"Radetsky" - the ideal battleship

45 464 134
"Radetsky" - the ideal battleship

Austria-Hungary was a land empire, so most of its military budget was predictably eaten up by the army. Fleet not that much was received. But there were some advantages to this situation. Firstly, the Empire was forced to rely on its own strength: its naval department could not afford to buy ships abroad. Secondly, the chief engineer of the fleet, Siegfried Popper, did not have the money for risky experiments, so only well-tested ship models were built for the Kaiserliche und Köningliche Kriegsmarine. When Great Britain began the "dreadnought race", in which all other countries cheerfully joined, the Austrians were initially able to scrape together money only for the construction of classic squadron battleships. But these became the best squadron battleships in the world!


Field Marshal Radetzky, the Man and the Steamship

The first of the ships in the series was named after Field Marshal Count Joseph Wenzel Radetzky von Radetz, the victor over the Italians at Custozza and Novara. The same one in whose honor Strauss wrote his famous march, which everyone heard without even knowing what kind of music it was. The ships were built in Trieste, at the Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino shipyard, and artillery The battleships were supplied by the Czech Skoda, the main supplier of all shooting weapons in the dual monarchy.




Battleship King Edward VII - British analogue

"Radetzky" was laid down on November 26, 1907. Of course, by that time "Dreadnought" was already sailing the oceans, but, on the other hand, in Russia "Evstafiy" was laid down in 1911, the French were busy churning out "Dantons", and the British, together with the dreadnoughts, were completing eight battleships of the "King Edward VII" type. However, the Austrian shipbuilders had no need to orient themselves on "Evstafiy", "Dantons", or "King Edwards"! The fact is that the Danube Monarchy had one extremely rare advantage: it had only one theater of military operations and only one enemy.


"Sardinia" - battleship of the "Re Umberto" class

Of the entire World Ocean, Austria-Hungary was interested in only 0,04 percent called the "Adriatic Sea", and of all the world's fleets, only the Italian one. Accordingly, the imperial and royal engineers had the opportunity to build ships whose coal reserves were sufficient for operations only in the Adriatic, and for which special seaworthiness was unnecessary. The ships against which the battleships of the "Radetzky" type could theoretically go out were two battleships of the "Regina Margherita" type and four battleships of the "Regina Elena" type. Three old battleships of the "Re Umberto" type also had a certain share of combat capability.


Bob Kernahan Armadillo "Regina Margherita"

The Regina Margherita-class ships were small battleships with a full displacement of 14093 tons. They could travel at a speed of 20,3 knots and were armed with 4x305 mm main caliber guns in twin turrets fore and aft, 4x1 203 mm guns in casemated mounts at the corners of the superstructure, and 12x152 mm guns in casemates on the main deck. Anti-mine armament consisted of 20x76 mm, 2x47 mm, and 2x37 mm guns and a pair of machine guns. It should be noted right away that this caliber was clearly too small for defense against destroyers of the early 152th century... The armor of the Italian ships was sad: the belt thickness was 76 mm in the central part and XNUMX mm at the ends.


Battleship "Regina Elena"

The Regina Margherita-class ships did not satisfy the Italian admirals: they were equally poorly suited for both long-range and close-range combat. The design errors were taken into account in the next project, Regina Elena. The ship's displacement shrank to 12550 tons, the speed increased to 21 knots, the armor became much more solid: 250 mm - main belt, 250 mm - beams, 100 mm - deck, 200 mm - main caliber turrets, 150 mm - intermediate caliber turrets... But the armament was significantly reduced: 2x1 305-mm guns in the bow and stern turrets, 6x2 203-mm guns in the side turrets, 16x1 76-mm anti-torpedo guns.

"Re Umberto" was the largest of the ships described - full displacement - 15454 tons. Armament - 4x343-mm guns in the bow and stern barbettes, 8x152-mm guns behind armor shields on the upper deck, 4 barrels per side, anti-torpedo battery - 16x120-mm in casemates on the sides, all artillery by 1907 was thoroughly outdated. The armor of the ships of the "Re Umberto" type was even weaker than that of the "Regina Margherita" type - the main belt - 102 mm, deck - 76 mm, barbettes - 349 mm, conning tower - 300 mm, armor - Schneider-Creusot. The ship's maximum speed was 18,3 knots.


The ideal battleship "Radetsky"

What did the Austro-Hungarian engineers decide to counter their Italian opponents with? The Radetsky had a small displacement of 14700 tons. But the ship was armored well, but not excessively: belt - 230 mm, deck - 48 mm, bulkheads - 54 mm, main caliber turrets - 250 mm, auxiliary caliber turrets - 200 mm, casemates - 120 mm, conning tower - 250 mm. But the armament...


Main caliber…

As the main caliber, the Austrians chose 4x305-mm Skoda guns with a barrel length of 45 calibers, which contemporaries often described with words like "excellent." And the guns were worth it: with a rate of fire of 3 shots per minute (in the first minute, then the rate of fire decreased to 2 shots), they sent a 450-kg armor-piercing projectile to a distance of 20 thousand meters.

For comparison, the rate of fire of the main caliber of the Regina Margherita was one shot per minute, and the weight of the projectile was 417 kg. And the intermediate caliber of the Radetsky was a masterpiece: 8x240 mm guns in four turrets - two per side. The anti-mine battery - 20x100 mm rapid-fire guns, 10 per side. Their rate of fire reached 8-10 shots per minute, and the weight of the projectile was 26,2 kg. This was enough to protect against destroyers of the Second World War, and in 1907 ... There was also small-caliber artillery - two 66 mm landing guns, five 47 mm guns. And three torpedo tubes - two on the sides and one in the bow.

How did the imperial and royal engineers manage to achieve such high performance? Well, firstly, financial constraints make the brain work harder, and secondly... The Austrians had something to cut. They did not need a long cruising range! The Radetsky had a cruising range of only 4000 miles. For comparison, the Italians, as the happy owners of African colonies, had to build a cruising range of up to 10 miles into the Regina Margherita, and 11 into the Regina Elena. Even the Re Umberto could travel 6 miles. But the Radetsky did not need that in the Adriatic.

