The Last Armadillos

64
The Last Armadillos

Having achieved independence, the brainchild of Baron Carl Gustaf Mannerheim was well aware of its own vulnerability – the Finns had a huge border with the USSR, and while the north was saved by the wild impassability of roads, the south... In the south, everything was bad, since the coast of the country there was washed by the Gulf of Finland, and fleet The USSR had it much better than the beautiful Suomi, on whose gates the Red Army was always ready to knock (fortunately, the Finns themselves provided reasons - a train car and a small cart).


Mine cruiser "Voevoda", also known as the Finnish "Mati Kurki"

From the coast artillery Mannerheim and company were lucky: they got the batteries of the Russian naval fortress of Peter the Great: about thirty guns of 254 mm caliber and fifty six-inch guns. There was also a larger caliber: eight barrels of 305 mm caliber in four batteries.



But with the ships, everything was really sad! During the Ice Campaign, the commander of the Baltic Fleet, Aleksey Shchastny, managed to transfer the main part of the Baltic Fleet from Helsinki to Kronstadt: 6 battleships, 5 cruisers, 59 destroyers, 12 submarines and other small stuff – a total of 236 units.

The Finns were left with nothing but scrap metal, the most valuable of which were the minelayers Posadnik and Voevoda – ancient 450-ton pyroscaphes, in service since 1892, armed with 6x47-mm guns, 2x37-mm five-barrel guns (both from the Hotchkiss company), and a three-tube deck torpedo launcher, with a speed of 21–22 knots, which is ridiculous for a destroyer (which did not prevent them from serving the Finns until the 50s).

In general, the "independent" Finns had to build a fleet from scratch. Fortunately, there was something to build on: the Russian Empire left a fairly good shipbuilding industry as a legacy to the "fledglings of Mannerheim's nest", in particular, the Crichton-Vulcan shipyard used by the Imperial Navy was capable of building good ships. True, there was a lack of experience in designing them, but here the "Dutch" (in fact, German, registered in Holland to circumvent the Versailles restrictions) NV Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw helped.

In 1919, five naval construction programs were proposed for consideration, but all of them were rejected due to their complete inadequacy.

For example, the Navy Commission headed by Captain 1st Rank Gustav von Schultz proposed building 4 turbine destroyers, 8 torpedo boats, 4 medium submarines with a floating base, a training ship and several boats. And that was still modest! Because the commander of the Finnish fleet, Hjalmar von Bonsdorf, proposed building 4 monitors, 4 reconnaissance ships, 2 minelayers, 4 large submarines, 4 small gunboats, 9 large and 36 small torpedo boats, 6 patrol ships and 2 training ships!


Oscar Enkel. Still in Russian uniform...

Realizing that these sailors were planning something that would ruin the country's economy, local legislators created a new commission, headed by Army General Oskar Enckell. It reviewed one of the plans, which called for the construction of small artillery ships: 8 large and 4 small gunboats, 6 turbine destroyers, 6 small submarines with a floating base, a training ship, and two minelayers. The "large" gunboats were to have a displacement of 700 tons, 100 mm armor, and carry two large guns: one 234 mm caliber and one six-inch.

Subsequently, the enormity of the plans infected this commission as well – the gunboats’ displacement was increased to 1 tons, and the caliber of both guns was set to 200 mm. Now these were not gunboats, but coastal defense battleships!

True, this commission also got carried away! In 1922, a draft of the national shipbuilding program was formulated: 6 coastal defense battleships, 6 destroyers, 48 ​​torpedo boats, 16 submarines...

In the end, when the project was presented to the parliamentary defense committee, it "cut the sturgeon." Over eight years, the fleet was planned to include three coastal defense battleships, two small destroyers, six submarines (four of which were small), 3 torpedo boats, two minelayers, and one floating base.

The performance characteristics of all ships were also cut. Except for battleships: now they had to have a displacement of 2 tons, carry 450x2-mm guns, 210x3-mm guns and 120x4-mm anti-aircraft guns.

In general, among all this diversity, the only thing that remained unchanged was the presence of armadillos.

It could be said that this was the influence of neighboring Sweden, in whose Navy these ships were present, but most likely it was the nature of the future theater of operations: in the Finnish skerries, the monitor is the most optimal combat ship. Small, with a shallow draft, but well armored and with powerful artillery: it will not have to go across the Atlantic, and the ability to pass through a narrow, shallow strait between the islands is worth a lot in war!

The consideration of alternative projects (and as many as seven were put forward!) dragged on until 1927. By that time, the next parliament had approved an even more truncated program, which included: two coastal defense battleships with a displacement of 3 tons, 800 million marks each, three medium and one small submarine (100 million and 30 million marks respectively), four torpedo boats at 8 million marks, and a training ship worth 2,5 million marks.

As a result, the battleships cost more than the entire remaining fleet combined!

The General Staff ended the disputes over the artillery armament of the battleships by issuing a directive establishing 254 mm Bofors guns as the main caliber, thereby unifying the caliber with the guns that were installed on the coastal batteries. However, the side armor of the ships had to be reduced from 100 mm to 55 mm.

