English fast walkers of the Russo-Japanese War

85
English fast walkers of the Russo-Japanese War
Attack on February 9, 1904 in the genre of musha-e (the destroyers clearly do not qualify as sumo-e)

The 1st Destroyer Squadron included the newest Japanese destroyers, Akatsuki and Kasumi. The reason they managed to remain undetected before the attack was simple: the silhouette of these ships was indistinguishable from the Russian Sokol-class destroyers. They were indistinguishable because they were based on the same prototype – Royal Navy fighters...


Serving on Royal Navy destroyers is not a piece of cake... You get a cash bonus for it!

Creating a modern fleet practically from scratch, the Japanese paid a lot of attention to the high-tech of that time – torpedo boats. The Land of the Rising Sun experimented with French, German and English torpedo boats and eventually settled on the products of the British military-industrial complex. Fortunately, the notorious Sir John "Jackie" Fisher, a man whose level of vision was not inferior to Elon Musk, often managed to influence the order of ships in His Majesty's Navy. However, there was a difference: the mistakes of this visionary did not cost money to shareholders, but the lives of British sailors...




Young Rear Admiral John "Jackie" Fisher - Elon Musk of the late 19th century

Although Fisher is considered the "father of dreadnoughts", in fact, according to his vision of the future, not only they were created, but also battlecruisers (a rather controversial class of ships), and destroyers. With the latter, the situation was as follows.

The Thornycroft and Yarrow firms, which supplied not only the Royal Navy but also half the world with their products, repeatedly tried to build torpedo ships larger than destroyers (at that time, essentially torpedo boats). But the Lords of the Admiralty did not want to hear anything about it, having placed their bets on torpedo gunboats (in Russia they were called "mine cruisers"), which were supposed to sink destroyers. 33 of these ships were built, but the sailors did not like them much: the displacement was too large, the armament was too heavy, and the seaworthiness was terrible.


That same "Swift" from the "White" company

In 1884, the small (compared to Yarrow and Thornycroft) firm White built a large destroyer, Swift, at its own expense. The plan was to build a ship so good that British admirals would be physically unable to refuse it! Unlike standard 60-ton destroyers, Swift had a displacement of 140 tons and showed an excellent speed of 23,5 knots on the measured mile, which was excellent for that time.

Considering that the main potential enemy of the Royal Navy at that time were the French, who had 20-knot destroyers, the new ship received not only torpedo armament, but also a fairly strong one for its size. artillery: 4 37mm guns. It was assumed that its main prey would be enemy mine ships.


Admiral Hyacinth Theophilus Ob – the voice of the “young school”

But the speed of torpedo boats by that time was growing by leaps and bounds: in 1892, the French torpedo boat No. 149 demonstrated a speed of 24,6 knots during trials, the Lancier and Chevalier a year later – 25,6 and 27,2 knots, and in 1896, the sea-going torpedo boat Forban conquered the 30-knot barrier. And the French built torpedo boats by the dozens!

The "Young School" of Admiral Hyacinthe Theophile Aube relied on the idea of ​​"mobile defense": the stronger armored fleet of Great Britain was opposed by numerous detachments of destroyers based in all ports of the coast, concentrating, as needed, in the port closest to the concentration point of the Royal Navy.


Alfred Yarrow - the shark of British capitalism

The Admiralty bought the Swift, but did not place orders for large destroyers. In 1892, Alfred Yarrow himself approached Fisher, presenting a design for a fairly large ship, capable, in his opinion, of dealing with the hordes of French torpedo carriers. weaponsThe young rear admiral was interested in the proposal and supported it. He also came up with a name for the new class of ships: "We will call them destroyers, since their task is to destroy French destroyers."


"Hornet". Sometimes the model is clearer than the photo...

The lobbying yielded results: soon the Admiralty announced a competition for a destroyer with a displacement of 200-300 tons. In 1893, the Yarrow company built the first destroyers, the Havoc and the Hornet. These were very progressive ships for their time. The Hornet was the first to install water-tube boilers weighing 43 tons, instead of fire-tube boilers weighing 54 tons. For ships with a displacement of less than 250 tons, the weight gain was more than significant!

As a result, during the tests, the Havoc showed 27,6 knots, and the Hornet – 28,2 knots.


Thornycroft favoured twin-funneled ships. The Daring fighter.

Yarrow's main competitor, Thornycroft, built a 270-ton fighter with a triple-expansion steam engine, but the ship was unable to reach speeds above 24 knots, as shipbuilders first encountered the phenomenon of cavitation: steam bubbles form on the surface of the propeller blades - water evaporates at high speeds and the propeller begins to "slip".

There was no theory of cavitation at that time, and the company's engineers began to change propellers at random: they managed to reach 27 knots only on the seventh pair, which had an area 45 percent larger than the first...


The three-inch gun from the cruiser Gromoboy, the main caliber of the British destroyers was not much different...

The new ships had three “chips”.

The first (and main) one is powerful artillery weapons.

The second is a speed of 26–27 knots.

And the third is mass character!

If before the advent of fighters, the standard guns on a destroyer were 37-mm guns (remember the Swift), then Fisher's fighters had one 76-mm gun and three 57-mm guns: such a set of artillery could quickly tear apart the old 60-ton destroyer, like a Tuzik a heating pad. However, it was also envisaged to use the new ships as traditional destroyers - with two guns replaced by a pair of rotating torpedo tubes.


