"Esmeralda" - cheap but cheerful!

30 500 95
"Esmeralda" - cheap but cheerful!

"The Esmeralda increased the speed of cruisers, deprived them of sails, and Armstrong became rich," said the chief builder of the Royal Navy. fleet Sir Nathaniel Barnaby. Right on target! That's exactly how it was.


William Armstrong

Let's start from the beginning. In the second half of the 19th century, Chile was considered a famous "troublemaker" in Latin America: the country managed to participate in all Latin American wars, some of which it unleashed. Agronomists had already learned about the benefits of mineral fertilizers, but chemists had not yet learned how to produce them artificially, so Chile, with its reserves of potassium nitrate and "guano" - bird droppings - began to grow rich rapidly. And as they got rich, local elites began to "want something strange" - to squeeze something out of their neighbors. Paying much attention to equipping the army and navy.




John Rendell

Since the country had virtually no shipbuilding industry of its own, the Chileans began ordering ships from the English firm of Armstrong, which had shipyards in Elswick. True, Mr. Armstrong's chief designer, John Whitwick Rendel, was mainly engaged in gunboats, and the Chileans needed something more serious. Therefore, Rendel designed, and Armstrong built, to a Chilean order, the cruiser "Arturo Prat" - 1380 tons of displacement, speed of 16,5 knots, steel hull with a ram divided into watertight compartments, armament: 2x1 254-mm guns in the bow and stern, 4x1 130-mm guns on the sides, 2 torpedo tubes.

According to most historians, the ship had no armor (there are references to a carp deck, but they are doubtful). But it had a pair of masts with oblique sail rigging. The ship was launched in 1879, and was ready in 1880, but the Chileans, seeing that another war with Peru did not happen, sold the ship to the Japanese. And the Chinese ordered a pair of the same from Armstrong for their fleet.


Cruiser "Arturo Prat", also known as "Chaoyong".

But in the early 80s it became clear again that war was just around the corner, and in Chile they started collecting funds by subscription for the construction of a new ship. They chose a symbolic name! In Chile, the Esmeralda is what the Varyag is in Russia: a ship that heroically perished in an unequal battle with the monitor Huascar, and the ship's commander and national hero Arturo Prat tried to board the Peruvian ship and died. In general, the most uplifting storyTherefore, the money for the construction of the new Esmeralda was collected quickly.


"Esmeralda" in dock.

After which the order was given to Rendel and Armstrong again. The requirements were standard for Latin America: strong armament, high speed, but inexpensive. And the British, not feeling the customer's control, gave free rein to their engineering thought! Construction began on April 5, 1881, the ship was launched on June 6, 1883, and in 1884 it was put into operation. What a ship it was! A steel hull with a smooth deck and a ram stem. Two pipes, a complete lack of rigging, 18,3 knots per measured mile!

At the same time, the ship also had armor, albeit weak: a carp armor deck, which sloped down to the waterline along the entire length of the ship. The armor thickness above the magazines was 51 mm, above the engines - 25 mm, at the ends - 12,7 mm. Additional protection was provided by coal pits located on the slopes of the armor deck and a cofferdam filled with cork.

Armament: 2x1 254-mm breech-loading guns in the bow and stern, located in barbettes, 6x1 152-mm guns on Vavasseur mounts, protected by two-inch armor shields, for protection against destroyers - two 57-mm guns and a five-barrel 37-mm Hotchkiss gun, the conning tower is protected by an inch of armor. And all this - fit into 2800 tons of displacement!


The future Edward VII, but for now - simply the Prince of Wales...

William Armstrong was good at PR: he gave interviews in batches, and did not hesitate to praise his brainchild, calling the Esmeralda "the fastest and most well-armed cruiser in the world", while, in his words, it was "almost completely protected from the most destructive shells". The ship attracted the attention of not only sailors, but also royalty: on August 22, 1884, the Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VII, came on board, which added even more popularity to the ship. Stepan Osipovich Makarov was also enchanted by the Esmeralda, calling the cruiser "an ideal fighting machine".


"Esmeralda" in all its glory.

Armstrong made a fortune with the ship! The Elswick cruisers became the standard, 12 countries ordered 51 Esmeralda clones from the shipyard. They served all over the world - from China to Chile, from Brazil to Turkey and Romania. Moreover, the combat experience of using the Esmeralda was initially inspiring. In 1885, taking advantage of another Civil War in the United States of Columbia (there was such a country at that time - the USC), the American Marines landed on the coast. The Chileans really did not like it when the United States interfered in the affairs of Latin America, and sent the brand new Esmeralda, smelling of fresh paint, to sort out the situation. The effect was amazing! Before the cruiser had time to drop anchor off the coast of Panama (it was then part of the USC), the Americans hurried to retreat. "The Esmeralda could have destroyed all our ships located in Panama at the same time, even without losses," American newspapers wrote.