In 1928, the project of the German-Dutch company NV Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw was finally approved, and the Finnish shipyard Creighton-Vulcan was chosen as the builder. Each battleship cost the Finnish budget 113,5 million marks.

It must be said that ordering ships abroad would have been somewhat cheaper, but the Finns chose to support their own manufacturer. Well, not really their own: they bought artillery from the Swedes and the British, diesel engines from the Germans, generators, electric motors and everything else from the Swiss.


Coastal defense battleship Vainamöinen

The first ship, Vainamöinen, was laid down on 15 October 1929 and entered service on Christmas Day, 31 December 1932. Its sister ship, Ilmarinen, was laid down on 1 September 1929, but took longer to build and was accepted into the Finnish Navy on 3 September 1933.

The ships turned out to be frankly successful! Finnish shipbuilders used an original scheme for the main power plant for surface ships: diesel-electric. Two diesel generators with a capacity of 3 horsepower each fed two large electric motors. This ensured quick switching between forward and reverse speeds – an important quality in the skerries. When switching from “full speed ahead” to “full speed astern,” the ships traveled only 000 meters.


10 inches? That's impressive!

The ships' artillery consisted of 4x254-mm main caliber guns, firing 30,3 km at a rate of 3 rounds per minute with 225-kg shells. The ammunition load was 65 rounds per gun, the ammunition included armor-piercing, high-explosive, high-explosive fragmentation and practice shells.


Auxiliary caliber...

The auxiliary artillery was represented by eight 105-mm Bofors guns in four twin mounts, covered by 12-mm armor shields.

Initially, the main task of these installations was to fire at torpedo boats and destroyers, but during the modernization in 1938, the gun elevation angle was increased to 85 degrees and fire control devices were installed, which made the installations universal. They could fire at a rate of 12 rounds per minute at a distance of up to 102 cables and at a height of up to 11 meters. However, the gun drives were exclusively manual, so the guidance speed left much to be desired, and this made it difficult to track high-speed air targets.

However, the battleships also had specialized anti-aircraft guns: 4x40-mm anti-aircraft guns from the Vickers company and 2x20-mm guns from the Madsen company. But the Vickers proved unreliable, and in 1940 they were replaced by 40-mm Bofors guns: two single-barreled and one twin-barreled. The rate of fire of these guns was low: 120 rounds per minute (the Vickers had 200), the firing range was 6 meters, and the altitude reach was 000 meters. The 4-mm anti-aircraft gun from the Madsen company had a maximum firing range of 000 meters and an altitude reach of 20 meters. By 3, the number of these guns reached eight. aviation developed rapidly, and Defense couldn't keep up with her.

The fire control devices were developed by the Dutch company Hatzemeir. They were located in five posts: the conning tower, the sighting section of the fore-topsail, the central artillery post and the aggregate post. The artillery officer had at his disposal a central aiming sight and a 6-meter rangefinder from Zeiss, which measured distances from 2 to 500 meters. Exactly the same rangefinder was located on the fore-topsail, at a height of 50 meters. Such a high location of the rangefinder ensured firing at a distance of more than 000 cables.


Dream mast!

A characteristic feature of the battleships was the massive mast, which allowed the ships to fire from a closed position, hidden behind low islands, of which there are a great many in the Finnish skerries.

The battleships also had some semblance of computers: calculating machines that generated data for firing at a distance of up to 167 cables at targets moving at speeds of up to 40 knots.


In the main caliber turret

The ships turned out to be well-balanced and quite powerful for their displacement. Their main caliber artillery was inferior in power only to the Soviet battleships, significantly surpassing the Project 26 cruisers in terms of projectile weight - 225 kg versus 97 kg (though significantly inferior to the MK-3-180 in firing range and rate of fire).

But the participation of these ships in wars was... controversial.

During the Finnish War, the battleships stood in Turku, disguised with white camouflage as two large snowdrifts. They were bombed constantly, but they were never hit, losing eight aircraft to air defense fire - the 16x105-mm universal guns showed themselves very well in repelling air raids.


"Vainemäinen" fires its main caliber

In 1941, Finnish coastal defense battleships repeatedly fired at the Hanko naval base. They acted with impunity, since there were no bombers at the base, and the torpedo boats had left for Kronstadt.

But already on September 13, the battleships, under the protection of torpedo boats, set out to shell Soviet positions on the island of Dago. On the return, the Ilmarinen caught a Soviet mine with its stern, capsized and sank within 8 minutes. 13 officers, 11 midshipmen, 65 petty officers and 182 sailors died on the ship, 132 people were saved, including the fleet commander and the ship's commander, Captain 2nd Rank Ragnar Göranson.


The Sinking of the Ilmarinen as Depicted by Soviet Artists

The Vainemäinen, left alone under the command of Captain 3rd Rank Olavi Koivisto, did not take part in combat until 1944 – the Baltic Fleet was locked in the Gulf of Finland. And in 1947, the Paris Peace Treaty was signed, according to which Finland was prohibited from having coastal defense battleships, submarines and torpedo boats in its fleet.