57mm Nordenfeld gun on a coastal mount in the Vladivostok Museum of the Pacific Fleet. Destroyers had similar guns...

The increased displacement had a second advantage: in addition to installing powerful artillery, it made it possible to increase the power of the steam engine, which in turn provided a significant increase in speed. By adding "one" (artillery) plus "two" (increased speed) and adding "three" (mass), the British knocked out of the hands of the young French school its main trump card - torpedo forces capable of threatening the British armored squadrons. At the same time, the fighters, having their torpedo tubes, themselves posed a threat to the enemy linear forces.


"Bring beer and graphite!" British officers joked that in order for the Hornet to reach the speed required by the form, the stokers had to be given beer to make them work harder, and the bottom had to be greased with graphite...

Hornet was the first four-pipe fighter (Havock had two pipes) with advanced water-tube boilers. Four pipes (the number of boilers) were not a whim of shipbuilders, they provided less smoke at high speeds and better engine performance. However, unlike Yarrow, Thornycroft preferred a two-pipe design: their Daring and its sister ship Decoy made more than 28 knots and were distinguished by their trademark reliability.

The torpedo armament of the Hornet and Havoc initially consisted of three torpedo tubes: one fixed one in the bow, and a two-tube rotating one in the center plane (interestingly, the two tubes of this device were directed in opposite directions, which, according to the engineers’ idea, allowed them to fire simultaneously at both sides).

However, the bow torpedo tube on the Havoc soon had to be abandoned: high-speed fighters often rammed the torpedo launched forward: the maximum speed of the newest Mk 2 torpedoes of 1892 was only 30 knots, but it still had to be gained... The Hornet retained the bow tube, but in 1902 lost two pipes on the deck.


Port Arthur "falcon" "Angry". The destroyer was commanded by Alexander Kolchak, the Japanese armored cruiser "Takasago" was destroyed by the mines he laid

The first 42 British fighters were later called "A-class" and became the prototype of the Russian Sokol-class destroyers. Compare the performance characteristics of these ships: displacement of 240 tons, speed of 26,5 knots, armament - 1x75-mm and 3x47-mm guns, two rotating torpedo tubes. And yes - 4 pipes, like the Hornet.

However, there is nothing strange about it: the project was proposed to the Russian naval department... by the Yarrow company! 27 Sokolovs were built in Russia, 12 of which were delivered to Port Arthur in disassembled form in 1901-1902 and assembled there. Formally, they continued to be listed as destroyers in the Russian Imperial Navy, but in reality they were more often called fighters, counter-destroyers or squadron destroyers. It was the latter name that became canonical: it was officially introduced in 1907.


Japanese try to capture "Steregushchiy" (Japanese version of events)

And what about the Japanese?

Their destroyers made a more than successful debut in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 and, of course, they began to build on their successful experience! But as a model, they adopted British destroyers of a later model, classified by the British Admiralty as "class B" or 30-knot.

In 1896, Yarrow and Thornycroft received orders for 6 fighters each. These ships already had significantly more efficient boilers and slightly smaller tonnage. But the main thing is that the weight of the artillery salvo of a Japanese fighter was approximately twice as much as that of any of the Port Arthur Falcons, which was the reason for the sad fate of the Steregushchiy and the Strashny.


"Akatsuki" is the dawn, but preferred to act at night...

Subsequently, each company was ordered a pair of more "improved type" fighters, with the condition of increasing the speed to 31 knots. The 31-knot Yarrow fighters were named "Akatsuki" and "Kasumi" - "Dawn" and "Fog". They arrived in the Land of the Rising Sun very successfully: a year and a half before the war - enough for the crews to be well-acquainted, but not enough to become obsolete.

They, as the most advanced in the Japanese fleet, were included in the 1st torpedo boat detachment that attacked Russian ships in the Port Arthur roadstead. The normal displacement of the "31-knot" was 369 tons, the theoretical speed was 31 knots (the real speed was slightly less, English shipbuilders often cheated during testing), the crew was 60-62 people.

The main difference was the reinforced artillery armament: 1x76-mm cannon and 5x57-mm. According to the "Akatsuki" type, less modern destroyers were modernized at the very beginning of 1904.


Still, the first engraving is more truthful: the attack on the Port Arthur raid took place on a winter night...

The attack on the night of February 9 was successful for the Akatsuki: the torpedoes of the destroyers of this type damaged the battleship Tsesarevich and the cruiser Pallada. But further fate was not so kind to the ship.

It was this new British-built destroyer that had the dubious honor of being the first Japanese ship to perish in the Russo-Japanese War. On May 17 at 22:00, the ship struck a mine 8 miles southwest of the Liaote Peninsula and sank instantly.

And the name "Akatsuki" was given to the Russian "falcon" captured in Port Arthur – the destroyer "Reshitelny". It was under this name that it participated in the Battle of Tsushima. On the Japanese side...
85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    20 September 2024 06: 59
    for "Akatsuki": torpedoes from destroyers of this type damaged the battleship "Tsesarevich" and the cruiser "Pallada"

    And who torpedoed the battleship Retvizan?
  2. -1
    20 September 2024 07: 41
    Daring Fighter
    It might be a destroyer after all. Daring?
    1. +4
      20 September 2024 08: 18
      The young rear admiral was interested in the proposal and supported it. He also came up with a name for the new class of ships: "We will call them destroyers, since their task is to destroy French destroyers."