Esmeralda and Magellan bombard President Balmaceda's troops, 1891.

Then there was participation in the Civil War in Chile itself: in 1891, President Juan Manuel Balmaceda and the National Congress could not reach an agreement. Most of the fleet, including the Esmeralda, sided with the Congress, while the army supported the president. The cruiser's 254 mm guns were a weighty argument that greatly demoralized those loyal to the president, which led to the victory of the Congress in the war. In 1894, Armstrong proposed modernizing the cruiser - changing the boilers and artillery, sheathe with teak, add a poop deck with a forecastle... But the Chileans refused. And sold the cruiser to Japan. Why?


The Esmeralda's bow was swept by the waves in the rough seas...

It should be noted here that none of the major naval powers ordered "Elswick cruisers". Brazil and Romania ordered them, but Russia, Germany and France did not. The advertisement for the cruiser was promoted by representatives of the "young school" (S. O. Makarov expressed similar views), who considered such ships to be "battleships of the future". And the British Admiralty was not interested in the cruiser. What's the matter? Well, let's start with the fact that "the Empire on which the Sun never set" needed a more seaworthy cruiser. And the Esmeralda, with its freeboard of 3,6 meters, was not distinguished by enviable seaworthiness. And the cruising range of 2200 miles was clearly insufficient for both the Royal Navy and the Russian Imperial Navy.

In addition, experienced sailors understood that a ship with a displacement of 2800 tons was not the most stable platform for 254 mm guns. Moreover, the rate of fire of these guns - 1 shot every 3 minutes was too low for any self-respecting fleet at the end of the 254th century. And, given the low seaworthiness, the possibility of firing from the bow ten-inch gun in windy weather was questionable. At the same time, to perform the main tasks facing cruisers: reconnaissance, protection of their own trade and destruction of enemy trade, XNUMX mm non-rapid-fire monsters were not needed at all. At all!


HMS Mersey

Therefore, the same British Admiralty put forward another project of second-rank cruisers — the Mersey class. The lead ship of the series of four cruisers entered service in 1887 — only three years later than the Esmeralda. In terms of speed, she was slightly inferior to the "star of the stage", showing only 17 knots on the measured mile, but her cruising range was four times greater — 8750 miles! At the same time, the ship, with a displacement of 4050 tons, carried two 203-mm guns and ten 152-mm guns: five in sponsons on each side. For protection against torpedo boats, there were three quick-firing 57-mm "6-pounder" Hotchkiss guns and three quick-firing 47-mm "3-pounder" guns of the same company. At the same time, the armor of the cruisers of this project was much more serious than that of the Esmeralda - the carpass armored deck was 51-102 mm thick, and the conning tower was armored like a real one: 229 mm!


Screw corvette "Rynda"

Russia did not pay much attention to armored cruisers at all, preferring to develop armored cruisers. Nevertheless, almost simultaneously with the English cruisers of the "Mersey" type, a pair of "screw corvettes" entered service: "Vityaz" and "Rynda", also equipped with an armored deck, and a couple of years later in Saint-Nazaire the armored cruiser "Admiral Kornilov" was built. These were ships armed with 152-mm main caliber guns, having armor no thicker than 76 mm, but much better suited to work on protecting their own trade and destroying others.


Armored cruiser "Admiral Kornilov"

In general, assessing the Esmeralda project, one can note the presence of many progressive technical solutions that Randall and Armstrong put into the project. The Esmeralda defined the appearance of ships of its class for decades to come, but to call the project successful... If we mean the commercial success of William Armstrong, then he undoubtedly took off. But the basis for success was that the ship became the optimal option in terms of "price-quality" for the fleets of minor naval powers. Larger players preferred less breakthrough ships with more balanced characteristics.
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 15
    8 March 2025 06: 22
    Rendell designed and Armstrong built the cruiser Arturo Prat for Chile.
    At the same time, it was designed by actually "doubling" the Rendel gunboats (which were the previous sales hit). A sort of "push-pull", when two gunboats, turning their sterns to each other, "fused" at the midships...

    Cruiser "Arturo Prat", also known as "Chaoyong"
    In fact, the Japanese called the Arturo Prat Tsukushi. The Chinese Chaoyong and Yangwei were built from scratch. Both were lost in the Battle of Yalu.