In general, the ship was bought from the Finns by the Soviet Union, and as part of the Baltic Fleet, Vainemäinen served under the name Vyborg until 1966, when it was dismantled for scrap metal.


"Ilmarinen" on a visit to Denmark 1933

One often reads about the invulnerability of the Vainamöinen, which the Soviet Air Force tried to bomb until the very end of the war (sinking the air defense cruiser Niobe instead). Well, its invulnerability is explained simply: after the loss of the Ilmarinen, the Finns avoided operations involving the remaining battleship – they did not want to lose a second flagship in the war. If the Vainamöinen had shown any activity, its fate would not have been so favorable.

Nevertheless, both the ship design and the class should be recognized as quite successful. The fact is that the very fact of its existence forced the Soviet command to divert the forces of the Baltic Fleet (mainly aviation, but reconnaissance should not be forgotten) to solve the problem of its destruction. A classic case of fleet in being!
64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    27 September 2024 05: 46
    Thank you for publishing! I read it with great interest! good
    But in my opinion, the respected author does not evaluate the small anti-aircraft defense of the Finnish battleships entirely objectively:
    But the Vickers proved unreliable and were replaced in 1940 by 40mm Bofors – two single-barreled and one twin-barreled. The rate of fire of these guns was low – 120 rounds per minute (the Vickers had 200), the firing range was 6 meters, and the altitude reach was 000 meters. The 4mm anti-aircraft gun from Madsen had a maximum firing range of 000 meters and an altitude reach of 20 meters.

    "Vickers" were quite reliable, especially since if one machine gun in the mount failed, the others, having a belt feed, were able to conduct dense fire and this did not have a cardinal effect on the ship's air defense. Throughout the war, the British Navy actively used four-barrel 40-mm QF 2-pounder Vickers pom-pom Mk VII and eight-barrel 40-mm QF 2-pounder Vickers pom-pom Mk VIII mounts, modernized in the late 1930s. The production of these anti-aircraft guns continued during the years of the Navy. In total, 6 pom-pom mounts were produced for the British Navy, another 691 guns were manufactured in Canada. The battleship Arkhangelsk (British HMS Royal Sovereign), which was part of the Soviet fleet from 843 to 1944, had 1949 24-mm Vickers guns in two eight-barrel and two four-barrel mounts.

    The point is rather that the Finnish naval commanders were not satisfied with the relatively small effective firing range of the Vickers and they were replaced by the longer-range Bofors L60. The passage about the relatively low rate of fire of the Bofors seems strange to me. More advanced 40-mm anti-aircraft guns of this caliber did not exist during the years of the Great Patriotic War. For comparison, you can look at the composition of the anti-aircraft weapons on Soviet ships.

    The 20 mm Madsen M/33 anti-aircraft gun was one of the best in its class and in terms of its characteristics was not inferior to the German 20 mm machine guns and Oerlikon products.
    1. +4
      27 September 2024 13: 25
      But in my opinion, the respected author does not assess the small anti-aircraft defense of the Finnish battleships objectively.

      For the author, the content is secondary. The main thing is the "lad style" popular among some local authors these days. That's why there is a lot of "not entirely objective" in the article.
      Mannerheim and company were lucky with coastal artillery: they got the batteries of the Russian naval fortress of Peter the Great: about thirty guns of 254 mm caliber and fifty six-inch guns. There was also a larger caliber: eight barrels of 305 mm caliber in four batteries.

      The Finns got about 200 six-inch guns. About 100 ancient 1877 model and 100 152-mm Kane guns, as well as a battery of four 152-mm guns of the 1908 model from the Obukhov plant.
      As for larger calibers, the Finns received 3 203 mm guns, 14 234 mm guns, 28 254 mm guns, and 9 305 mm guns.
      1. +5
        27 September 2024 15: 03
        It seems to me that you do not fully understand the difference between a scientific monograph and journalism. Books have been written about Finnish battleships (as well as about any other ships, of any country and any project). But putting material overloaded with technical details on a website is sheer idiocy. Anyone who needs detailed information will go and find specialized literature where the number of rivets, steel grades and the diameter of the hole in an officer's water closet will be chewed over in detail...
        1. -2
          27 September 2024 15: 51
          It seems to me that you do not fully understand the difference between a scientific monograph and journalism.

          I understand very well the difference between scientific monography and journalism. But I have a question - what do journalism and monograph have to do with your opuses? You should first ask what journalism is.
          If you use any information in your public literary exercises, it must be reliable. Do you consider such a requirement excessive?
        2. 0
          28 September 2024 21: 05
          Author, thank you! I read it with pleasure and in one breath!
  2. +12
    27 September 2024 05: 53
    It is worth adding that the battleships' hulls had icebreaker contours and corresponding reinforcements. In the freezing conditions of the Gulf of Finland, this was especially valuable.
  3. +3
    27 September 2024 07: 24
    From 22.03.1947 to 22.02.1948, Vyborg was commanded by Negoda Grigory Pudovich. The same...
  4. +6
    27 September 2024 07: 30
    and the air defense couldn't keep up with it.