      Later, yes, but for now they were still called fighters. hi
      1. +3
        20 September 2024 08: 30
        Later, yes, but for now they were still called fighters.
        The bourgeoisie calls them destroyers destroyer, which means fighter. But this is a literal translation, which does not correspond to the Russian-language classification of ships. This is equivalent to the fact that if you translate the word battleship into Russian, not like that battleship, but as a battleship. A literal translation will be correct, but understanding will fade into the background...
        1. +4
          20 September 2024 14: 05
          Quote: Luminman
          The bourgeoisie calls destroyers "destroyer", which means fighter. But this is a literal translation, which does not correspond to the Russian-language classification of ships.

          And in the official Russian-language classification of ships until 1907, the class "destroyer" did not exist. smile
          The 1892 "Classification of Navy Ships" provided only three options for mine ships:
          5. Mine cruisers.
          11. Destroyers.
          12. Torpedo boats.

          Unofficially, the Falcons were classified as counter-destroyers or fighters.
          On February 25, 1904, the counter-destroyers Reshitelny and Steregushchiy were assigned to guard duty, for which they left Port Arthur at 6 p.m.
          1. +2
            20 September 2024 16: 10
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And in the official Russian-language classification of ships before 1907, there was no class of "destroyer"

            This is just empty talk - nothing more. A torpedo boat or a destroyer is a torpedo-artillery ship, and no matter what you call it, it will remain a torpedo-artillery ship. I can give an example - the repeated reclassification of the US Navy, when cruisers became frigates, and some frigates were renamed back to cruisers. At the same time, neither the displacement nor the armament changed. Another example - corvettes and frigates in the Russian fleet, which never existed in the Soviet fleet...
            1. +5
              20 September 2024 16: 53
              Quote: Luminman
              This is just empty talk, nothing more.

              This is the official classification. We don't call frigates of the sailing fleet cruisers, do we? Or mine cruisers destroyers?
              Quote: Luminman
              I can give an example - the repeated reclassification of the US Navy forces, when cruisers became frigates, and some frigates were renamed back to cruisers.

              Within the framework of the official classification. In which already existed classes such as frigate and cruiser.
              Quote: Luminman
              Another example is the corvettes and frigates in the Russian fleet, which never existed in the Soviet fleet...

              That's exactly it! We don't call a large anti-submarine ship a frigate. Or a 3rd rank anti-submarine ship a corvette.

              It is not worth spreading classifications beyond the time and state frameworks in which they are applied. Otherwise, we will have a Soviet police or the Parliament of the USSR. smile
              1. +1
                21 September 2024 06: 25
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Otherwise we will have a Soviet police or a Parliament of the USSR
                A good example. I agree...
        2. +2
          20 September 2024 18: 18
          Quote: Luminman
          The bourgeoisie calls destroyers "destroyer", which means fighter. But this is a literal translation, which does not correspond to the Russian-language classification of ships.

          Each country itself determined how to classify a ship and what term to use for its designation. In England in 1896 there were three classifications, "TORPEDO BOATS", "TORPEDO CATCHERS", "TORPEDO BOAT DESTROYERS".
    2. +3
      20 September 2024 15: 57
      At that time, the terminology had not yet been fully established. Remember the song: "How the fighter "Steregushchiy" perished, far from his native land"...
      1. +1
        20 September 2024 16: 12
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        At that time, the terminology had not yet been fully established.

        The answer is accepted, however, confusion in the names of the ships still remains... wink
        1. +1
          20 September 2024 16: 19
          A clear example is the patrol ships of project 20380, which everyone unanimously calls corvettes)))
          1. +1
            20 September 2024 16: 22
            Quote: Flying_Dutchman
            A clear example is the Project 20380 patrol ships, which everyone unanimously calls corvettes.

            А Large anti-submarine ship according to today's classification, what type of ship can it be classified as? Or rocket ship, according to the Soviet classification, both small and simple? Frigates? Or guided missile destroyers?
            1. 0
              21 September 2024 19: 33
              Hmm... "Shaposhnikov" was called a frigate (With a displacement of almost 10 thousand tons and a frigate? Original!), but after the modernization, when "Metel" was removed (if I'm not mistaken, the last time I went to sea on it was in 2011), given that anti-submarine defense tasks were usually handled by corvettes... No, even our admirals wouldn't dare call a 1st rank large anti-submarine ship a corvette)))
        2. 0
          22 September 2024 08: 08
          And will it be preserved, an aircraft-carrying cruiser or an aircraft carrier?
  3. +4
    20 September 2024 07: 49
    Thanks to the Author, the review is interesting for me.

    Regarding battlecruisers, the question is indeed controversial, but, IMHO, only regarding British battleships.

    IMHO, British battleships were more like cruisers than battleships, meaning they were suitable for "long-distance travel", for example, to get von Spee in the Falklands, but they could not withstand the German battleships, as Jutland showed. Hood also perished rather quickly.

    German battleships, IMHO, were more like battleships than cruisers and could withstand a battle quite well. However, as far as I remember, in Germany itself they were not called "battleships".
    1. +3
      20 September 2024 08: 45
      as Jutland showed, Hood also died quite quickly

      Cruiser Hood was launched at the very end of the First World War and was subsequently modernized several times. Bismarck was built in such a way that all the latest achievements of science and technology were laid into it from the very drawing board. Therefore, sinking the British cruiser was a relatively easy matter. Now remember how the whole squadron hammered the unfortunate Bismarck, and even with several torpedo bombers to boot...
      1. +2
        20 September 2024 11: 24
        Hood died from one successful salvo - just like 3 LC in the Battle of Jutland.