The Radetsky received its baptism of fire during the Balkan Wars: an international squadron under the command of British Admiral Cecil Burney, which also included Austro-Hungarian ships, tried to block the coast of Montenegro in order to prevent the Serbs from sending reinforcements. True, the battleships did not manage to shoot, the Radetsky and its sister ships were assigned the role of a seaplane base.


"Radetsky" is firing

But the ship did fight in World War I! Well, how did it fight... The Austro-Hungarian fleet was not particularly active, however, already in 1914 the ship was involved in the operation to cover the German cruisers Goeben and Breslau during their breakthrough through the Mediterranean Sea. Then the Radetsky took part in the shelling of the French landing on Mount Lovcen on October 21, 1914. The shelling was effective: the French troops abandoned their positions. And in 1915, what the ship was built for happened - Italy entered the war!

On May 23, 1915, the Radetsky began bombarding the coast of Italy and Montenegro, with the naval base in Ancona as its main target. The ship then shelled the Termit Islands and several cities. The Italians sent two destroyers to intercept the battleship, but the Radetsky's anti-torpedo battery showed its best performance: one destroyer escaped, and the second was badly damaged and lost its power. The Austrians decided to take it in tow and take it to Pula as a trophy, but upon learning of the approach of reinforcements, they abandoned this idea and retreated. On the way home, the battleship destroyed a railway bridge near the city of Fermo, which resulted in the deaths of 63 soldiers and civilians. The shelling of Ancona delayed the Italian offensive for two weeks, which allowed the Austrians to strengthen their positions by withdrawing troops from the Eastern Front and the Balkans.

However, this was the end of both the successes and combat activities of the Austro-Hungarian fleet in general and the battleship Radetzky in particular. Fuel supplies ran out, and then the fleet was blockaded in the Gulf of Otranto. In October 1918, the end was coming for Austria-Hungary. Logically, the entire imperial and royal fleet should have gone to Italy - who else? But the Austrians were not going to give the ships to the enemy with whom they had been preparing to fight and had fought all their lives. In this situation, the Germans sank the ships in Scapa Flow. But the admirals of the dying dual monarchy, as they thought, found another way out - they gave the ships to the newly formed Yugoslavia. Yugoslav crews boarded the Radetzky and took it out of Pula. Along the way, the Italians tried to stop them, but the Yugoslavs raised American flags. The trick worked, but not for long. As a result of the negotiations, Austria-Hungary was obliged to partially hand over the ships to the Italians. In 1920, the "ideal battleship" fell into their hands and was scrapped.

"Radetsky" became one of the best representatives of "pre-dreadnoughts" - a fairly large class of ships laid down before the dreadnoughts came into being and completed. Like most of its classmates, it did not have the chance to participate in the main naval battles of the First World War (the Germans tried to use six of their battleships in the Battle of Jutland, nothing good came of it): in a linear battle with dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts, they had no chance. But it was on their shoulders that the main share of combat work in the "secondary theaters" fell: the Dardanelles landing operation, the pursuit of "Goeben" and "Breslau" and the shelling of the Turkish coast on the Black Sea, the Battle of Moonsund in the Baltic. And they bore this burden with honor...
134 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 12
    12 March 2025 04: 09
    The empire was forced to rely on its own strength: its naval department could not afford to buy ships abroad.

    Having a developed industry and excellent engineering personnel, the Austrians had no need to buy warships abroad.
    And this was quite within their capabilities, since the cost of one ton of displacement of the Austrian battleships was higher than the cost of one ton of displacement of the English battleships, for example.
    1. +7
      12 March 2025 06: 10
      Quote: Comrade
      the cost of one ton of displacement of the Austrian battleships was higher than the cost of one ton of displacement of the English battleships, for example
      There is nothing surprising about this. The British were churning out their ships as fast as my grandmother was baking pies in the oven. wink
      1. +4
        12 March 2025 07: 53
        Thanks to the author for the article, there is little popular information about the Austrian Kriegsmarine.
      2. +4
        13 March 2025 09: 35
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        There is nothing surprising about this. The British were churning out their ships as fast as my grandmother was baking pies in the oven.

        Plus foreign orders and the merchant navy. Mechanical engineer Frantskevich, who received parts and mechanisms for the domestic navy in Britain, wrote about the standardization of products and the narrowing of the specialization of British factories (factories specialized in one direction and did not try to cover the entire volume of deliveries), which resulted in increased productivity and lower prices. But this was only profitable with a large volume of orders.
  2. +4
    12 March 2025 06: 12
    Thanks for the article, Heinrich!
    "Radetsky" became one of the best representatives of "pre-dreadnoughts" - a fairly large class of ships laid down before the dreadnoughts came into being and completed. Like most of its classmates, it did not have the chance to participate in the main naval battles of the First World War (the Germans tried to use six of their battleships in the Battle of Jutland, nothing good came of it): in a linear battle with dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts, they had no chance. But it was on their shoulders that the main share of combat work in the "secondary theaters" fell: the Dardanelles landing operation, the pursuit of "Goeben" and "Breslau" and the shelling of the Turkish coast on the Black Sea, the Battle of Moonsund in the Baltic. And they bore this burden with honor...

    In this regard, an interesting question arises: were dreadnoughts really needed in the battleship guise with their architecture packed with as many turrets as possible? Perhaps it would have been more rational to build battlecruisers with 8-12 main battery guns in four linearly elevated turrets with sufficient armor for naval battles and larger than traditional battleships armed with 6-8 340-381 mm guns in two turrets. The use of Andrei Pervozvanny and Petropavlovsk as part of the Baltic Fleet's pillbox in 1919, and pocket battleships (and they are also "battleships"!) hint at this.
    1. +3
      12 March 2025 06: 18
      I meant the use of "pickpockets" in the Baltics in 1944-1945.
    2. +2
      12 March 2025 06: 58
      Sorry, of course it's Gerhard, not Heinrich!
    3. +2
      12 March 2025 08: 28
      I think that specifically for Russia (and Austria-Hungary) - no. But I just really like battleships))). But seriously, they had no chance in the Jutland massacre, but... Most of the war was work along the coast, major collisions of ships can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and in this regard, in the category "price-quality" battleships did dreadnoughts like a bull does a sheep. The same "Andrei Pervozvanny" had a lot of shortcomings even in comparison with the "Tsarevich", but in the mode in which the Baltic Fleet was used - it was quite in its place...
      1. 0
        12 March 2025 09: 36
        Thanks for your reply, Gerhard!
        I meant a battleship for defense and support missions, especially in closed seas. Squadron combat, raiding operations - that's not its element.
        For example: combat at a mine-artillery position or support for the Bosphorus landing operation. From here follows the choice of armament and its placement scheme: two turrets at the ends, no less than three guns in the turret, the caliber is the maximum developed by industry, ensuring the specified range.
        Power plant: to ensure a speed of about 21 knots at a given range. The question of economical speed is eliminated.
        The armor is solid, ensuring fire contact with any enemy in the theater of operations.
        The free quarters allow for the convenient placement of powerful anti-mine and anti-aircraft weapons.
        The absence of cramped spaces ensures normal placement of personnel and necessary premises.
        On copper (if possible) I will work my magic on a shortened version of "Empress Maria".
        1. 0
          13 March 2025 01: 58
          ...I'll work my magic on a shortened version of "Empress Maria".