    Didn't keep up (female)
    The Finns knew how to build ships. But without money you can't build much
  5. +8
    27 September 2024 07: 43
    Thanks to the Author for an interesting article. Little Finland had a small fleet because it understood that it was small. And therefore its small fleet was of high quality.
  6. +6
    27 September 2024 08: 12
    The Russian Empire left the "fledglings of Mannerheim's nest" a fairly good shipbuilding industry as a legacy; in particular, the Crichton-Vulcan shipyard used by the Imperial Navy was capable of building good ships.

    Crichton-Vulcan is a Finnish company formed in 1924 by the merger of the Finnish companies Vulcan and Ab Crichton.
  7. +7
    27 September 2024 08: 44
    The Finns were left with nothing but scrap metal, the most valuable of which were the minelayers Posadnik and Voevoda – ancient 450-ton pyroscaphes, in service since 1892, armed with 6x47-mm guns, 2x37-mm five-barrel guns (both from the Hotchkiss company), and a three-tube deck torpedo launcher, with a ridiculous speed for a destroyer of 21-22 knots (which did not prevent them from serving the Finns until the 50s).

    The mine cruisers of the Kazarsky type were armed with two single-tube 2-mm torpedo tubes in the centerline plane, one built into the bow and one deck-mounted rotating tube with a 380° turning angle.
    They existed as combat units until 1937, when they were decommissioned from the Navy. Voevoda (Finnish Matti Kurki) was dismantled for scrap in 1940. Posadnik (Finnish Klas Horn) was luckier. It served as a blockship for hydrographers of the Finnish Navy until 1957.
  8. +2
    27 September 2024 09: 27
    Quote: S.Z.
    Thanks to the Author for an interesting article. Little Finland had a small fleet because it understood that it was small. And therefore its small fleet was of high quality.

    She hatched an aggressive plan to crush the entire Baltic Fleet (6 battleships, 5 cruisers, 59 destroyers, 12 submarines, etc., small stuff – a total of 236 units) with two coast guard battleships (sarcasm)
    1. +6
      27 September 2024 11: 18
      Quote: Zufei
      She hatched an aggressive plan to crush the entire Baltic Fleet with two coast guard battleships (6 battleships, 5 cruisers, 59 destroyers, 12 submarines and other small stuff – a total of 236 units)

      Wow, how "Marat" and "Oktyabrina" have multiplied - three times as much. smile
      1. 0
        27 September 2024 12: 17
        The number of ships withdrawn from Helsingfors is taken from the article)
        1. +1
          27 September 2024 14: 53
          Don't forget that old battleships like "Andrei Perervanny" or "Tsarevich" were also considered battleships, but they didn't survive until World War II...
        2. +3
          27 September 2024 16: 27
          Quote: Zufei
          The number of ships withdrawn from Helsingfors is taken from the article)

          So this is still the BF, not the KBF. At that time, there were 4 "Sevas" and 2 "Andreys" in the Baltic class of battleships.
          By the time the Finnish BRBOs were put into operation, the Andrei had already been decommissioned, one of the Sevas was laid up after a fire (Poltava), and another one soon went to the Black Sea (Sevastopol).
    2. +1
      27 September 2024 14: 58
      No, in principle, they had little need for a navy to build a "Great Finland". They thought they could handle it with just one army. This was also a chimera, but I think the old White Finns evaluated the Red Army by the standards of 1918, when they more or less managed it (the Red Finns were the same Red Army, only in profile).
  9. +11
    27 September 2024 11: 32
    The auxiliary artillery was represented by eight 105-mm Bofors guns in four twin mounts, covered by 12-mm armor shields.

    According to the project. But "Bofors" missed all deadlines, and for the first few years "Vanya-Mani" had single-barreled Obukhov four-inch guns in place of the 105-mm AU.

    © Warspot. Vladislav Goncharov. Finnish sea shield.
  10. +4
    27 September 2024 11: 36
    But already on September 13, the battleships, under the protection of torpedo boats, set out to shell Soviet positions on the island of Dago. On the return, the Ilmarinen caught a Soviet mine with its stern, capsized and sank within 8 minutes.

    What is most offensive for the Finns is that this was a demonstrative operation, the purpose of which was only to “tear apart” the Soviet defense of the Moonsund Islands to facilitate the German landing.
  11. +1
    27 September 2024 12: 01
    eight 105-mm Bofors guns in four twin mounts, covered by 12-mm armor shields.

    Initially, the main task of these installations was to fire at torpedo boats and destroyers, but during modernization in 1938, the gun elevation angle was increased to 85 degrees.

    And where did these firewood come from? Judging by the height of the trunnion axes, the guns are purebred anti-aircraft guns. I can still believe that they cobbled together something to make loading easier at small angles, but the opposite is definitely not true. This is technically extremely difficult to implement.
  12. +1
    27 September 2024 12: 05
    On its return, the Ilmarinen caught a Soviet mine in its stern, capsized and sank within 8 minutes.