        Indefatigable was destroyed by hits from a 280 mm salvo from Von der Tann.
        Queen Mary was killed by 305mm hits from Derflinger.
        Invisible was destroyed by 305 mm from Lutzow.
        Bismarck had 380 mm guns.

        The German battleships were hit by 385 mm caliber hits from British battleships, none of them exploded, and one was lost, but not from an explosion.

        That is, in this case, the year of manufacture does not affect the outcome of the artillery battle - the armor of the British battleships and the characteristics of the explosives led to explosions and instant sinking with the crew.

        In general, the Germans considered their guns to be of better quality than the British, so they made them of a smaller caliber.
      2. +2
        20 September 2024 17: 45
        Quote: Luminman
        The cruiser Hood was launched at the very end of World War I and after that has been modernized several times.

        If I remember correctly, the problem with the Hood is that it was never really modernized.
        So, on small things, they added pompoms, moved the aviation platform... At that time, other countries approached modernization more responsibly. They replaced turbines and boilers with lighter and more modern ones, and used the freed weight for additional horizontal armor.
        Take at least the "Texas", where the thickness of the armored decks was increased from 37-50 mm to 160 and higher
      3. 0
        21 September 2024 06: 09
        They did pound, but the Bismarck lost its combat capability very quickly. The first hits went to the turrets and fire control system. Then it was just a massacre.
        1. +2
          21 September 2024 06: 38
          Quote: MCmaximus
          They did pound, but the Bismarck lost its combat capability very quickly. The first hits went to the turrets and fire control system. Then it was just a massacre.

          Look at the map, the path Bismarck after being hit by shells and for how many days it stayed afloat, putting up, albeit small, resistance to an entire squadron...
          1. 0
            21 September 2024 06: 45
            Days? For "Bismarck" it was all over in about 20 minutes. I'm too lazy to specify. But certainly not more. And the English didn't even bother, but went straight into a clinch.
            And yes. I mean the last battle. Not the battle in the Denmark Strait. But the last battle was decided there too - by a hit to the fuel tank. That battle was also short-lived.
            And after these 20 minutes they simply shot him, like in a shooting gallery.
      4. 0
        22 September 2024 08: 18
        Well, you know, the arrival of a 16-inch shell is a very impressive argument, so the relative ease... well, let's give the Germans their due, they shot well, by the way, there is an opinion that Prince Eugene put the final stop to Hood. I am not a researcher of this battle, but it seems to me that the British in that situation simply showed off. What prevented them from keeping their distance and calling everyone else?
        1. +1
          22 September 2024 08: 21
          Quote: Alexander Salenko
          What prevented you from keeping your distance and inviting everyone else?

          Aha! So with Bismarck it was only possible to cope after they came other? wink wink
          1. -1
            22 September 2024 08: 25
            Well, how did it happen alone? They also beat up the Prince of Wales so much that he ran away to Canada before the flood. The Englishmen's chivalry came into play and they got problems. And not only with Bismarck but also with his twin. Judging by how they hunted Tirpitz, Bismarck frankly shocked them.
    2. +1
      20 September 2024 14: 27
      Quote: S.Z.
      IMHO, British battleships were more like cruisers than battleships, meaning they were suitable for "long-distance travel", for example, to get von Spee in the Falklands, but they could not withstand the German battleships, as Jutland showed. Hood also perished rather quickly.

      And this despite the fact that 4 out of 5 tasks of the new large armored cruisers directly implied the possibility of coming under fire from enemy battleships.
      …the functions of the cruiser have not yet been clearly established, but it is believed that, theoretically, they include:
      1) conducting intelligence;
      2) support for smaller reconnaissance cruisers;
      3) an independent service for the protection of trade and the destruction of enemy raiders-cruisers;
      4) urgent arrival and cover of any actions of the fleet;
      5) the pursuit of the retreating linear fleet of the enemy ... putting him, if possible, in a hopeless position, focusing fire on the lagging ships