          Good option. There were similar ones on Althistory a long time ago))
          And here are the Sev-Andrey turrets. It turns out even lighter (by 500t) than the original, while retaining the casemate 203mm. But the conversion is so-so in terms of cost))
          1. 0
            13 March 2025 07: 42
            Thank you!
            I thought about "Sevastopoli", there is something to work on there. But the second option with Andrey will not work, both in terms of the placement of under-turret devices and in terms of longitudinal strength. Trying to solve the problem, we will get a completely new ship.
      2. +7
        12 March 2025 18: 09
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        and in this regard, in the price-quality category, battleships were as good as dreadnoughts in comparison to a bull in comparison to a sheep.

        I would like to inform you that
        The battleship King Edward VII cost £1,
        Battleship Lord Nelson - £1
        Dreadnought "Dreadnought" - £1 (according to Vinogradov)
        Our "Sevastopol" cost about the same as two "Borodinos", but at the same time it surpassed them in combat power more than significantly.
        So no, it was the dreadnought that attacked the battleship like a bull. Including in work along the coast, where the dreadnought, having more barrels, and often better guns, could fire the same amount of ammunition as the battleship, further than the battleship and with a much smaller barrel spread simply due to their greater number. In addition, when firing at an area target, the dreadnought, due to its superiority in the number of barrels, covered it faster, although this was not in demand in WWI.
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        The same "Andrew the First-Called" had a lot of shortcomings even in comparison with "Tsarevich"

        I'm afraid to even ask which ones. Because there really was one drawback - poor seaworthiness.
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        but in the mode in which the Baltic Fleet was used, it was quite in its place...

        The Tsarevich was exactly in his place there, being able to sail together with the Slava to the Moonzund Gulf. Although this is not the merit of the ship, but the failure of the sailors, who did not deepen the channel
        1. +3
          13 March 2025 04: 28
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The battleship King Edward VII cost £1,
          Battleship Lord Nelson - £1

          Dear Andrey, Radetzky, by comparison, cost around £1.
        2. 0
          13 March 2025 08: 18
          In addition to poor seaworthiness, there were ring magazines for the main caliber, which increased the rate of fire, but when the 1911 model shells appeared (weighing 470 kg), Pervozvanny and Pavel I could not use them and fired the old ones - weighing 330 kg. In addition, their habitability was much worse than Tsarevich and Borodino, and habitability also affects combat effectiveness. There were many other small things there. The nickname "ugly sisters" is not given for nothing...
          1. +2
            13 March 2025 10: 47
            Quote: Flying_Dutchman
            but when the 1911 model shells (weighing 470 kg) appeared, “Pervozvanny” and “Pavel I” could not use them and fired the old ones - weighing 330 kg.

            I would like to inform you that the Tsarevich, Slava and the Black Sea battleships also did not have the ability to fire 470,9 kg shells, since the feed mechanisms were not designed for them. So, when there was a need to fire at the "excluded vessel", loading the said shells had to be done with great difficulty. But this was only possible in firing range conditions, while the 12-dm/40 was armed with only 331,7 kg shells throughout WWI.
            Quote: Flying_Dutchman
            In addition, their habitability was much worse than that of the Tsarevich and Borodino.

            Not exactly. Right after construction, yes, that's how it was, but then the ventilation systems were modernized, which made them more or less acceptable.
            1. 0
              13 March 2025 14: 18
              Nevertheless, when you throw something at the German battleships that will harm it (even with dancing and tambourines), but not even theoretically, the Pervozvanny... Plus - the armor is smeared...
              1. +4
                13 March 2025 15: 55
                Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                However, when Slava throws something at the German battleships that will harm it (even with dancing and tambourines),

                "Slava" fired 331,7 kg shells. When feeding them to the guns, special copper caps were screwed on, increasing the length of the shell, loading time, its flight range and dispersion. The weight of the shell increased to 355 kg. It was only possible to hit someone with such a shell by accident, it was intended for area shooting. The rate of fire was reduced threefold. And the range increased by 20%, that is, to about 96 cables.
                And the "First-Called" could easily fire a regular 331,7 kg shell at 110 cable lengths without any fuss - the increased vertical aiming angle made a difference
                Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                Plus - the booking is smeared...

                At the same time, it is better than Tsarevich or Borodino
          2. +2
            13 March 2025 17: 15
            Quote: Flying_Dutchman
            main caliber ring cellars

            Actually, this is an advantage that allowed to increase the rate of fire)
            1. 0
              13 March 2025 18: 16
              Let's put it this way: not everyone agrees with this.
              1. +1
                13 March 2025 18: 24
                Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                Let's put it this way: not everyone agrees with this.

                Where can I read dissenting opinions?
                1. +1
                  13 March 2025 18: 59
                  Watch - on YouTube at Boris Yulin: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U21Oopx4NFk, read - at Leonid Sobolev's "Major Repairs", Sobolev served on the "Emperor Pavel", so he is familiar with the ships not from books. And in principle, the nickname "ugly sisters" to "Andrei Pervozvanny" and "Emperor Pavel" was given by the officers of that time, and they were aware...
                  1. +1
                    13 March 2025 19: 17
                    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                    Watch - on YouTube with Boris Yulin: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U21Oopx4NFk

                    I have had a very ambiguous attitude towards Boris’s “creativity” over the last 20 years.