    Well, yes. "Esmeralda" is that very "Izumi" with which our Tsushima began...
    1. +6
      8 March 2025 09: 00
      Yes, the cruiser strongly resembles a gunboat: large-caliber artillery with a small displacement...
  2. +4
    8 March 2025 09: 42
    2x1 254mm guns in the bow and stern, 4x1 130-mm guns on the sides,

    Quite a strange caliber for that time.
    No, I know that the Russian wiki says so. But others indicate Armstrong's 4.7"
    1. 0
      8 March 2025 11: 01
      I am inclined to believe the Russian Wiki: the Japanese had 12'' bows on their Elsvieks - the same logic...
      1. +5
        8 March 2025 11: 07
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        I tend to believe Russian Wiki:

        Questions of religion are sacred to me, it’s just that during that period, 130mm was not found anywhere else.
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        the Japanese have "Elsvieks" nasal 12'' stood

        Where? belay
        The Nanivas had German 26cm. The Takasago and the Americans had Armstrong 8".
        1. 0
          8 March 2025 11: 19
          On the Matsushima, Hasidate, and Ikatsushima, 12,6'' were installed on the bow.
          1. +7
            8 March 2025 11: 23
            Quote: Flying_Dutchman
            On the Matsushima, Hasidate, and Ikatsushima, 12,6'' were installed on the bow.

            I kind of know. Yes But 320mm is a little bit more than 12". Not to mention that "Sims" are not "Elswicks" at all. request
            1. 0
              8 March 2025 11: 33
              I don't understand the essence of the discussion: the "Naniwas", which are typical "Elswicks", had 260 mm guns, why does the "Esmeralda" have 254 mm - a "strange caliber"? The same logic, by the way, of the same "young school", according to the canons of which the "Sims" are built...
              1. +7
                8 March 2025 11: 37
                Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                I don't understand the point of the discussion.

                It's noticeable))))
                Once again. In the very first comment, I highlighted it in font 130mm
                Then I wrote some more
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                at that time nowhere else 130mm does not occur.

                That is, 254 mm is indeed normal for Elswicks of that period. But 130 mm is not!

                Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                The same logic, by the way, of the same "young school", according to the canons of which "Sims" are built...

                "Young School" has nothing to do with "Sims" and "Elswicks".
                1. 0
                  8 March 2025 12: 06
                  If you don't like Russian Wikipedia, then Finnish and Bulgarian give the same 130 mm, Japanese - 120 mm, but I guess that these are the same 130, but calculated not from the upper edge of the rifling, but from the lower one.
                  1. +4
                    8 March 2025 12: 47
                    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                    then Finnish and Bulgarian

                    My God, what do they have to do with it?
                    The ship's operators were Japanese, who in theory should have known what kind of guns they had. But they clearly stated - 120mm.
                    The English have it too
                    Armament: from completion
                    2 Main guns \\\ 254 /L=?? (1863 02 01_YY) (Ammunition: 121) \\\ In one barbette
                    4 Auxiliary gun \\\ 120 /L=?? (YYYY_YY) (Ammo: 401) \\\ In a single mount on the deck
                    2 guns QF \\\ 64 /L=?? (1879 10 02_YY) (Ammunition: 401) \\\ In single-deck mount
                    4 guns QF \\\ 37 /L=23 (1879_Rs) (Ammunition: 2001) \\\ In a single-gun mount \\\ Range (m): 1852; Rate of fire (1 gun/shot/minute): 32
                    2 T-Tube \\\ 457 (YYYY_YY) (Ammo: 2) \\\ Deck Mounted

                    https://web.archive.org/web/20100121133616/http://www.battleships.ru/warships/arturo_prat_1879_chmalkov/ship_rsmalkov.html
                    But that's not even the main thing. If such guns were mass-produced, and the Chileans could hardly afford an exclusive, then they should have been installed on other ships. But somehow they never came across.
                    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                    but not counted from the upper edge of the groove, but from the lower one.

                    This is basically how the English measure.
                    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                    And, yes, the "Sims" were built according to all the canons of the young school:

                    A common misconception (again, propagated by our Wiki))))
                    "Sima" was designed by Bertin, of course, but not because he sympathized with the "Young School", but because the Japanese ordered such a cadaver from him. But if the "creations" of the school of Admiral Oba, should have been quote:
                    The destroyers were to be supported also small unarmored ships armed with one large-caliber gun.
                    — V. Kofman. Lessons of the "young school".

                    The "Simas" were built to counteract Chinese battleships. In other words, they had different purposes.
                    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                    with one 320mm cannon in the nose - just like Makarov

                    Have you ever seen Makarov's real projects or read about them?
                    S. O. Makarov was an active and energetic supporter of this idea and, using his authority and influence on the General Admiral and a number of senior leaders of the naval department, tirelessly defended it. As early as 1894, he proposed building cruisers or, as he called them, unarmored combat ships, with a displacement of 3000 tons. The admiral believed that “ships of the same type should be built for all combat purposes,” and his ships should replace both battleships and cruisers. The armament consisted of five 152mm guns and four torpedo tubes, full coal capacity - 600 tons, full speed - 20 knots.