      In short, the British said A, but forgot to say B. They jumped in armament from their classic dual-caliber BRCMs with their 234 mm and 190 mm to an all-big-gun cruiser with 305 mm. Why did they jump? Because according to the logic of development, between the Minotaur and the Invincible there should have been an intermediate "English Blucher" - a BRCM with 10-12 234 mm guns.
      But the British forgot to add LCR protection for action in changed conditions.
      Previous BCRMs had every chance of surviving when meeting enemy EBMs in the North Sea: the enemy has few main gun barrels, the main gun rate is low, the SUAO is lousy, the typical range of detecting an enemy is greater than the range of its effective fire, so the probability of hitting is low, and 1-2 shells from a 280-mm Warrior or even a Drake will withstand.
      The new large BRKR or LKR would meet a completely different enemy. They would be brought out on the LK line, which have twice as many barrels, a higher rate of fire, better SUAO, and most importantly - the typical range of detection of the enemy has become less than or equal to the range of its effective fire. So it may not be limited to a couple of shells - they will stuff a full Panama hat, like the "Defense" or "Warrior".
      In general, Fischer should have been offered the 27-knot "Koroleva" as a light cruiser. And not eggshells armed with hammers. smile
      1. +1
        20 September 2024 16: 50
        All this is wonderful and well known.
        But the seditious thought does not leave that automatic fire doors in the loading compartment and metal cases for charges could have radically changed the situation, even with unsuccessful armor and the "trademark" British division into compartments. And the "cats" would have received the title of the best ships of WWI
        1. 0
          21 September 2024 06: 18
          The most interesting thing is that there were cases for the charges. Not brass ones. And they played a role in the death of the LKR. Because it took a long time to get the charges out of there. And they got them out in advance. And they were given in advance, higher up and in excess. And in order to load the guns faster, they also didn’t close the doors.
          Therefore, the Germans were simply lucky. The same "Lion" in two battles received the same damage as "Derfflinger" and nothing. There was simply no successful ignition of the charges for the Germans.
          And it's scary to count how much "Kirishima" received. And it would have stayed afloat if the Japanese on board hadn't helped. And the shells there weren't German runts.
          1. 0
            22 September 2024 08: 21
            Why was it lucky? Maybe the designers made a mistake? Luck is when you shoot blindly and hit the target.
            1. +2
              22 September 2024 09: 14
              Yes, we have already written about this. It was easier for the British to blame everything on the shortcomings of the ships than to lose face for their fleet. In pursuit of rapid fire, they violated all the rules for handling explosives. And many charges accumulated at intermediate stages of delivery. And the hatch doors were not closed to save time. For one shell, charges must be delivered twice. So they raised them with a reserve at any opportunity. They raised them to the end. This is where the Germans' luck lies.
      2. +1
        21 September 2024 06: 12
        They were ordinary armored cruisers. Ine Fisher was going to put them in a line. That's what they presented to him. That if there were such ships, then the admirals would be tempted to put them in a line, and their armor was weak for a line battle. That's what happened.
        1. 0
          23 September 2024 12: 30
          Quote: MCmaximus
          They were ordinary armored cruisers. Ine Fisher was going to line them up.

          So the catch is that even without being deployed in a line, with the standard tactical use envisaged, Fisher's light cruisers will still encounter enemy light cruisers in 4 out of 5 cases. And in the first two points of the task list, they generally have every chance of ending up right in front of the enemy light cruisers' line at the effective range of their fire. This is the North Sea, not the Pacific Ocean or the Mediterranean. smile
          Quote: MCmaximus
          What if there are such ships, then admirals will be tempted to put them in a line, and their armor is weak for a line battle.

          This is not even a temptation, but the inertia of thinking. Before the dreadnought revolution, they used to put BRCMs in the line of EBMs (RN in exercises, IJN in combat) - so new ones are also possible, nothing will happen to them.
    3. 0
      20 September 2024 15: 59
      Yes, in terms of battlecruisers, the British relied too much on speed as a substitute for armor. It did not provide a full replacement...
    4. -1
      22 September 2024 08: 12
      Well, Hood got hit pretty hard. Maybe a maneuvering error, and the German ships beat up the Prince of Wales like God beat up a turtle. I'll suggest that the Brits got too greedy with their show-offs and let's take another example from the Mediterranean. The British won the battle at Punto Stillo, but at some point the Italians outmaneuvered them, and the outcome of the battle was largely decided by a sniper shot, which is why the Italians left the battle.
  4. 0
    20 September 2024 08: 25
    It was no secret that Japanese destroyers were similar to Russian ones. And much was said about the danger of such an attack. However, instead of deepening the entrance fairway of Port Arthur and keeping the squadron inside, it was left in the outer roadstead, unprotected. Well, alas, the British boilers of the "Norman" were better than the Russian "Belleville".
    1. +1
      20 September 2024 17: 52
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Well, alas, the British Norman boilers were better than the Russian Belleville ones.

      Russian destroyers had Yarows, if my memory serves me right. Many Japanese ones had them too, by the way. And also Thornycrofts.
      And the "Normans" are a French type.
      1. 0
        20 September 2024 18: 32
        "Yarrow" were on "Sokol", on Russian-built torpedo boats, I find it hard to say. "Thornycrofts" were popular with the Germans, they were probably on German-built torpedo boats. "Normans" were on French-built torpedo boats. True, I now realize that "Belleville - Dolgolenko" was probably too big for torpedo boats, they were put on bigger ships, probably from gunboats and above.
        1. +1
          20 September 2024 19: 15
          Quote: TermNachTER
          Yarrow" stood on the "Falcon"

          And all the destroyers of the Nevsky plant. And since the plant got the hang of working with them, the same boilers were installed on the "pebbles"
          Quote: TermNachTER
          The Germans loved the Thornycrofts

          The Germans loved the Schulz-Thornycroft modification.
          And the British, at the English Thornycroft plant in Chiswick, built 6 Murakumo-type destroyers with boilers of the same type for Japan.
          Quote: TermNachTER
          "Belleville - Dolgolenko"

          The Dolgolenko modification appeared in 1907
          Quote: TermNachTER
          probably too big for destroyers