    Something about the dates was cut corners during construction. A four thousand ton steamship should not sink so quickly from one mine explosion. Moreover, electric propulsion implies short propeller shafts, and its contours are quite full. Still, the lack of experience in military shipbuilding made itself felt.
    1. +1
      27 September 2024 14: 59
      Quote: Grossvater
      A four thousand ton steamship should not sink so quickly from one mine explosion.

      You are probably right - even 1,5 times smaller Project 7 EMs survived when touched by their extremities - the same Gnevny was finished off... Razyanenyi caught a torpedo, but survived... request
    2. +2
      27 September 2024 16: 42
      Quote: Grossvater
      The Danikis somehow slopped over the construction. A four-thousand-ton steamship shouldn't sink so quickly from one mine explosion.

      The explosion was in a very unfortunate place.
      At 20:31, when the ship had already turned about 40°, a double explosion occurred on its left side in the area of ​​the aft conning tower. According to eyewitnesses, the shaking from it was no more than from a broadside of the main caliber, and the explosion was not heard at all on the German ships.
      Apparently, the explosion occurred closer to the bottom of the ship. It tore apart not only the side of the ship under the armor belt, but also the bulkhead between the diesel compartment and the compartment with the left-hand electric propulsion motor. The longitudinal bulkhead did not save us; the nearest compartments on the left side began to quickly fill with water.
      Ilmarinen maintained its speed and control, but began to quickly settle with its stern listing to the left side. Captain 2nd Rank Göransson gave the order to turn further to the right, apparently to somehow straighten the list. However, this did not help: at 20:35 the list was already 45 degrees. For a while it seemed that the capsizing had slowed down, but a minute later the battleship lay on its left side, and its battle top touched the water.
      © Warspot. Vladislav Goncharov. The last battleships in battle.
      As a version of why the explosion occurred under the bottom, the same article describes a variant with the anchor mine's mine reel jamming in the BRBO paravane and pulling it under the ship. Fortunately, there was a problem with the paravane shortly before the explosion. And the course of the formation passed right through the Soviet MZ No. 26-A of 60 mines of the 1926 model.
      By the way, regarding watertight bulkheads...
      The hull had eight watertight compartments, but the longitudinal bulkheads reached only to the main armored (second from the top) deck.
      © Warspot. Vladislav Goncharov. Finnish sea shield.
  13. +1
    27 September 2024 15: 21
    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
    No, in principle, they had little need for a navy to build a "Great Finland". They thought they could handle it with just one army. This was also a chimera, but I think the old White Finns evaluated the Red Army by the standards of 1918, when they more or less managed it (the Red Finns were the same Red Army, only in profile).

    Mannerheim and company are not fools.
    If they wanted to attack, they would have invested in tanks and aviation, and not in coastal defense and the Line of the same name)
    1. Alf
      0
      27 September 2024 19: 13
      Quote: Zufei
      would invest in tanks

      Yeah, having huge spaces for their actions. They would create a couple of tank armies and rush into the attack....in single file along one road...
      Quote: Zufei
      If they wanted to attack,

      The budget is not unlimited.
    2. +1
      27 September 2024 23: 51
      They created an army on the same principle as the navy: for action in the very specific conditions of the Karelian taiga: ski battalions, rangers, snipers, etc., etc. Tanks were not needed there. And where they did not plan to attack, they set up the Mannerheim Line.
  14. +1
    27 September 2024 15: 38
    Thanks to the author, a good article about good ships. The Finns really did well here, they cobbled together optimal ships (for that time) in terms of performance characteristics for the theater of military operations. The only thing they sinned on was the price. But everyone, always and everywhere, stepped on this "rake". And to this day, the "dances" continue everywhere
  15. 0
    27 September 2024 21: 40
    The ships are really good, especially the idea itself. A small battleship with icebreaker lines, shallow draft and high gun elevation angles allowing firing from closed positions. An ideal means of protecting minefields. Hiding behind an island, it can boldly throw mines even at battleships. This is what the Russian navy should have built!
    1. 0
      27 September 2024 23: 55
      In my opinion, something similar to the Russian Empire should have been built on the Black Sea - there was no need for more against the Turks. But in the Baltic, a battle fleet should have been built to operate against the Germans, only larger in size. Until they finished building it, hide it behind a mine-artillery position, and finish it off little by little... You see, by 1916 there would have been not two battleships, but six, if not more...
      1. 0
        28 September 2024 23: 19
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        In my opinion, something similar to the Russian Empire should have been built on the Black Sea - nothing more was needed against the Turks.

        At the same time, the depth of the Black Sea is almost 2 km, and skerries and islands are hard to find. laughing

        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        here in the Baltic it was necessary to build a battle fleet for operations against the Germans, only larger in size. Until it was completed - to hide behind a mine-artillery position

        In the Baltic, the battleships hid at bases and only went out for exercises, and each had several navigational accidents, and someone was always standing in the docks mending holes in their bellies. It's very shallow in the Baltic. And we can recall how Slava died covering that very mine position. Due to the large draft, the battleship was forced to maneuver in one ditch a little deeper all the time. As soon as it caught one shell and slightly gained draft, the ditch turned into a trap, and the battleship had to be abandoned. You can look at the photos, it couldn't even really drown, the turrets and superstructures stick out of the water.