                    There was also a project with eight-inch guns, but they had to be positioned on the sides. request
                    1. +1
                      8 March 2025 13: 20
                      If I'm not mistaken, in "Thoughts on Naval Tactics" Makarov postulates the presence of 12'' on the bow of the ship, I read it a long time ago, but in my opinion, that's exactly it...
                    2. 0
                      9 March 2025 00: 54
                      Stop! The English version clearly states that the Simas had 4,7" guns. The Japanese specify that they were Armstrong 120 mm guns from 1887. What makes you think that the Esmeralda had a different caliber? Who has both 130 and 120 mm guns in service? Even if the Chilean cruiser had older guns (it was made in 1883, after all), the caliber should have been the same! The Russian dreadnoughts had newer guns than the battleships, but they were the same 12"! It would be more logical to assume that different countries simply calculated the caliber differently, based on the different rifling faces...
                      1. +2
                        9 March 2025 09: 22
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        Stop! The English version clearly states that the Simas had 4,7" guns. The Japanese specify that they were Armstrong 120 mm guns from 1887. What makes you think that the Esmeralda had a different caliber?

                        Where did I write about "Esmeralda"?)))
                        The conversation was about the "Arturo Pratt", which, according to you (and Russian wiki data), had a 130mm caliber.
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        Who simultaneously has 130 and 120 mm guns in service?

                        Hallelujah! You finally understood what surprised me)))
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        Even if the Chilean cruiser had older guns

                        Much older. With a barrel length of .22 caliber.
                        For comparison, we had some like this on our "Zabiyaka".
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        On Russian dreadnoughts

                        You're being carried away somewhere wrong again.
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        It is more logical to assume that in different countries the caliber was simply calculated differently, based on the different edges of the rifling...

                        In which countries exactly?
                        In Chile, the caliber of this gun (I had to look into sources) was designated as 4,7 inches. In Great Britain, too. In Japan, 12 cm. In Russia, the later Armstrong guns were 120 mm.
                        What kind of bastard considered this caliber to be 130 mm?
                2. 0
                  8 March 2025 12: 07
                  And, yes, the "Sims" were built according to all the canons of the young school: with one 320-mm cannon in the nose - just like Makarov, and he can easily be attributed to the Young School (well, or to those who sympathize with it, at worst).
                  1. +2
                    8 March 2025 14: 16
                    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                    And, yes, the Sims were built according to all the canons of the young school: with one 320-mm cannon in the nose.

                    These ships were not built according to the canons of the young school. The whole idea of ​​the young school was embodied in one ship "Gabriel Charmes" and was considered unsuccessful.
                    1. 0
                      8 March 2025 14: 47
                      But this is exactly the logic in which both the Esmeralda and the Sims were built! A small fast ship, several of which will be stronger than an armored ship. This is the logic of the young school, and the gunboat you named is the most complete embodiment, but far from the only one! Japan is an ocean country and ships for it had to be seaworthy, but the logic of "a small ship with big artillery" is precisely the influence of the young school.
                      1. 0
                        8 March 2025 15: 07
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        A small fast ship, several of which will be stronger than a battleship. This is the logic of the young school, and the gunboat you named is the most complete embodiment, but far from the only one!

                        This was not the logic of the "young school", the idea of ​​such a ship was expressed writer и journalist Gabriel Charmes, who had nothing to do with the fleet. He also published a brochure describing the advantages of such a ship, but the sailors did not accept this idea and only a personal order from Admiral Oba forced them to build such a ship. Which, after testing, did not serve for long and was rebuilt into a torpedo boat.
                        Emile Bertin built coastal defense ships for the Japanese, as indicated in his documents; it is difficult to understand that Admiral Makarov became interested in these ideas ten years after their appearance.
                      2. +3
                        8 March 2025 15: 51
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        Tiny fast ship, several of which

                        That's the point, "The Sims" not fast.
                      3. 0
                        9 March 2025 00: 44
                        "Sima" was built in Japan, do you really think that at the time of their construction the Japanese COULD have built a fast ship, but DID NOT WANT to do it? I don't understand what you want to prove? That the ideas of the young school did not influence Japanese shipbuilding? And what evidence can you provide for this?
                      4. +1
                        9 March 2025 08: 47
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        The Sims were built in Japan, do you really think that at the time they were built the Japanese COULD build a fast ship?

                        Marsh learn materiel!
                        Itsukushima and Matsushima were built in France at the Société Nouvelle des Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée shipyard.
                        "Hashidate" was built, or more accurately assembled, in Japan, since all the materials for it were brought from Europe.
                        I do not understand

                        Not the first time)))
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        What do you want to prove?