                    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
                    Sobolev served on the "Emperor Pavel", so he is familiar with the ships not from books. And in principle, the nickname "ugly sisters" was given to "Andrei Pervozvanny" and "Emperor Pavel" by the officers of that time, and they were aware of it...

                    Can you be more specific in your answer?
    4. +5
      12 March 2025 18: 05
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      pocket battleships (and they are also "battleships"!) hint at this.

      Don't pass off necessity as virtue... ;)
      The "Deutschlands" in the Baltic worked as self-propelled floating batteries, because there was no other use. Thus, one can fantasize that the "Iowas" that ploughed the Pacific atolls were also "battleships"...
      And the fact that the "Deutschlands" became "battleships" is purely to calm the "world community": in the project they were "Linienschiffskreuzer", but the Germans decided not to make things worse.
      1. +1
        12 March 2025 19: 00
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        in the project they were "Linienschiffskreuzer"

        So, it seems that based on the fact of construction they were already Panzerschiffs, or am I mistaken?
        1. +5
          12 March 2025 19: 24
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          So, it seems that based on the fact of construction they were already Panzerschiffs, or am I mistaken?

          You are not mistaken.
          In the approved project, submitted for approval to the Inter-Union Control Commission, it was already an "armored cruiser".
      2. +1
        12 March 2025 20: 47
        Greetings, Maxim!
        Putting aside all this philosophical affiliation with raiding, it can be argued that with their actions in the Baltic in 1944-1945, both "pickpockets", and the "aristocrat" to boot, did much more in terms of significance than in the Atlantic.
        It was they who disrupted the victorious march of our coastal armies and allowed us to meet the allies not on the Rhine, but on the Elbe.
        Similarly, "Slava" (also by the way a squadron battleship, not a coastal defense battleship) contributed significantly to the disruption of the operations of the Kaiser's troops in the Baltics in 1915.
        Just analyzing the same Skagerrak, you understand that everything could have been different if the Germans, with their constant artillery power, had the mobility of battlecruisers. And the Americans understood this, though later, which is why they scrapped their entire unfinished superdreadnoughts of the South Dakota type in 1922, which were unique in terms of artillery power and protection, but helpless in tactical terms.
        1. +4
          12 March 2025 21: 14
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          It was they who disrupted the victorious march of our coastal armies and allowed us to meet the allies not on the Rhine, but on the Elbe.

          I don't argue at all... That's probably how it was.

          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Just by analyzing the same Skagerrak, you understand that everything could have been different if the Germans, with their constant artillery power, had the mobility of battlecruisers.

          The Germans themselves realized this and began to design Ersatz Yorks

          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And the Americans understood this, though later, and so they scrapped their entire unfinished South Dakota-class superdreadnoughts, which were unique in terms of artillery power and protection, but tactically helpless, in 1922.

          If it were for the Washington Treaty, they wouldn't have let us in... :)
        2. 0
          13 March 2025 10: 49
          This is because our aviation was not designed to fight surface ships. Well, we did not have suitable aircraft, much less pilots for them. The same Americans, English, and even the Japanese would have sent all three of these to the bottom in no time.
          1. +1
            13 March 2025 11: 36
            Wurgers were raging over the Baltic in 1944-1945, and it was not in our interests to go there.
            And the article is actually about the era of the First World War, and the use of the Kriegsmarine to support coastal operations allowed the Germans to conduct viscous defensive actions.
    5. +3
      13 March 2025 09: 46
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      Perhaps it would have been more rational to build battlecruisers with 8-12 main guns in four linearly elevated turrets with sufficient armor for naval battles.

      Thus, battlecruisers, even in the classic version, are approximately equal in displacement or even larger than battleships of the same generation.
      And yes, your idea was realized... in the post-Washington ships. 8-9 main guns, speed of 30 knots, sufficient armor - and a displacement of 45-50 kt. laughing
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      The use of Andrey Pervozvanny and Petropavlovsk as part of the Baltic Fleet's pillbox in 1919, as well as pocket battleships (and they are also "battleships"!) hints at this.

      Until a normal fleet arrives. After which the battleships have to leave for Moonzund.
      And if so - why do we need EBRs? "Rafts with guns", that is, monitors, will suffice for shelling the shore.
      1. -1
        13 March 2025 11: 43
        The fact that twenty years later everyone saw the light and began to build battlecruisers (and a fast battleship is essentially a battlecruiser with advanced protection) only proves the fallacy of the concept of classic five-turret dreadnoughts in comparison with four-turret battlecruisers in a squadron battle.
        It's just that the dreadnought fever led to the disappearance of the battleship class from the fleet, but they could have produced fairly universal ships with serious arguments against any enemy, and most importantly, they were much easier to build than these irons with turrets.
        1. +2
          13 March 2025 15: 57
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          The fact that twenty years later everyone saw the light and began to build battlecruisers (and a fast battleship is essentially a battlecruiser with advanced protection) only proves the fallacy of the concept of classic five-turret dreadnoughts in comparison with four-turret battlecruisers in a squadron battle.

          There was no epiphany after 20 years. High-speed battleships began to be built even before WWI. But on the path of the evolution of battleships and light cruisers with the merger into one class of high-speed battleships, two problems arose: technical and legal.
          Technical - this is the power plant. The parameters of the steam boilers and the GTZA for powerful turbines, which ultimately crawled into the volume and weight of the power plant, and then into the displacement (higher speed - larger power plant, higher fuel consumption - more displacement is needed). Without its solution, 30-knot LK and LKR swelled to epic sizes.
          And the legal one is Washington and London. When technical problems ceased to be a problem, battleship holidays began. Technically, a post-Washingtonian was already possible in the 20s, but its construction was prohibited.

          A classic dreadnought is something that can be built at the current stage of technical development in the required quantities. No, of course, you can whip up something "SoDak-like" before WWI - but this monster will eat up the budget of an entire battleship squadron.
          1. +2
            13 March 2025 18: 11
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Technically, a post-Washingtonian is already possible in the 20s, but its construction is prohibited.

