not economically feasible. The vehicle was dismantled and later installed on the Kremlin armored battery. The hull of the Ilya Muromets was sunk in the Kronstadt roadstead in XNUMX.
    In October 1856, the Arkhangelsk Admiralty ordered the screw frigate "Peresvet", but it was laid down only on June 18 (sometimes written 19) June 1858 in the presence of Alexander II. "Peresvet" participated in the American Expedition of the Russian Fleet. On October 21-23, 1865, dock repairs took place in Malta. The cost of repairs was 321 pounds sterling; the consul later sold the dismantled copper sheets for 60 pounds (I don’t know to whom and where the money went - to the Russian treasury or...). In 1866, the ship visited the construction of the Suez Canal, returned to Kronstadt and was used as a training ship. In 1874, the frigate was excluded from the lists of the fleet.
  5. +4
    17 October 2023 10: 08
    French steam battleship Napoleon.

    The spar and rigging must “sail” quite well, right?
    Driving a car against the wind (with the sails down, of course) must have been difficult.
  6. +3
    17 October 2023 12: 14
    It seems that, oddly enough, Vladimir’s fight with Pervaz Bahri, that’s what his name was, could have played a role in refusing to fight with the Allied fleet.
    The battle demonstrated the complete advantage of steam ships. But how combat-ready the ships of the allied squadron were, HZ. Now, after the passage of time, everything is clear and understandable to us. In addition, there was hope of defeating the Naglofrench on land. Unfortunately, it didn't come true.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. +6
        17 October 2023 14: 53
        It seems that, oddly enough, Vladimir’s fight with Pervaz Bahri, that’s what his name was, could have played a role in refusing to fight with the Allied fleet.
        The battle demonstrated the complete advantage of steam ships.

        And why did this battle so frighten the Russian naval commanders? Moreover, so much so that on August 30, 1855, when leaving Sevastopol as a garrison, they sank all their steam frigates - “Vladimir”, “Gromonosets”, “Bessarabia”, “Khersones”, “Odessa”, “Crimea”? Despite the fact that despite the clear advantage of steam ships over sailing ships, this entire “squadron” did not show itself in any way.
        The whole problem here is that the actions of the Russian naval commanders do not fit into the attempts to create a heroic history of the Russian fleet. Hence the torment of historians who are trying in every possible way to sculpt this very heroic story.
        1. +3
          17 October 2023 15: 44
          Some turbo-patriot has already squeezed out a minus note. But there is nothing to object to. Even the author of this article, calling it “Steam ships of the Crimean War,” actually wrote nothing about steam ships. In fact, he described the mediocre actions of the naval commanders, but he did not dare to honestly name the article. Not tightly.
          1. 0
            17 October 2023 16: 17
            Hmmm! Sorry, but at least read works of FICTION on the theme of the sailing fleet.
            Apparently, you have absolutely no idea how dependent sailboats are on the wind. Next, read something about the history of artillery of that time. Close your eyes and imagine the trajectory of a projectile fired from a smoothbore cannon and try to imagine what a longitudinal salvo from a multi-gun battleship can do to the enemy. So, steam, even as imperfect as described in the article, allows you to take any desired position in battle. In principle, Napoleon alone in calm weather was enough to sink the entire sailing fleet.
            Now about the steam frigates. They were flooded, as you yourself already wrote, before leaving the city, and bringing them into battle would have given nothing but the senseless death of the crews.
            Steam frigates, with all their zeal, could not resist the battleships. There weren't enough guns.
            The assessment of the Black Sea Fleet command's refusal to engage in naval combat is a typical afterthought.
            1. 0
              17 October 2023 16: 20
              There was no complete confidence in victory in the absence of LINEAR SCREW ships, and in case of failure, the immediate fall of Sevastopol was inevitable.
            2. +1
              17 October 2023 17: 31
              “works of art” for me are Sergeev-, Tsensky “Sevastopol with the Rada* and Stanyukovich “The Birth of a Commander”
              1. +1
                17 October 2023 17: 43
                I also know Stanyukovich, and ALSO Borshchagovsky "Russian Flag"
            3. +2
              17 October 2023 18: 21
              Well, it’s clear from you that you only read works of fiction.
              Well, horror stories from the times of Tarle.
              Let's exchange a list of references, shall we?
            4. +1
              17 October 2023 18: 56
              Apparently, you have absolutely no idea how dependent sailboats are on the wind.