                        Nothing. I was just interested in a strange, in my opinion, caliber. It was you who brought up Jeune École for some reason.
                        Did the ideas of the young school influence Japanese shipbuilding?

                        They did. But "Sims" have nothing to do with it.
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        What evidence can you provide for this?

                        You made a statement, now it's up to you to prove it))
                      5. 0
                        9 March 2025 11: 21
                        There is no need to search for evidence for my statement - Wikipedia is here to help. You claim that she is wrong - prove it!
                      6. +3
                        9 March 2025 13: 46
                        If something exists, its existence can be proven. If something There is no, it is impossible to either prove or disprove its existence.
                        There is no clear connection between "Matsushima" and "Jeune École" other than your unfounded statements and the Wiki article, which could have been left by anyone.
                        The French, who had this very "young school", did not build anything similar to the "Sims" for themselves. Their cruisers built within the framework of this concept had completely different performance characteristics, especially speed and armament.
                        In fact, your only argument (and in my opinion, a very dubious one) in favor of the "Sim" belonging to this concept is the presence of a large-caliber gun in the bow. And here two questions arise. 1) What to do with the "Hashidate", which has this same gun in the stern?
                        2) Was our "Gangut" (one pipe, one gun, one misunderstanding) also built within the framework of "Jeune École"?)))
                      7. -1
                        9 March 2025 14: 48
                        Hmm... I'll repeat myself once again: was Makarov a supporter of the ideas of the "young school"? It's clear to me from his "Reflections..." that he was. Let's move on. "The influence of the ideas of the "young school"" does not mean accepting its concepts in their entirety. The French went a little overboard in the matter of building destroyers, etc., etc., but the "Simas" are very reminiscent of the ships that Makarov voted for with both hands: a small cruiser (you don't consider the "Simas" to be large cruisers, do you?), armed with one large-caliber gun and several rapid-fire guns. And Makarov's logic is precisely that three or four small ships are harder to sink than one battleship, and their armament will be the same. And the "Simas" were built precisely for a joint attack on the Chinese battleships! In other words, the logic of the ideas of the "young school" in their creation, in my opinion, can be traced: instead of building a small number of large ships - build many small ones.
                      8. +2
                        10 March 2025 11: 53
                        Okay, I understand your position in principle, but after that
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        I cite my sources (Wikipedia), you refer to the archives of the French Ministry of the Navy...

                        the discussion is completely pointless. request
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        (You don't consider the "Sims" to be large cruisers, do you?

                        I'll tell you more, I don't really consider the "Sims" to be cruisers)))
                        This is a cadaver, a technical oxymoron. BBO without a belt. But not a cruiser.
                        In other words, the logic of the ideas of the "young school" in their creation, in my opinion, can be traced:

                        In this way, any ship can be attached to "Jeune École". Even "Gangut")))
                        Oh well.
                    2. 0
                      9 March 2025 00: 55
                      Where did you get this from? Do you have any evidence for this?
                      1. +2
                        9 March 2025 08: 34
                        Where did you get this from? Do you have any evidence for this?

                        "Emile Bertin: His Role in the Creation of the Japanese Navy". capitaine Togari.
                      2. 0
                        9 March 2025 11: 27
                        I'm not good at anime, can I have something more serious?
                      3. +2
                        9 March 2025 11: 44
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        I'm not good at anime, can I have something more serious?

                        What does anime have to do with it? This is a publication describing the activities of E. Bertin in Japan. If you want documents, look for them in the Ministère De La Marine, they are available for download.
                      4. -1
                        9 March 2025 12: 37
                        For what reason? I cite my sources (Wikipedia), you refer to the archives of the French naval ministry... Do I need to dig there? I put forward a thesis, you disagree with it, the argumentation is on your conscience. I am not going to waste my time searching God knows where for what you need.
                      5. +1
                        9 March 2025 14: 11
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        For what reason? I cite my sources (Wikipedia),

                        The source is so-so, if desired, this article can be rewritten in 10-15 minutes and new data will appear. laughing
                      6. 0
                        9 March 2025 14: 52
                        Well then, give me a quote from the archives of the French Ministry of the Navy that refutes this thesis. Why should I look for it for you?
                      7. +1
                        9 March 2025 17: 57
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        Well then, give me a quote from the archives of the French Ministry of the Navy,