            Not certainly in that way.
            The British were able to build two 16" battleships, and the French and Italians had some preferences, which resulted in a pair of Dunkirks and the first pair of Littorios.
            1. 0
              14 March 2025 11: 54
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              The British could have built two 16" LKs

              They could. But with a displacement limit of 35 kt. Agree that a fast battleship with normal armament and normal protection is a bit out of this range - either the speed, or the protection, or the armament will have to be cut. In the best case, you will get a "KGV".
              And for the British, a healthy person's 16" LK is a G-3. smile
  3. + 14
    12 March 2025 06: 24
    but, on the other hand, in Russia, the "Evstafiy" was laid down in 1911

    Uhh... What?! It was commissioned in 1911. It was laid down in 1904.
    Anti-mine battery — 20x100-mm rapid-fire guns, 10 per side. Their rate of fire reached 8-10 rounds per minute, and the weight of the projectile was 26,2 kg. This was enough to protect against destroyers of the Second World War, and in 1907...

    Oh, mein Gott... The weight of the projectile for this gun was only 13,75 kg. Which is very little, for example, our 102-mm gun, which armed the Noviks, had projectiles weighing 17,5 kg. That is, the gun was exactly the opposite of what is written in the article - against destroyers of the Russo-Japanese era, so-so, but against something more serious... Well, 26,2 kg is the mass of the shot, that is, the projectile with the charge and the cartridge case.
    Dear Comrade, I have already written about the cost of the ships. And this is only what immediately caught my eye.
    1. +3
      12 March 2025 09: 16
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Uhh... What?! It was commissioned in 1911. It was laid down in 1904.

      This inaccuracy also caught my eye)
  4. +3
    12 March 2025 06: 26
    What interesting pipes the Italians have. Never seen such an arrangement.
  5. + 10
    12 March 2025 06: 35
    A plus for popularization, but... uh... there is information that is not even fully verifiable and in this case it is like this
    but, on the other hand, in Russia, the "Evstafiy" was laid down in 1911

    does not paint the author in a good light... I can admit that the "a la Kaptsov" style is suitable for victims of the Unified State Exam, but this is too much.
    "Evstafiy" entered service in 1911, and was laid down in November 1904.
    You need to be more careful, author.
    "Radetsky" is a great example of how to build ships for the required TBD, for a specific enemy within the allocated budget. And three of these models can easily compete with a single dreadnought, or even two. Especially if these are macaroni - warriors of some kind smile
    1. +2
      12 March 2025 09: 22
      And they are quite good against the Dantons, although the Franks certainly slapped them together
    2. +7
      12 March 2025 11: 14
      Especially if these are macaroni - they are real warriors smile

      The paradox of the situation with the Italians is indicative and ambiguous!!!
      If we touch on the crews of first-rank ships (battleships, heavy and light cruisers and destroyers) in general, then your thesis is accurate to the point of impossibility. However, the forces of the Italians' "marine special operations" are definitely at their best. Moreover, the "macaroni makers" distinguished themselves in both world wars! Torpedo boats (including those with tracks), combat swimmers and divers, guided torpedoes and boats, ultra-small submarines and more!
      1. +2
        12 March 2025 17: 01
        It seems they also showed themselves to be quite good on destroyers, but cruisers and battleships, well, that's sad.
      2. +1
        12 March 2025 18: 24
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Torpedo boats (including those with tracks), combat swimmers and divers, guided torpedoes and boats, ultra-small submarines and more!

        This is understandable - the mosquito fleet, one could say, has succeeded in all fleets.
        But yes, in this case I meant the front line ships. hi
  6. +3
    12 March 2025 07: 19
    Excuse me, but what is its ideality? You yourself wrote that seaworthiness and cruising range were sacrificed to armor and armament. And how much has already been said that the two main hummers are evil. 240 mm in addition to 12 dm, not a candle for God... The Austrians did not have to solve the issue of seaworthiness and range, so they got specific ships for the Adriatic Sea. Well, approximately, if Russia built battleships for operations exclusively in the Gulf of Finland.
    1. +4
      12 March 2025 08: 31
      And Russia only operated in the Baltic during the First World War! And during the Second, by the way. Long range is a very specific quality, not every ship needs it…
      1. +3
        12 March 2025 10: 01
        Dear author, have you already completely lost your mind?)) "Russia in WWI acted only in the Baltic"?) You should first compare the KON of the Baltic and Black Sea dreadnoughts and battleships before writing such nonsense.
        1. +1
          13 March 2025 08: 23
          I mean the Baltic Fleet. It has not been observed to undertake long-distance voyages.
      2. +1
        12 March 2025 10: 03
        [/quote]And in the Second, by the way, too[/quote]And the actions in the Baltic... To put it mildly
      3. +1
        12 March 2025 10: 14
        It is all clear that when building, as a rule, ships are laid down based on the specifics of the theater of future combat operations, and the Austrians built a battleship typical for that transitional period. It does not have any breakthrough ideas, in almost 16 thousand full displacement they installed moderate armament, moderate armor - a narrow main belt of standard thickness for battleships of the late 19th, early 20th centuries, and so on, I simply did not see anything ideal in it for 1911. I did not see that it was much cooler than the same "Andrei Pervozvanny", which is usually criticized.
        1. -1
          12 March 2025 14: 50
          Quote: Khibiny Plastun
          I didn't see that it was much cooler than the same "St. Andrew the First-Called", which is usually criticized.

          Apart from displacement and speed, it's no better, I agree.
          1. +1
            13 March 2025 08: 25
            Better main caliber. Much better! And armor.
        2. +2
          12 March 2025 22: 06
          I didn't see that it was much cooler than the same "St. Andrew the First-Called", which is usually criticized.

          Because they didn't look)) Andrey has a 12"/40 GK like the Borodinites, a third weaker than the 12"45 Skoda. The latter (450 kg; 800 m/s; muzzle energy 144 MJ) were superior and generally more powerful all 12" guns all powers in WWI (dreadnought ones too), with the exception of the German and the last American ones.
          The same goes for the 240mm "second main" caliber - the weight of its projectile and muzzle energy are two times more than Andrey's 203mm guns. And more than Nelson's 234mm/50 guns. That's it."moderate armament"- the strongest of all pre-dreadnoughts, and on par with the Dantons, which have two more 240mm guns (per side), but the 12" main battery is significantly weaker. However, the Danton is better armored.
          moderate armor - narrow main belt of standard thickness...