          Rather heavy)) Melnikov wrote that there was a project to install Belleville on something like "Borg" but it didn't work out
          The revision of the project based on the comments of the MTC led to an increase in the displacement with full reserves to 90 tons and the rejection of the recognized, yet technically unprovided for, oil heating. The proposal to install a Belleville water-tube boiler instead of the locomotive one and to install a rotary mine apparatus on the deck was also rejected.
          1. 0
            21 September 2024 12: 28
            As far as I've read on PC, all these local modifications - "Schulz - Thornycroft", "Norman - Sigodi", "Belleville - Dolgolenko" - did not introduce any significant changes to the original boiler design. Let's say - cosmetic.
    2. +1
      21 September 2024 06: 53
      The Russians were in Port Arthur for 6 years before the war. Only 6 years! And they did quite a bit. I wonder how long it would take to deepen things there today? About 20 years? I know how things are done today. And I have no illusions. Today, everything is MUCH worse.
      Scraping the bottom just like that is pointless. I doubt that the Japanese and Chinese did it. I know that the Chinese are gradually deepening it inside. But they are in no hurry
      in general. And outside there is a rock. And quite a curly one at that.
      1. 0
        21 September 2024 08: 14
        Six years is not that long, considering that the city and port were taken over by the Russians after the Japanese occupation. I understand that when the samurai left, they tried to break and burn everything they could. I think they could have done something if they hadn't spent money on Dalny.
      2. -1
        22 September 2024 14: 53
        Let's not talk about today, today everything is completely different. The Japanese kicked our ass in the land theater, alas.
  5. +3
    20 September 2024 09: 04
    The Russian "falcon" captured in Port Arthur - the destroyer "Reshitelny".

    That's how it is. And then everyone writes that Chifu was captured, how stupid.
  6. +4
    20 September 2024 09: 45
    "Takasago" blew up in December. Kolchak went to sea only in April-August, and even then, with a long break for treatment. Then he was written off to shore
    1. 0
      20 September 2024 16: 02
      Well, Kolchak himself attributed "Takasago" to his mines. Whether it was fair or not, God only knows, perhaps Kolchak had grounds for that.
      1. +2
        20 September 2024 19: 18
        The Japanese laid mines at night, and the next day Petropavlovsk exploded.
        Amur laid mines, the next day two battleships exploded.
        Boyarin and Yenisei exploded two days after being staged
        Kolchak could have been blabbering anything, especially since half a year had passed. It could have been Japanese mines. Even the location doesn't match
        1. 0
          21 September 2024 08: 15
          It could have been a mine torn off from a mine reel and drifting anywhere.
          1. 0
            21 September 2024 10: 47
            Quote: TermNachTER
            It could have been a mine torn off from a mine reel and drifting anywhere.

            Yeah. And it had "Kolchak" written on it. Yes
            Tryndel Supreme Dictator, like Trotsky
  7. +3
    20 September 2024 13: 00
    Quote: Luminman
    The bourgeoisie calls destroyers "destroyer", which means fighter.


    A more accurate translation is "destroyer".
    1. +3
      20 September 2024 16: 16
      Quote: Illanatol
      A more accurate translation is "destroyer"

      In Russian military historiography, when translating the word destroyer, however, they still adhere more to the meaning of destroyer (fighter) ...
      1. +1
        20 September 2024 22: 23
        Quote: Luminman
        In Russian military historiography, when translating the word destroyer, they still prefer the meaning of destroyer (fighter)...

        And they do wrong, losing the meaning embedded in the very name of this class of ships. The destroyer is a deliberately unbalanced ship. First of all, the attack power. The ship is aimed at destroying the enemy first and only thirdly at protecting itself. Today's missile destroyers do not have mines or torpedoes, and as a rule, operate separately from the squadron. The destroyer is an attack ship.

        The Russian name "destroyer - squadron destroyer" implied a ship intended more for protecting the main forces of the squadron from attacks by enemy mosquito forces. Hence the other semantic shade, translated as "fighter" although in English a fighter is more likely a Fighter. In essence, this is a patrol ship, which was reflected later in the Soviet name of this class.
        1. +1
          21 September 2024 06: 32
          Quote: Saxahorse
          The Russian name "destroyer - squadron destroyer" implied a ship intended more for protecting the main forces of the squadron from attacks by enemy mosquito forces.

          A destroyer has two purposes. The first is to torpedo attacks on large enemy ships. The second is to protect your ships from similar torpedo attacks by the enemy. And some other small things - like laying minefields. Of course, I mean the destroyer of the First World War, because then the purpose of destroyers began to change...
          1. 0
            21 September 2024 20: 12
            Quote: Luminman
            The destroyer has two purposes. The first is torpedo attacks on large enemy ships. The second is to protect your ships from similar torpedo attacks by the enemy.

            Of course! And the section here is what function is primary and what is secondary. The English then tried to play in an attacking style - that's why Destroyer. Only the English added in addition to the attack of the main forces also the search and destruction of enemy destroyers, this is reflected in the article. The Russians, at that time, tried to play defensively - that's why "fighter", destroyer (destroyer in the squadron).
      2. 0
        21 September 2024 08: 20
        The term destroyer - counter-torpedo boat, in French counter-topiller, was used in the RIF for some time, as well as in other navies. Denoting the meaning of this ship, designed to fight torpedo boats (torpilliers). Destroyer is the English version, in the Russian navy - torpedo boat, which more accurately denotes the meaning of the ship.
  8. +1
    20 September 2024 13: 06
    Quote: Luminman
    The cruiser Hood was launched at the very end of the First World War and was subsequently modernized several times.


    Yes, it can be called a full-fledged battleship. What a cruiser with a deadweight of 47 thousand tons. The Bismarck had less.
    1. 0
      20 September 2024 13: 30
      Yes, it can be called a full-fledged battleship. What a cruiser with a deadweight of 47 thousand tons. The Bismarck had less.