        The Finns made their battleships precisely by looking at the sad experience of all these mastodons. A battleship in the Baltic is an elephant in a basin! wassat
        1. Alf
          0
          29 September 2024 19: 59
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Well, we can also recall how Slava died while covering that very mine position.

          Especially if you remember WHAT the opponents were...
          Quote: Saxahorse
          A battleship in the Baltic is an elephant in a basin!

          And what should we support the light forces with? For example, in Slava's case?
          1. +1
            30 September 2024 12: 27
            Quote: Alf
            And what should we support the light forces with? For example, in Slava's case?

            Mmm... coastal defense?
            Normal coastal defense. And not the 1917 model - "a fire in a brothel during a flood":
            The large and disorderly scattering that was discovered during the shooting, making it completely impossible to control the fire, occurred, as it turned out later, because the gunners were inattentively aligning the arrows of the Central Aiming device, being frightened by enemy fire. Apparently, no correction was made for the distance between the guns.
            The enemy's shooting was unsatisfactory, although there was a large area under fire, but all the volleys fell far from the battery, about a verst. Only one volley fell close to the battery, the nearest shell exploded 30 fathoms away from the 1st gun.
            When the enemy started firing from the 2nd gun, many people crowded into the Central Post, which made negotiations with them very difficult. 7-10 minutes after the opening of fire, I could not get an answer from the Central Post. Since the enemy was firing from the rear of the battery, the feed and cellar servants hid behind the cellar, and when the falls approached, they ran into the dugout and further into the forest. When something jammed, the lower servants also ran away.
            First they fled from the 2nd gun. Due to the badly corrected circular rail feed, after several shots, the trolley stopped approaching the charger.
            Apparently, Warrant Officer Rodionov did not show the team the proper example and ran to the Central Post himself. Then at the 1st gun (after a close fall), because due to the departure of the feed and the lower servants, the feed stopped completely. Midshipman Polikarpov dismissed the gunners and upper servants and fired the last shot himself. The team at the 3rd gun ran and then returned. When the loader did not reach the place, the team ran for good. At the 4th gun, only part of the feed crew ran and the gun fired until the signal "shot". They fired at those running from rifles from the 3rd gun and from machine guns on the 2nd dieselThe role of the officers is unclear; apparently, they were confused.
            For me, the flight of the team was a surprise, because the enemy’s shooting was bad, our team was shot at by the previous frequent bombing. The chairman of the battalion committee, miner Savkin, who was my telephone operator at the lighthouse, was furious with the behavior of the team and demanded that all the fugitives be shot., while others were depressed and outraged by this.
            Accompanied by Savkin, I went to the battery. On the way, I met several drunk with 44 baht. Who, during the battle, when their other team was 44 baht., Got drunk on denatured alcohol. Then the sailor of 44 baht., Kulay, brought to me several fugitives from 43 baht., Whom he caught at the cordon, behind a wire fence.
            © On Tserele; Notes by N. A. Bertenev
            1. Alf
              0
              30 September 2024 19: 38
              Quote: Alf
              And what should we support the light forces with? For example, in Slava's case?

              Mmm... coastal defense?
              Normal coastal defense.

              I understand that the Tsarist admirals were stupid, since they sent a battleship to prevent German minesweepers from making passages in the minefield. It was necessary to transfer a coastal battery to this section...
              1. 0
                30 September 2024 21: 47
                Quote: Alf
                I understand that the Tsarist admirals were stupid if they sent a battleship to prevent German minesweepers from making passages in the minefield.

                The Tsarist admirals suffered from gigantomania. That's why they forgot about coastal defense battleships and demanded something bigger, bigger... The Turks, meanwhile, were quite successfully defending the Dardanelles without trying to push their drills against the British battleships. They quickly figured out howitzers to pull up and began to throw at the British from closed positions. This is the point of the BBO from the Finns - the ability to hide behind islands and forts in order to throw at the enemy's minesweepers and battleships with impunity. Battleships cannot replace the BBO in this.
                1. Alf
                  0
                  30 September 2024 21: 50
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  The Tsar's admirals suffered from gigantomania. That's why they forgot about coastal defense battleships and demanded something bigger, bigger...

                  And how could the BBO have prevented German minesweepers from making holes in the barrier if there were two dreadnoughts on the other side?
                  1. 0
                    30 September 2024 21: 55
                    Quote: Alf
                    And how could the BBO have prevented German minesweepers from making holes in the barrier if there were two dreadnoughts on the other side?

                    For example, shooting at minesweepers from cover. wink
                2. 0
                  1 October 2024 10: 29
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Meanwhile, the Turks were quite successfully defending the Dardanelles without trying to push the drill towards the British battleships. They quickly figured out howitzers to pull up and began to fire at the British from closed positions.