                        " Chine venait de faire construire en Allemagne deux bons cuirassés de 7.335 tons. Le Japon ne possédait que deux petits cuirassés de 3.777 et de 2.284 tons, presque sans valeur. Avec un budget limité, il s'agissait de construire une escadre susceptible de se mesurer avantageusement avec la flotte chinoise.
                        Bertin décida de construire trois bâtiments de 4.278 tons, qui à leur naissance furent baptisés garde-coles pour la satisfaction d'un program naval defensif.
                        Les bâtiments anglais le Blake et le Blenheim, de 9.000 tons, n'ont pas été armés pour la lutte contre les cuirassés de ligne. Les trois bâtiments japonais classe Matsoushima, du déplacement plus modeste de 4.300 tons, ont reçu,un puissant canon de perforation en tourelle blindée, qui leur a permis de participer, à toutes les opérations de guerre
                        ."
                      8. 0
                        10 March 2025 17: 07
                        So? Where is it stated here that Bertin was not a supporter of the young school? The English-language Wiki (if the Russian one doesn't suit you) clearly states: Bertin's concept of lightly armored, heavily-gunned cruisers was soon overtaken by the pre-dreadnoughts; by the time of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, the concepts of the Jeune École had largely been discredited. You didn't provide a quote refuting this position...
                      9. 0
                        10 March 2025 21: 16
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        The English-language Wiki (if the Russian one doesn't suit you) clearly states: Bertin's concept of lightly armored, heavily-gunned cruisers was soon overtaken by the pre-dreadnoughts; by the time of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, the concepts of the Jeune École had largely been discredited. You didn't provide a quote refuting this position...


                        Your faith in Wikipedia is strong.

                        " L'Itsukushima, le premier des "croiseurs Bertin", du nom de leur concepteur, a été lancé à La Seyne en 1889. Le capitaine Ingles, conseiller naval des Japonais, les avait fortement persuadés contre les cuirassés; on leur avait également déconseillé le gros canon. Cependant, ils étaient déterminés à monter un canon capable de percer n'importe quel blindage dans la marine chinoise ou dans les navires de guerre étrangers susceptibles de venir en Extrême-Orient. cependant, la décision des Japonais de les avoir ne peut être condamnée, étant donné que la construction navale partout en 1888 était basée sur le gros canon. Ayant une idée précise de leurs besoins, les Japonais ont décidé que le Italian Lepanto incarnait le type de navire le plus utile pour eux, et les Itsukushima ont été commandés sur ce principe. "1904.

                        Where do you see the influence of the "young school" or Bertin's concept? Poor Japanese, they didn't even know that Bertin "foisted" on them an Italian project to promote the theories of the "young school".
                        Don't you find it funny? Continue to trust Wikipedia if you think it is the "best" source of information. hi
                      10. -1
                        11 March 2025 11: 43
                        Aren't you laughing? Where in the given quote is the absence of influence of the young school indicated? The fact that it is not said about its presence does not mean its absence! And about the influence of "Lepanto" - complete nonsense is written! You are the TTX of Japanese cruisers and Italian armadillo compare. There the full displacement is 15,5 thousand tons! 4x17'' guns armament! What does "Sima" have to do with it? Weak armor? So what? Based on this feature, we can say that "Fischer cats" were copied from "Ikatsushima". Why not? Big guns and weak armor! It's better to quote Wikipedia than outright nonsense...
                      11. 0
                        11 March 2025 13: 22
                        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                        And about the influence of "Lepanto" - complete nonsense is written! You compare the performance characteristics of Japanese cruisers and the Italian battleship. There the full displacement is 15,5 thousand tons! 4x17'' guns armament! What does "Sima" have to do with this?

                        In your comment you called nonsense what was written by at least three respected people of that period of time. Whose authority is recognized in shipbuilding and the history of the development of the Navy of different countries, all over the world, well, except for you. These are Louis-Émile Bertin, William Henry White and Fred T. Jane. I think the Ministère De La Marine, where these ships were built, will be indifferent.
                        It's better to quote Wikipedia than outright nonsense...

                        Good luck with your Wikipedia work to refute the shipbuilders of that time period.
                        I think we can stop this discussion. hi
                    3. 0
                      9 March 2025 14: 24
                      And what about ships like the armored gunboats of the Acheron type?
                      1. +1
                        9 March 2025 15: 46
                        Quote: Maxim G
                        And what about ships like the armored gunboats of the Acheron type?

                        "The Acheron armored gunboats are protected small vessels designed for action in shallow rivers, small bays and lagoons. They are protected by armor from artillery fire, designed to destroy forts and field fortifications with artillery fire, both on the shore and built inland. Armed with one large-caliber gun, they have sufficient speed to overcome rapids, and are seaworthy enough to be sent to serve in the most remote countries.."