              Apparently, you still did not understand the meaning of my comment. Happens. As they say, not everyone has it.
            5. +3
              17 October 2023 19: 21
              Close your eyes and imagine the trajectory of a projectile fired from a smoothbore gun

              Closed. Submitted.



              By the way, how do the ballistic curves of smoothbore and rifled guns differ?
              1. +1
                17 October 2023 22: 54
                By the way, how do the ballistic curves of smoothbore and rifled guns differ?
                Perhaps by the presence of derivation?
                1. +1
                  18 October 2023 12: 24
                  Perhaps by the presence of derivation?

                  If we are talking about a ballistic curve for artillery shells, then this is a second-order curve in any case - either an ellipse arc or a hyperbola branch.
                  1. 0
                    17 December 2023 12: 27
                    No, the trajectory of the projectile has nothing in common with these ideal curves.
              2. 0
                17 December 2023 12: 24
                The equations shown have nothing to do with the external ballistics of the projectile. They are for airless space where no one has ever shot. Air resistance is not taken into account. Which at those speeds is several times greater than the weight of the projectile itself.
            6. +4
              17 October 2023 19: 47
              Sorry, but at least read works of FICTION on the theme of the sailing fleet.

              At least take an interest in who Sergei Makhov is. This is something like advising Alexey Isaev to read Bondarev, and recommending Pikul to Miroslav Morozov.
              This author has read and knows about the sailing fleet and artillery by an order of magnitude more than 99% of the VO audience.
          2. +1
            17 October 2023 19: 23
            In fact, the ABSOLUTELY ENTIRE article is about steam ships. Only a blind person can fail to see this.
            1. +3
              17 October 2023 19: 40
              In fact, the ABSOLUTELY ENTIRE article is about steam ships. Only a blind person can fail to see this.

              Dear author, my vision is, of course, no longer what it was, but I considered the content of the article. I may not have expressed the idea very correctly, but it was meant that the main purpose of the article is not a technical description of the first steam ships, as such, since there is a minimum of technology in the article.
        2. +4
          17 October 2023 17: 26
          It’s so convenient to criticize from afterthoughts.
          Now, the “smart one” has climbed into Vika, but then...
          1. +5
            17 October 2023 17: 30
            “Everyone fancies himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the outside.” (c)

            Glory, hello! hi
          2. 0
            17 October 2023 18: 22
            Maybe you should start by reading on the topic? Well, to at least know something?
            1. +6
              17 October 2023 19: 59
              Dear Sergey (Author)! We kindly ask you to address forum members in your comments respectfully (forgive me for the tautology) and as you (with a capital letter). We all have different levels of knowledge and competencies; approaches to presenting cheap and boorish Yatoub, Tik Tok and Zen are inappropriate here.
              Justify your position, prove it with examples, and respect is guaranteed.
              All the best and success in your creativity.
              1. +5
                17 October 2023 20: 10
                Good evening, Vlad! smile
                I fully and completely support you and, God grant, that you are heard by the one to whom it was said.
                It's raining again, how are you? drinks
                1. +4
                  17 October 2023 20: 52
                  Guys let's be friends!


                  The first association on the topic is from childhood “Malakhov Kurgan” by Grigoriev. I loved. And re-read it.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. +3
                      17 October 2023 21: 35
                      But I didn’t read this. Stanyukovich was also read out.
                      Still, sailing ships are a separate world.

                      And he didn’t even try to bring it into the knowledge system.

                      But I will give it in some form. Even in the medium term.
                2. +3
                  17 October 2023 21: 04
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  Good evening, Vlad! smile
                  I fully and completely support you and, God grant, that you are heard by the one to whom it was said.
                  It's raining again, how are you? drinks

                  Hi Uncle Kostya!
                  It's warm and dry here, snow is predicted for the weekend. I'll change the tires!
                  1. +3
                    17 October 2023 21: 28
                    My friends have already changed; we somehow don’t trust meteorologists’ forecasts. smile
                    1. +3
                      17 October 2023 21: 37
                      Tomorrow there will be urban forests. Until the snow lay down.

                      And so the field season ends.
                      1. +2
                        17 October 2023 22: 05
                        Quote from Korsar4
                        Tomorrow there will be urban forests. Until the snow lay down.