                  The only thing left to do is find a long narrow strait in Irbeny, both banks of which would be occupied by the Russians. Oh yes, and also a mountainous area. wink
                  1. 0
                    1 October 2024 21: 42
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The only thing left to do is find a narrow, long strait in Irbeny

                    The Irben Strait itself is not wide, only 25 km. The 254 mm/45 (10") Bofors guns could reach 30 km. Put a couple of BBOs behind Kolka and behind the islands, and let them try to trawl under the blows of the ten-inch guns.
                    1. 0
                      2 October 2024 10: 25
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      The Irben Strait itself is not wide, only 25 km. The 254 mm/45 (10") Bofors guns could reach 30 km. Put a couple of BBOs behind Kolka and behind the islands, and let them try to trawl under the blows of the ten-inch guns.

                      Behind Kolka - that's good. The German coastal battery will only be happy. However, behind the island of Abruka it's not bad either - it will be just 25-30 kilometers to the targets.
                      And yes, I wonder what the dispersion will be when firing at maximum range? How many minesweepers will fit into the ellipse - and will the ammo be enough for at least one hit?
                      People will do anything to avoid building battery No. 43. smile
                      1. 0
                        2 October 2024 22: 12
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Behind Kolka - that's good. The German coastal battery will only be happy.

                        Well, excuse me here. If the shore is already hostile, then it's time to talk about supporting the landing force and not about coastal defense. wink
              2. 0
                1 October 2024 10: 27
                Quote: Alf
                I understand that the Tsarist admirals were stupid if they sent a battleship to prevent German minesweepers from making passages in the minefield.

                Before the war, the Tsarist admirals forgot about the theater of military operations equipment. Do you remember why the Slava and Tsarevich had to be used in the Irben Strait? Not even the Andreichi, but these relics of the pre-RyaV era?
                Quote: Alf
                It was necessary to transfer a coastal battery to this area...

                It was necessary to take care of coastal defense before the war. And not start feverishly building it with the deadline of 1918.
                And as for describing the mine-artillery position on paper and in theory - that's with joy. And when it came down to it, even on the flanks of the CMAP there were 1916". It's good that the Germans weren't so stubborn as to rush into the Gulf of Finland.
                Moreover, the importance of Irben was obvious - the only deep-water passage into the Gulf of Riga.
                1. Alf
                  0
                  1 October 2024 18: 50
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Quote: Alf
                  I understand that the Tsarist admirals were stupid if they sent a battleship to prevent German minesweepers from making passages in the minefield.

                  Before the war, the Tsarist admirals forgot about the theater of military operations equipment. Do you remember why the Slava and Tsarevich had to be used in the Irben Strait? Not even the Andreichi, but these relics of the pre-RyaV era?
                  Quote: Alf
                  It was necessary to transfer a coastal battery to this area...

                  It was necessary to take care of coastal defense before the war. And not start feverishly building it with the deadline of 1918.
                  And as for describing the mine-artillery position on paper and in theory - that's with joy. And when it came down to it, even on the flanks of the CMAP there were 1916". It's good that the Germans weren't so stubborn as to rush into the Gulf of Finland.
                  Moreover, the importance of Irben was obvious - the only deep-water passage into the Gulf of Riga.

                  Well, with reservations, but I agree.
            2. 0
              1 October 2024 14: 10
              Well, 1917, these are not quite normal armed forces. In normal ones, everyone who crowded into the Central Post was shot. In the best case - every other one...
      2. 0
        30 September 2024 12: 23
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        In my opinion, something similar to the Russian Empire should have been built on the Black Sea - nothing more was needed against the Turks.

        Yeah... and then "Goeben" will come and do what he did in the Russian Empire with the MN "Raglan" and M-28.
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        But in the Baltic it was necessary to build a battle fleet for operations against the Germans, only larger in size.

        That's how it was built. Only the delivery date of the same "Izmails" was gradually moved to the 20s. smile
    2. +1
      28 September 2024 03: 55
      Thai armadillos won't let you lie hi
      1. 0
        28 September 2024 10: 48
        Well, the Thais are a different story... What is the Thai aircraft carrier worth alone! The East is a delicate matter, a lot is done there for reasons of prestige, and not for real benefit. In Indonesia, our embassy explained to me about the local "ratings": the worst is Malaysia, since they were given independence; then Indonesia - they won their independence; then Vietnam - they not only won it, but also beat up the French and the Americans; and the mega-coolest is Thailand, since it (at least formally) was never anyone's colony, therefore - maximum respect. This "rating" has nothing to do with the real strength or weakness of countries.
        1. +2
          28 September 2024 10: 53
          It does - because coastal defense battleships are either cheap substitutes for poor countries, or colonial service ships.