                        These ships have no relation to the "young school"; the decision to build "canonnières cuirassées" was made during the so-called Tonkin expedition of 1881-1884.
                      2. 0
                        9 March 2025 22: 17
                        And how successful/unsuccessful were they, or is it impossible to assess?
        2. 0
          12 May 2025 09: 30
          Of course it doesn't happen, since it's 5"/25 BL, i.e. 127mm.
          1. 0
            12 May 2025 09: 46
            What kind of gun is this and where did it come from?
            1. +1
              12 May 2025 09: 52
              http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-25_mk1.php
              1. 0
                12 May 2025 11: 20
                Quote: Kitun Evgeniy
                http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-25_mk1.php

                Thank you!
    2. 0
      12 May 2025 09: 44
      but in others, Armstrong's 4.7" is indicated"

      They appeared only in 1886, and Arturo Prat actually entered service in 81-83.
  3. +1
    8 March 2025 09: 53
    Quite successful for its tasks - all sorts of local quarrels. Swim to the neighbors, demoralize them with a menacing shot from a large cannon. If the neighbors are not scared, you can quickly run away.

    Good seaworthiness and long range are not needed here.
    1. 0
      8 March 2025 11: 02
      Yes, by and large there were enough gunboats for local showdowns, the Esmeralda is essentially a gunboat, only a big one...
    2. -2
      8 March 2025 11: 17
      Well, and to hit the shore from 10 inches is generally sacred. Even 1 time in 3 minutes will not seem to be enough for anyone.
      1. +1
        8 March 2025 11: 26
        Yeah, if some people go out to the beach to swim))) if someone is smarter - you can easily spit from the hill - the angle of elevation is zero.
        1. +2
          8 March 2025 11: 34
          As practice showed, these cruisers had more than enough targets on the shore...
          1. 0
            8 March 2025 13: 24
            More specifically, please. What, when and where did this "Esmeralda" bomb?
            1. 0
              8 March 2025 13: 50
              Read the text itself more carefully: there is an example of how the Esmeralda and Magellan fired at the troops of the president with the unpronounceable surname during the Chilean Civil War.
              1. 0
                8 March 2025 16: 04
                And what was the effectiveness of this shelling? I don't deny it - they approached the shore, shot))) what was the result?
                1. +2
                  9 March 2025 00: 57
                  The President's troops capitulated - an excellent result of the shelling.
                  1. -1
                    9 March 2025 11: 09
                    After that does not mean as a result of that.
                    1. +2
                      9 March 2025 14: 49
                      No, precisely because of that! A 254 mm shell exploding nearby is a strong argument for panic...
                      1. -1
                        9 March 2025 15: 27
                        This is for a private soldier who found himself in the wrong place. But for a general who is thousands of kilometers away, just two lines in a report.
          2. 0
            8 March 2025 20: 45
            only where there was no modern coastal artillery
            1. +2
              8 March 2025 22: 11
              And where in Latin America has she been?
    3. 0
      8 March 2025 13: 56
      Quote: Kvakosavrus
      Good seaworthiness and long range are not needed here.

      The Japanese got burned on this. It suddenly turned out that against one Russian 6000 you need to put up a whole squad of "dogs". It turns out that size matters. smile
      1. +2
        8 March 2025 14: 23
        6000 tons is already an armored cruiser of the Garibaldi type or a 2nd class battleship.
        1. +3
          8 March 2025 16: 05
          Well, actually, the "Garibaldians" are 7 tons of normal VI.
          1. 0
            8 March 2025 20: 09
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Well, actually, the "Garibaldians" are 7 tons of normal VI

            Yeah, almost Asama smile
            1. +2
              8 March 2025 20: 14
              Well, "Asama" is heavier, although why the samurai wanted old boilers is still interesting to me. "Izumo" is the best of all British-built ones.
              1. 0
                8 March 2025 20: 34
                Quote: TermNachTER
                "Izumo" is the finest of all British-built ones.

                I agree. And also the fastest.
            2. 0
              8 March 2025 20: 43
              Is it okay that Asama will cost ten?
              1. +1
                8 March 2025 21: 41
                Well, that's at maximum load. However, in the RYaV - this was not required. "Askold" and "Varyag" fit into 6000 tons (well, almost fit into it). And "goddesses of local production" - turned out to be 6700 tons, and a full 7 tons. I was always wondering - why build such a good thing, having the opportunity to either order abroad or build according to foreign projects at home?
          2. 0
            8 March 2025 22: 36
            Argentine "Garibaldi" - 6 tons.
            "Bogatyr" - 7 tons.
            1. +1
              8 March 2025 23: 29
              "Garibaldi" 6800 is standard, full 7. "Bogatyr" 700 is full with overload. Normal, I think somewhere around 7400 t.
              1. 0
                9 March 2025 00: 00
                Think.
                The result is approximately the same for an armored deck and an armored ship. Yes
                1. 0
                  9 March 2025 00: 14
                  "Bogatyr" 7400 tons - this is with overload, I don't think it happened very often. The Germans are careful shipbuilders, I doubt they would exceed it by 1400 tons. I think it's realistically 6-600 tons.
                  1. 0
                    9 March 2025 00: 46
                    You can think whatever you want.