      Well, Bismarck had a little more - 50 thousand in total:)

      Main guns were about the same, but the Bismarck had better armor. Still, the main role was most likely played by the quality of the explosives used by the British - all their battleships were destroyed by explosions.
      1. +2
        20 September 2024 16: 39
        Still, most likely, the main role was played by the quality of the explosives used by the British - all of their battleships were destroyed by explosions.

        Rather than the explosive substance itself, it is the packaging of cordite in silk cartridges instead of metal cases.
        Moreover, after WWI, the Dolby residents had access to German documentation, but even with such help, Armstrong did such an outrage with the metal case (from memory, five separate elements instead of two for the Germans) that the Admiralty gave up and abandoned the idea.
        1. 0
          21 September 2024 06: 23
          After the war, all sorts of Washington conferences and London treaties began. And everyone began to save weight furiously. And the problem was solved by technical and organizational methods.
          And I don't understand why the Germans' measures are so praised? They had power plant fires, and what kind. Everything burned to hell.
          1. +1
            21 September 2024 09: 18
            Hood's experience showed that they had not decided.
            The Germans had fires, but no explosions.
            1. 0
              21 September 2024 10: 08
              The question of explosion is a question of the volume of burning gunpowder. The Germans were lucky, the British were not. The British had a case of such a fire. I think it was on the "Lion". I'm not sure. They managed to batten down the door.
              Once again - the experience of "Hood" does not say anything. Since now it is not clear why everything exploded. If the shell found a hole and helped the fire of anti-aircraft ammunition to blow up the cellars, then believe me, no German gunpowder and cartridges would have helped.
              1. +1
                21 September 2024 10: 39
                Maybe so.
                I see a flaw in your concept - everything is left to chance, and if that's the case, then doing anything is pretty pointless - it will explode anyway.
                But the Germans with their shells and fire doors thought differently. The result is known to all - no explosions
                1. 0
                  21 September 2024 11: 02
                  The question is also different: no one at all followed the German example. They repeat the same thing. But nothing has been done.
                  This means that a sound analysis has shown that this is not the case.
                  And the fact is that the explosions on English ships were largely the result of shortcomings in the organization of the service.
                  Let's exclude the English armored cruisers - they have no chance against the dreadnoughts. And partly the "Invincible". From that distance the Germans could penetrate it any way they could.
                  1. +1
                    21 September 2024 13: 02
                    If you look at the history of interwar shipbuilding, you will see how literally every country clings to its shipbuilding traditions, except perhaps the Japanese, who looked to the English until the end of the 20s. Here is the answer.
                    For example, the British were convinced of their absolute superiority. Why would they borrow anything from the defeated Germans? The example of the British attempt to develop metal cartridges for large calibers after WWI is a clear indication of the degradation of design thinking in Albion, and on the other hand, they probably didn't really want to. And so they won and "we can repeat it"
                    1. +1
                      21 September 2024 13: 42
                      Well, after Jutland they modernized everything they could in artillery. They changed the cellars, they started closing the doors. They came up with all sorts of greenboys. They fixed the communications. And the Germans? They even killed the radar before the war.
                      Yes, and they fought in WWII without such mistakes as in the 1st.
                      1. +1
                        21 September 2024 14: 09
                        It is easy to see that only those solutions that were obvious were applied.
                        What remains is the disgusting division into compartments, poor survivability control, shameful torpedo firing, a conservative approach to shipbuilding in general, and much more.
                        Yes, and they fought in WWII without such mistakes as in the 1st.

                        Glorious, Ark Royal, Royal Oak, PQ-17 send their sad greetings and ask that you not forget them.
                      2. 0
                        21 September 2024 14: 12
                        Except for the war with the Japanese, the British fought very well. Not without failures. But these were failures. But systematically they behaved like a boa constrictor. They simply fought. And they cleared everyone from the sea. The management was well organized. Communication, intelligence. No comparison with WWI.
                      3. +1
                        21 September 2024 14: 28
                        It is easy to see that the English fleet was literally exhausted in the confrontation with the fleets of the 2nd-3rd leagues - the German and Italian.
                        The Japanese are generally at a level that is unattainable for the British.
    2. +1
      20 September 2024 14: 31
      Quote: Illanatol
      Yes, it can be called a full-fledged battleship. What a cruiser with a deadweight of 47 thousand tons.

      Pffff... remember the cousins ​​and their "Lady Lex" in the original LCR configuration.
      51 tons displacement - and still a cruiser.
    3. 0
      21 September 2024 08: 21
      The displacement of the Hood was 42 thousand tons, that of the Bismrarq - 51 thousand.
  9. 0
    20 September 2024 13: 43
    Quote: S.Z.
    Well, Bismarck had a little more - 50 thousand in total:)

    Main guns were about the same, but the Bismarck had better armor. Still, the main role was most likely played by the quality of the explosives used by the British - all their battleships were destroyed by explosions.


    Well, let it be more complete. All the same - commensurate, the ships are of the same class. To call something like this simply a "cruiser" is like a belittlement of its dignity.
    The definition was "fast battleship". Perhaps the most accurate. Especially since "Hood" even exceeded the tonnage allowed for battleships by the Washington Agreement of 1922.