                        Guys, we had a very cold June this year, but September and October were really dry and nice.
                        And so the field season ends.
                      2. +1
                        17 October 2023 22: 59
                        September was just a summer month. Due to this, spruces and other conifers did not have enough moisture.
                      3. +1
                        17 October 2023 22: 55
                        In winter, many things come to an end and the pleasing green color disappears, except for the Christmas trees. request
                      4. +1
                        17 October 2023 23: 00
                        It is for this constancy that we value them.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
          3. +1
            17 October 2023 20: 01
            Yes, Vika is, of course, a storehouse of wisdom.
    2. +1
      17 October 2023 19: 44
      The battle demonstrated the complete advantage of steam ships.

      How could a battle between two steam ships demonstrate this? It would be more logical then to remember the battle of the frigate "Flora" or "Cahul" and "Kulevchi" against "Taif".
      1. +3
        17 October 2023 20: 11
        Good evening, Nikita! smile
        Absolutely fair remark. good
    3. +3
      17 October 2023 23: 09
      Quote: Grossvater
      The battle demonstrated the complete advantage of steam ships.

      Excuse me, but what was the “completeness” of the advantage? One can recall, for example, the battle of the Russian sailing frigate Flora at Pitsunda against three Turkish steamships. The advantage is that the Turks managed to escape against the wind, dragging the damaged Taif in tow? By the way, the battle showed the great vulnerability of the wheels.
    4. 0
      30 October 2023 14: 18
      This is all true. But the admirals had a lot of pressure on their minds that, by abandoning sails altogether, they would become completely dependent on coal reserves. Rozhdestvensky's squadron had to experience this the hard way. In terms of provisions and water, sailing ships were much more autonomous. Therefore, even on Admiral Nakhimov with 8 thousand tons. there was a “rigging of a brig”, although the sailor from it was worse than ever.
  7. +5
    17 October 2023 20: 30
    I would add one more point.
    As far as I understand, the British and French have just mobilized their fleets, recruiting/calling up sailors. And we have a conscription system, that is, the crews are by default made up of professionals (not very voluntary, but still).
    That is, at the very initial stage there was still a window of opportunity...
  8. -1
    17 October 2023 20: 54
    Steamboats - yes, that's right. Initial era.
    But apparently the officers understood what problems the fleet had, since they destroyed it.
    By the way, not the only time, it seems.
    Perhaps even the enemy fleet's limited maneuverability was a trump card.
    I remember the broadcast about the Battle of Trafalgar, they described that the French could not maneuver at all, and the British sailed to the French for up to 3 hours...
  9. +2
    18 October 2023 09: 03
    The Black Sea Fleet was considered excellently prepared, even the expression Lazarevsky sailor was used for a long time.
    1cont established the tradition of the Russian fleet to be absolutely useless for the country during a war when it is needed.
    Yes, it is quite possible that an attempt to fight the Anglo-French fleet would have resulted in a defeat similar to that of Tsushima. But the enemy would also suffer losses. Especially in the landing.
    I'm not a flotophobe, but something is not right in the Russian fleet.
    1. 0
      30 October 2023 14: 22
      They would bring new ones. But for the Russians, Crimean logistics without dominance at sea and railways remained a problem.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. 0
    4 December 2023 08: 55
    There were a lot of technical problems with early steamships, both civilian and military; the technology was still crude; stationary steam engines had not yet been fully developed. A very bulky boiler and machine installation with low efficiency plus fuel occupied a significant volume of the ship’s hull, so commerce clung to the sail for a long time, the barges served next to steamships until WWII, as dry cargo ships for bulk cargo and tankers.
    One of the weak points of the first steam engines were bearings and lubrication; the machine often could not operate continuously and for a long time due to overheating of the bearings, which threatened to fire. The lining of the boilers was felt; in general, early steamships were extremely fire hazardous, remember the Amazon disaster in 1858. On wheeled vehicles, the machine was located on the main deck, vulnerable to enemy fire and increasing the center of gravity. Plus constant overload, like the misfortune of the British fleet of those times. Imagine Her Majesty's wooden chariot, equipped with a single-cylinder
    a hundred-horsepower machine, departing from the metropolis to the Antipodes in the middle of the XNUMXth century, overloaded with fuel, cargo and seekers of a better life. According to eyewitnesses, sometimes ships left the mouth of the Thames with a meter (!) of freeboard. The very first storm encountered in the Bay of Biscay, nicknamed the “bag of storms,” sometimes turned out to be the last for these “floating coffins”... An overloaded, already limited seaworthiness vessel barely climbs the wave and generally has difficulty holding its own against the waves that roll over the entire deck, demolishing everything in its path... The very first demolished hatch led to rapid flooding and death of such a trough.