          Which is still better and thicker than the First-Called (the same "narrowness"))
          I didn't see anything ideal for 1911 in it

          Like all pre-dreadnoughts, the "Radetzky" was ideal for the "dual-unit" budget))
          1. 0
            13 March 2025 08: 22
            Here are the tests of the Russian 305 mm projectile by the British in comparison with their own, as you can see the Russian projectile passed through the armor intact, while the English one was split. What I mean is that the mathematical calculations of the calculator, as a rule, differ greatly from reality. Because not only the powder charge matters, but also the quality of the projectile and the barrel itself. And where can I read about the tests of the Austrian 12 mm projectile on real armor, and not unfounded claims that the Austrian 12 "was more powerful than even the Russian 52/XNUMX? It is possible to reshape the barrel, the Italian experience showed the dead end of this direction.
            The picture is taken from "Tsushima Forum"
            1. 0
              13 March 2025 10: 23
              I'm sick of T9. REFORCE.
            2. +1
              13 March 2025 12: 05
              ...while English is split

              By the beginning of WWI the British did not have good BBS, they relied on the Commons))
              Because it is not only the powder charge that matters, but also the quality of the projectile and the barrel itself.

              Of course, but the Austrians are doing well with this. And for their early 240mm guns (Krupp) they made shells better than the German ones, normal for the caliber weight (215 kg) and not the "lightened" German ones (140 kg)
              The barrel can be re-forced...

              The Austrian cannon, like the Russian one, was made according to the principle of "heavy projectile - moderate initial velocity." The Italians then used these cannons as coastal ones.
              The unsuccessful British 12"50 (869 m/s) and especially the American 12"50 (884 m/s), which was rarely allowed to fire at full charge, approached overboosting.
          2. 0
            13 March 2025 08: 55
            Quote: anzar
            The latter (450 kg; 800 m/s; muzzle energy 144 MJ) were superior and generally more powerful than all 12" guns of all powers in WWI (dreadnought ones too), with the exception of German and the last American ones.

            Russian 12/52 too?
            1. +2
              13 March 2025 12: 15
              Russian 12/52 too?

              Yes, Russian 12"/52- 470kg, 762m/s, d.energy 136 MJ
              Czech)) 12"/45- 450kg, 800m/s, d.energy 144 MJ
              a little, but still
  7. 0
    12 March 2025 08: 20
    Well, the author apparently put his articles on stream, and their quality is gradually declining. Does he not edit them at all? And as for the ideal battleship - well, I don't know. Many present it as almost a worthy rival to the first dreadnoughts. Oh well, the same "Nassau" will outwork "Radetzky" and not choke.
    1. 0
      12 March 2025 15: 13
      And the most important thing is that it is unclear why it is written that it is small. It is not small at all. Add a little and it will be "Drodnaught", "Michigan" or "Nassau". Yes, and "Lord Nelson" too. And this with a beggarly range.
      1. +1
        12 March 2025 22: 39
        And this is with a beggarly range.

        Well. "Beggarly" is twice as much as Andrey, and the same as Russian dreadnoughts. The latest 381mm British dreadnoughts are also not much bigger (5000)
        It is generally accepted to declare the seaworthiness and range of ships as "enough only for the Adriatic" which is completely wrong. They went to China to suppress the uprising (Monarchs) and to America across the Atlantic (where there are no coal stations))
        1. 0
          13 March 2025 03: 35
          Do you even believe in this Austrian figure? It's very suspicious. It turns out that the Austrians had extraterrestrial intelligence. From aliens. And the most stupid ships were those of the mistress of the seas. Large and weak, with protection like everyone else. The Austrian ones are a different matter. In small sizes, enormous power and protection.
          We all know about ours. They tried to save money. But they didn't want it to be worse than the English. They paid with short range and huge overload. And Austria! Oh! They're almost Germans! Zergut! Whatever they build is a thing!
          1. +2
            13 March 2025 12: 26
            And Austria! Oh! They're almost Germans! Zergut!

            Austrian Germans are better than German Germans)) Because they have a lot of Slavs, and the Magyars are supporting them... They just can't do it with the Ordnung))
          2. +1
            13 March 2025 18: 54
            Quote: MCmaximus
            Do you even believe in this Austrian figure?

            But the range is a bit unclear...
            Crumley's Austro-Hungarian Battleships and Battleship Design 1904-1914 states 5200 at 10 knots on coal and 4300 at 10 knots on coal briquettes.
            In Zeiche's "Die Radetzky-klasse" the question of cruising range is "modestly" addressed.
            Breyer has no data.
            Greger's handbook states 5000 miles at 10 knots.
            In Conway - 4000 at 10 knots
            1. 0
              14 March 2025 04: 30
              Well, no one wrote real data in reference books. Back then, people just took the gentlemen's word for it. If you couldn't fool anyone with the armor thickness, then the cruising range... Yes, they just wrote the design data.
              This all goes to the question that historians love very much. For them, a document is everything! And the fact that someone wrote something is doubtful. We only know that the real cruising range of coal ships was different. But not the designed one and not according to reference books. On average, for fleets of the 2nd category, you can safely divide by 2. And the designed one is if you fill everything with coal, like 2 TOE. Until the loss of combat capability.
      2. +2
        13 March 2025 18: 20
        The planned displacement of the Andrei Pervozvanny was one thousand tons greater, but the actual displacement was three...
    2. +2
      13 March 2025 14: 24
      "Nassau" is a dreadnought, it was built to work ships like "Radetzky", but it is not a fact that it would have done it with impunity: the Austrian battleship has a larger main caliber than the German, and the auxiliary is not much smaller than its main one. However, this is a purely theoretical question: at the time of construction of both "Radetzky" and "Nassau" Austria-Hungary and Germany were allies and did not build ships against each other.
  8. +1
    12 March 2025 08: 59
    The ships that the Radetsky-class battleships could theoretically go up against were the two Regina Margherita-class battleships and the four Regina Elena-class battleships. The three old Re Umberto-class battleships also had some combat capability.