                    In terms of displacement, the armored deck cruisers of the 1st rank of the RIF are on par with armored cruisers and battleships of the 2nd class, and in terms of price too.

                    With questionable combat value, only intended for use against Japanese dogs.
                    1. 0
                      9 March 2025 11: 07
                      Melnikov points out VI "Ochakov" and "Kagul" - 6780 tons, I don't think they were much different from the German original. As for armored cruisers, we can say - they almost reach it, about the battleships of the II - th class, don't get excited, they are completely different ships.
                      1. 0
                        9 March 2025 11: 31
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        You could say they almost reach the level of armored cruisers,

                        It's good that we agreed on this. drinks


                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        battleships of the second class, don't get excited, they are completely different ships.

                        Why, the "Buvine" with 2 305 mm looks quite convincing.
                      2. +1
                        9 March 2025 12: 25
                        The French listed two "Bouvins" in the class of coastal defense battleships. This is more of a failed experiment than combat units. As for me, for the needs of the Far East, instead of three "Palladas" they could have built two "Rostislavs". At least they have the same ballistics as the "Oslyabyas".
                      3. 0
                        9 March 2025 13: 07
                        My opinion is different.
                        There was a line of development of domestic (and custom-built) squadron battleships with 305-mm/40 guns: "Sisoy Veliky", "Poltava" type, "Retvizan", "Tsesarevich", "Borodino" type.
                        This line was successful, it just needed inexpensive 2nd rank cruisers, like reconnaissance and rehearsal ships.

                        Bouvine is more of a 2nd class, it is similar to the earlier colonial French battleships, in that it is high-sided.
                      4. 0
                        9 March 2025 13: 27
                        I do not deny that the line "Sisoy Velikiy" - "Borodino" is quite logical and reasonable, corresponding to world trends. However, there was a hesitation - "Peresvets" + "Rostislav" on the Black Sea Fleet.
                        "Bouvine" was a poorly executed experiment. They were even different from each other, different boilers. One was double-pipe, the other was double-pipe. The French were looking for their own way, but it seems they found nothing.
                      5. 0
                        9 March 2025 13: 41
                        They differed, which was common for that time.
                      6. +1
                        9 March 2025 15: 09
                        It was common, so after building two unsuccessful examples, they stopped and forgot about it.
                      7. 0
                        9 March 2025 15: 18
                        France also had other small battleships built at that time.
                      8. +1
                        9 March 2025 15: 29
                        Well, I don't argue. It's not for nothing that the French fleet of the late 19th - early 20th centuries was called "a fleet of unsuccessful models."
                      9. 0
                        9 March 2025 15: 31
                        They simply called it a fleet of samples.
                      10. 0
                        9 March 2025 15: 35
                        If the samples were successful, they would be built in series.
                      11. 0
                        9 March 2025 22: 19
                        They were built in series, 2 ships.
                        But the fact is that the time of such small battleships is gone.
                        And France stopped building them altogether.
                      12. +1
                        10 March 2025 00: 04
                        A series of two? One of which had one pipe and one boiler, the other two pipes and other boilers. A very dubious series.
                      13. 0
                        12 March 2025 18: 50
                        For example, "Dmitry Donskoy" and "Vladimir Monomakh" were also different.
                        And no more such ones were built.
                      14. 0
                        12 March 2025 19: 42
                        And who said that they are of the same type? At that time, in Russia, the advantages of serial production were not very well understood.
                      15. 0
                        12 March 2025 20: 01
                        Similar. One project.
            2. 0
              11 March 2025 03: 01
              Well, what about English armored ships for 13500? Everyone builds ships for their own purposes.
              And these "Garibaldi" turned out to be very good only for the specific conditions of the Russo-Japanese war.
              1. 0
                12 March 2025 20: 50
                And who argues? And the "Asams" turned out to be good for the Russian Navy, but then, they didn't really participate anywhere. However, they lived to see WWII.
        2. 0
          8 March 2025 20: 38
          6000 tons is Aurora and her sleeping sisters, armored deck ships
          1. 0
            8 March 2025 22: 42
            The following were considered 6000 tons:
            Varyag, Askold, Bogatyr (as well as domestically built cruisers of this type), 3 Diana-type cruisers.
            1. +1
              8 March 2025 22: 58
              and there are no armored ships among them, all are armored deck ships
              1. +1
                8 March 2025 23: 07
                What type of armored cruiser was I writing about?
  4. +1
    9 March 2025 10: 19
    Thank you for the article, it is very informative and interestingly written.