          It was not by chance that I wrote about the Thai battleship; the battle with the old French cruiser is indicative.
          1. 0
            28 September 2024 11: 09
            For it to be indicative, the crews need to be approximately equally trained. Well, roughly like the Huascar and Shah with Amethyst.
            1. 0
              28 September 2024 11: 11
              It is significant that a cruiser is a universal ship that can fight in the ocean or off the coast of Siam.
  16. 0
    27 September 2024 23: 16
    Thanks, very interesting!
  17. 0
    28 September 2024 00: 48
    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
    Don't forget that old battleships like the Andrei Perervanny

    It would be interesting to see how the Finns would have modernized them if they had been left in Helsingfors. But they shouldn't have been stingy about moonshine and girls for their bros.
    1. +1
      28 September 2024 10: 42
      Yes, that's an interesting question. The ships are certainly outdated, but with a good crew they are quite combat-ready, Schleswig-Holstein won't let you lie. But, unfortunately, I know the answer to that question: the Finns would have dismantled them for scrap or sold them. Churchill, I remember, came up with a famous phrase (or at least it's attributed to him): "If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser...". Finland couldn't afford squadron battleships: it was too expensive to maintain them for the feeble Finnish economy...
  18. +1
    28 September 2024 00: 52
    Quote: Saxahorse
    The ships are really good, especially the idea itself. A small battleship with icebreaker lines,

    Where did the Finns put the reserve displacement? The steam "Apraksin" and "Ushakov", being 30 years older, had the same armament, steam boilers and engines, were better armored. And the standard displacement was only 700 tons more. And here there are diesels, welding and cardboard armor, no PMZ.
    IMHO, building battleships for the Finns is a mistake. It would be cheaper to adjust the displacement of high-speed minelayers, destroyers and torpedo boats of the German model. And put guns on railway transporters.
    1. +1
      28 September 2024 10: 33
      A difficult question: in my opinion, the Baltic Fleet aviation had a chance to thin out a lot of destroyers and minelayers. And two monitors with strong air defense... "Vainemäinen" was never reached with bombs (even when stationary!): there were too many anti-aircraft guns. But seriously, having such a strong neighbor nearby, the Finnish leadership had no winning moves, the optimal solution would have been to recognize vassalage, as the Finns did in 1947, signing the "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation". It's a pity that many thousands of both Russians and Finns had to die for this enlightenment of the minds...
      1. 0
        1 October 2024 10: 39
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        And two monitors with strong air defense... "Vainemäinen" was never reached with bombs (even when stationary!): there were too many anti-aircraft guns.

        Ahem... the Baltic Fleet aviation, when pressed, took out the air defense cruiser Niobe right at the base with the same 8 x 105 mm. wink
        The Finnish BRBOs were saved by the fact that our intelligence could not detect them. The same "Vanya-Manya" stood practically the entire war in the skerries near Turku - not even in the port itself, but nearby.
  19. 0
    28 September 2024 12: 18
    Well, finally good articles from a competent author! Thank you, like a breath of fresh air on the site! Interesting article.
  20. +1
    28 September 2024 12: 38
    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
    "Vainemäinen" was never hit with bombs (even when it was standing!)

    They didn't get it in 41 because, as practice showed, the Air Force and Baltic Fleet aviation didn't have the strength for a massive effective raid or dive bombers to destroy pinpoint targets. And then, the 4 guns of the "Väinämäinen" simply hid the entire war together with the ship and, as it seems to me, they didn't even use up the resource of the liners. Tirpitz also hid for half the war, but for its hypothetical capture, the British and US Navy had to send a squadron of battleships with an aircraft carrier in each convoy, and the Baltic Fleet didn't sail anywhere until the end of 1944.
    1. 0
      1 October 2024 10: 46
      Quote: clou
      They didn't get it in '41 because, as practice showed, the Air Force and Baltic Fleet aviation didn't have the strength for a massive effective raid or dive bombers to destroy pinpoint targets. And then, the 4 guns of the "Väinämäinen" simply hid the entire war together with the ship and, as it seems to me, didn't even use up the resource of the liners.

      Yeah... don't hide "Vanya-Manya" in the skerries near Turku - you wouldn't have to cross out the name "Väinämäinen" on the cover of one report and write "Consider the air defense cruiser "Niobe". wink
    2. 0
      1 October 2024 14: 14
      That's the point: the very existence of "Vainemäinen" forced us to allocate funds for its search and destruction...
  21. 0
    28 September 2024 12: 49
    Quote: Saxahorse
    This is what the Russian Navy should have built!

    The Russian navy had something like this, but it was sent to Tsushima. Then they probably kicked themselves. But why they didn't build a second series with 2-2*305*40 turrets while they were struggling with the design of dreadnoughts is a question.
    1. Alf
      0
      29 September 2024 20: 50
      Quote: clou
      But why they didn’t build a second series with 2-2*305*40 turrets while they were struggling with the design of dreadnoughts is a question.

      And what about St. Andrew the First-Called and Emperor Paul? They were founded in 1906.
      1. 0
        29 September 2024 22: 07
        Quote: Alf
        And what about St. Andrew the First-Called and Emperor Paul? They were founded in 1906.

        These were first-rank EBRs with a large draft, and we are talking about coastal defense battleships.
  22. 0
    28 September 2024 12: 52
    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
    Finland couldn't handle battleships

    Greece bought two old American battleships and maintained them quite well.
    1. 0
      1 October 2024 14: 16
      Finland, at that time, was poorer than Greece, IMHO...