    In this matter, it is necessary to take into account the French battleships "Danton".

    " The General Staff of the French Navy realized that the naval construction program was beyond the country's resources. The required number of new warships could not be built until 1920. The General Staff was thus forced to recognize the impossibility of maintaining parity with the German fleet, and adjusted its program to ensure naval superiority in the Mediterranean over Austria and Italy combined.."

    The French Danton-class battleships were superior in artillery armament to the Austro-Hungarian Radetzky-class battleships, although they were slightly slower. For this reason, the Radetzky-class ships cannot be considered ideal battleships.
    1. +1
      12 March 2025 09: 22
      Yes, it seems they were practically no worse. Well, half a knot, in the region of statistical error. And the concept of "ideality" also includes price. I think "Radetsky" was cheaper than "Danton", the question is - by how much? Maybe knowledgeable comrades can clarify?
      1. +3
        12 March 2025 10: 08
        Quote: Rakovor
        I think "Radetsky" was cheaper than "Danton", the question is - by how much? Maybe knowledgeable comrades can clarify?

        Everything depends on the development of industry, the qualifications of workers and other personnel. The construction of the same ship in different countries may differ in cost.
        1. +1
          13 March 2025 03: 44
          Counting money spent by someone is a favorite pastime of today's "accountants." Moreover, without reference to economics.
    2. +1
      12 March 2025 09: 48
      But the displacement of the Dantons was also greater)
      1. +2
        12 March 2025 10: 10
        Quote: Trapper7
        But the displacement of the Dantons was also greater)

        Otherwise, you will not be able to improve the ship's firepower, armor protection, autonomy and cruising range.
        1. +2
          12 March 2025 14: 38
          Perhaps this is why the Author considered the Radetsky to be the best - they crammed good armor, firepower and speed into a compact displacement.
          Can you show me a 15 ton battleship with similar parameters?
        2. +2
          12 March 2025 14: 53
          Quote: 27091965i
          Quote: Trapper7
          But the displacement of the Dantons was also greater)

          Otherwise, you will not be able to improve the ship's firepower, armor protection, autonomy and cruising range.

          I agree with you absolutely, miracles do not happen, and "paper characteristics" should always be compared with real ones. You can make an armor belt 500 mm, but it will be as wide as A4 paper))))
    3. +1
      12 March 2025 22: 44
      The French Danton-class battleships were superior in artillery armament to the Austro-Hungarian Radetzky-class battleships.

      This is incorrect (for weapons, see the comments above/below) They were superior in armor.
      1. 0
        13 March 2025 07: 04
        Quote: anzar
        This is incorrect (for weapons, see the comment above/below) They were superior in armor

        The French Danton-class battleships were superior in artillery armament to the Austro-Hungarian Radetzky-class battleships, due to the greater number of 240 mm gun barrels.
    4. +1
      13 March 2025 14: 25
      The French were not in the Adriatic, and the Austrians were not interested in anything else.
      1. +1
        13 March 2025 15: 56
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        The French were not in the Adriatic, and the Austrians were not interested in anything else.

        And who sank the Austro-Hungarian armored cruiser "Zenta"?
        1. +1
          13 March 2025 18: 38
          And did they go further than Antibari? To Split or Pula?
  9. +2
    12 March 2025 09: 41
    The author's delight is unclear. A fairly average ship, by the standards of the pre-dreadnought class. There were analogues that were much more powerful. The Japanese "Aki" or the British "Lord Nelson".
    1. 0
      12 March 2025 10: 12
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Quite an average ship, by the standards of the pre-dreadnought class. There were analogues, much more powerful. Japanese "Aki" or British "Lord Nelson".

      That's why I wrote that the Radetsky is not an ideal battleship in case France becomes a potential enemy.
      1. -1
        12 March 2025 10: 14
        In the presence of French dreadnoughts, especially the second generation with 340 mm main guns, the Radetsky can only be an ideal target.
        1. +2
          12 March 2025 22: 57
          With the presence of French dreadnoughts...

          So compare them to the dreadnought AVI.
          1. -2
            12 March 2025 22: 58
            Well, the Austrians were lucky, the toad-eaters didn’t climb into this puddle.
            1. +2
              12 March 2025 23: 13
              ...the toad-eaters didn't climb into this puddle

              There was no need for them to get involved, just as there was no need for the Austrians to get out))
      2. +1
        13 March 2025 14: 28
        The French did not venture into the Adriatic, and the Austrians were not interested in anything else.
    2. 0
      12 March 2025 22: 55
      There were analogues that were much more powerful. The Japanese "Aki" or the British "Lord Nelson"

      And how are they more powerful? Only the range is greater.

      ы
      1. 0
        12 March 2025 22: 58
        And have you looked at the auxiliary caliber?)))
        1. 0
          12 March 2025 23: 08
          Have you looked at the auxiliary caliber?

          I looked. Nelson is also weaker (slightly, 66 to 72MJ), although it has one more gun. Aki has two more guns, which are slightly more powerful (2 to 76MJ). Considering the equality in armor and the superiority of Radetsky in the main battery, where did you see "more powerful"? In range?))
          1. 0
            13 March 2025 09: 21
            And what is the advantage of the Radetsky in the main gun? The same four 305/45, for everyone. The Nelson has significantly more powerful armor than the Radetsky - what equality are we talking about?
            1. 0
              13 March 2025 11: 04
              The "Radetzky" had only one advantage over the "Nelson": it could run away from him, if it was lucky. But they were not created to run, but to protect the Adriatic coast of the empire. And what if an invasion fleet descended on the Adriatic?
              1. 0
                13 March 2025 11: 59
                That's what I'm saying, if French battleships with 340mm main guns entered the Adriatic, the only option would be to hide them as far away as possible so they wouldn't be found.
                1. +1
                  13 March 2025 14: 29
                  They didn't come in. You can talk about anything in a spherical vacuum. The Austrians built their ships for a specific theater. And they were perfect for it.
                  1. -1
                    13 March 2025 17: 33
                    Excellent logic))) and if the English (French) had entered? What would the Austrian admirals have done then? Would they have shouted: "That's not fair, I'm not playing"?)))
                    1. +1
                      13 March 2025 18: 40
                      They didn't go in. So the Austro-Hungarian admirals' calculation that no one but the Italians would go there was correct.
                      1. -1
                        13 March 2025 20: 48
                        If you count only on this, then why spend tens of millions of crowns (or whatever they had) on building ships?
              2. +1
                13 March 2025 13: 07
                ...he could escape from it if he was lucky

                Not only that, the advantage in speed is also used to take an advantageous position (for example, against some opponents), dictate the firing distance, etc.
                What then if an invasion fleet arrives in the Adriatic?