    Maybe it's the quality of the explosives, or maybe it's the protection of the ammunition. I suspect the Germans covered their ammunition better with protection.
    1. 0
      21 September 2024 06: 26
      They are still simulating a hit on the Hood and cannot understand how the Germans managed it. Most likely, the anti-aircraft gun BPs are to blame. Because at that distance and course, the probability of hitting the main caliber BP was close to 0.
  10. 0
    20 September 2024 20: 41
    Shipbuilders first encountered the phenomenon of cavitation: bubbles of steam form on the surface of the propeller blades – water evaporates at high rotation speeds and the propeller begins to “slip”.

    I haven't encountered such technical nonsense for a long time.
    1. 0
      21 September 2024 06: 30
      What's wrong? It's enough for a general understanding. Well, the water doesn't evaporate, it starts to boil, turns into steam, etc. It doesn't change the essence.
      1. +2
        21 September 2024 08: 24
        A slightly more complex phenomenon. The water does not boil because no one heats it. Air bubbles form on the surface of the blades. In addition to the reduction in efficiency, the blades themselves are destroyed.
        1. 0
          21 September 2024 09: 52
          It boils. Because of the low pressure. At the temperature of water.
          By quickly filling the syringe with water, this boiling can be easily observed.
      2. 0
        21 September 2024 09: 31
        And what is wrong?

        Open the textbook on fluid and gas mechanics. Everything is written there.
        1. 0
          21 September 2024 10: 01
          When the pressure decreases, the boiling point of water decreases. Is this written in the textbook? I'm looking at the boiler. Bubbles are formed there. They burst and rise up. Is this written in the textbook? Or did I make it up myself? Such bubbles cause the destruction of the metal of the propeller blades. They are the essence of the boiling process on the side of the blade. Because the highest pressure is on the surface of the blade. The area is limited by a layer of water near the blade. Because in the rest of the place around the blade, both the temperature and the pressure do not change at all.
          I'm not going to get into textbooks. And write formulas. The boiling of water at normal temperature is clearly visible when you quickly draw water into a syringe.
          If we talk about wood, then something like this.
          1. -1
            21 September 2024 10: 29
            If it's wooden,

            Well, if on wood...
            To the bride and the mare
        2. -2
          21 September 2024 10: 11
          Anyway, why bother pointing to textbooks?
          Enlighten the ignorant. There is a problem.
          I can call anyone a fool myself. But no one is obliged to know everything from all the textbooks.
  11. 0
    21 September 2024 08: 27
    Quote: Luminman
    In Russian military historiography, when translating the word destroyer, they still prefer the meaning of destroyer (fighter)...


    Military historians are not linguists after all.
    And it's not a matter of translation accuracy, but of the peculiarities of using ships of this (or rather, similar) class in the domestic navy and Western navies. We and they used similar ships slightly differently. This was partly due to the shortage of large surface ships in the Russian navy after the failures in the Russo-Japanese...
  12. 0
    21 September 2024 08: 34
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Pffff... remember the cousins ​​and their "Lady Lex" in the original LCR configuration.
    51 tons displacement - and still a cruiser.


    In the original - a battle cruiser, not "still a cruiser". They called it that to get around the tonnage restrictions for battleships.
    But Lady Lexington mainly served as an aircraft carrier.
    Full displacement is 47 tons, standard - 700 tons.
    1. 0
      23 September 2024 12: 35
      Quote: Illanatol
      In the original - a battle cruiser, not "still a cruiser".

      Well, the Hood is also a battlecruiser.
      Quote: Illanatol
      They were named this way to get around the tonnage restrictions for battleships.

      When "Lady Lex" was built as a light cruiser, there were no restrictions yet. On the other side of the ocean, light cruisers with a full displacement of 47 kt were built. And when restrictions appeared, "Lady Lex" and "Lady Sarah" became AVs. Like their overseas rivals.
  13. 0
    21 September 2024 14: 18
    Whatever one may say, the British were then determining the development of this class of ships. And although we are proud of the Novik, the British were moving in the same direction at the same speed and came up with a good destroyer themselves.
  14. +1
    24 September 2024 17: 06
    Quote: Engineer
    Germans with cartridges

    Again, cartridges! It doesn't matter that the charge of German large-caliber guns consisted of TWO parts. One part in the cartridge, the second, in fact, if you take the order of loading into the chamber first, in the cartridge case. That is, a third, by weight, of the gunpowder in the cellars, in terms of packaging, was no different from the English one. By the way, the English cartridge cases were stored in flameproof covers.
    In fact, the cartridges were used by the Germans because of the use of wedge breechblocks. For obturation.
  15. 0
    24 September 2024 17: 18
    Three-inch gun from the cruiser Gromoboy

    Wow! And the men don't know! RIF ships NEVER used 3" caliber guns. They had 75/50 mm guns.
    Three thousand Voroshilov already claimed that artillery is a precise science!
    And they differed from the English 3"/40 primarily in their initial speed. The Kane had 823 m/sec, while the English 3" had 600 with some change.
    Accordingly, the English cannon was one and a half to two times lighter than the French one.
    This is what actually made it possible to install a second cannon on Japanese fighters.
    The second caliber on the English was also larger - 57, versus 47. The projectile was twice as heavy, I think.
    The Russian fleet simply did not have a light 75-76 mm cannon and there were no 57 mm caliber guns. Therefore, our destroyers were so much inferior to the Japanese in firepower.
    There is still no clear information whether there were 3" high-explosive shells at the beginning of the war, but even if there weren't, they appeared fairly quickly. Russian ships fired solid shells from powerful 75 mm guns.