                Depends on the number)) Take shelter in the Bay of Kotor... ))
                And look at the coast of Croatia, all these islands and "skerrys" There is room for light forces to deploy) What will Nelson do there? Austrian battleships were built rather to attack the Italians.
                But it was not about "superiority in everything" over heavier battleships, but about comparability and specificity. For example, the R. will be able to escape from Nelson, but some BrKs (for example, French ones) will not be able to escape from him...
                1. 0
                  13 March 2025 13: 15
                  I agree with you, but the author positions the "Radetzky" as an ideal battleship in a spherical vacuum, that is, against all others. Against the Italians, yes, it is ideal. By and large, before the advent of dreadnoughts, the Italians could not oppose anything to the Austrians at sea. And with dreadnoughts, things are not so clear-cut; the Italians could only win with numbers.
                  1. +1
                    13 March 2025 14: 31
                    The author positions the "Radetsky" Mak as an ideal battleship for a specific theater of military operations. And for a specific enemy. Not for the Japanese, not for the British, not for the French, not for Papua New Guinea, but specifically for the Italians.
                2. 0
                  13 March 2025 17: 35
                  The difference in speed is not that big - 1,5 knots "on paper". In reality, it might not exist at all, for a number of reasons.
            2. +1
              13 March 2025 12: 41
              The same four 305/45, everyone...

              in general, not "the same..." But Nelson's armor is more powerful, which evens it out, maybe he's even stronger, although the British don't have very good BBS... (i.e., it depends on luck)).
              1. -1
                13 March 2025 13: 51
                I meant that the number of main gun barrels and the performance characteristics of both the Nelsons and the Radetskys are very close. But the Nelsons have much more serious armor. Therefore, the Austrians have little chance.
                1. +1
                  13 March 2025 14: 32
                  So the Austrians had no intention of fighting the English! And they didn't fight...
                  1. 0
                    13 March 2025 15: 54
                    They didn't fight because the English left the Adriatic puddle to the Italians. In their plans, the Austrian fleet wasn't even taken into account)
                    1. +1
                      13 March 2025 17: 07
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      They didn't fight because the English left the Adriatic puddle to the Italians. In their plans, the Austrian fleet wasn't even taken into account)

                      In fact, the French and the first operation against the Austro-Hungarian fleet and the coast were carried out under French command.
                      1. 0
                        13 March 2025 17: 38
                        Perhaps. But then, everything that happened north of the Strait of Otranto interested the English and the French very little.
                    2. +1
                      13 March 2025 18: 40
                      Absolutely right, just like in the Austro-Hungarian ones - English.
                      1. 0
                        13 March 2025 20: 50
                        Yeah, the Austrian admirals could only pray that the British wouldn't remember them)))
    3. +1
      13 March 2025 14: 26
      There were no Japanese or British fleets in the Adriatic, and the Austrians were not interested in anything else.
      1. 0
        13 March 2025 17: 39
        The Japanese battle fleet entering the Bay of Kotor))) I would like to see this)))
  10. +1
    12 March 2025 10: 36
    If we do not take into account that the Radetsky was laid down 5 years late, then the battleship is good. But was it possible to, so to speak, join the general flow during construction and instead of 8 medium-main caliber guns, install 4 1x12" guns (I do not think that there would have been a big overload, maybe even none)? It would have turned out to be a dreadnought, whatever.
    1. 0
      13 March 2025 13: 52
      Many were late with the last battleships, not only the Austrians. The dreadnought would not have been created, because the cornerstone was economy and minimal dimensions.
      1. 0
        13 March 2025 16: 35
        Quote: TermNachTER
        We put economy and minimal dimensions at the forefront.

        And what about "Espana"? It's clear that it's "under", but it carried 8 12". It's quite possible to bring "Radetsky" up to the conditions of "Espana", they are close in terms of military performance. It seems to me that even the reinforcements under the turrets don't need to be changed (but it just seems that way)
        1. 0
          13 March 2025 17: 43
          And all the other performance characteristics of the "Espagne", except for 8 x 12 dm.? "Battleship for the poor"))) when she entered service, in England they were already building the "Elizabeth".
          1. 0
            13 March 2025 17: 45
            What difference does it make whether it is "for the poor" or not "for the poor"? The main thing is to bring the characteristics of the EBR "Radetsky" to a more modern level.
            1. 0
              13 March 2025 17: 53
              To "pull up" the performance characteristics, "Radetsky" did not have the reserve of VI and dimensions.
              1. 0
                13 March 2025 18: 13
                And did you even glance at the "Espana"? Did you read the performance characteristics? The project, I note, was built in 1909. Estimate the mass of the turret 2x234 and 1x305
                What other supplies do you need?
                1. 0
                  13 March 2025 18: 25
                  2x240 sorry. It seems like I don’t carry any semantic load, but I want to convey.
                2. 0
                  13 March 2025 20: 46
                  And what are the chances that the España will survive a fight with the Iron Duke or the Brittany?
    2. +1
      13 March 2025 14: 34
      They cannot be compared with dreadnoughts, they were built before the dreadnoughts were designed. Later they were designed and built, but not yet at the time of the Radetsky's laying down of the keel.
      1. 0
        13 March 2025 16: 41
        As far as I know, when building the Nelson, the issue of installing a single 12-inch caliber (12 pieces, I think) was seriously considered, but it was not implemented due to a shortage of the latter (everything went to the Dreadnought, although this may be a fairy tale).
        Here, in the case of "Radetsky", it is rather the inertia of decision-making during construction.
        1. 0
          13 March 2025 17: 44
          And where were they going to "shove" them, if even on the "Dreadnought" they could only "shove" 5 turrets?
          1. 0
            13 March 2025 18: 11
            Quote: TermNachTER
            And where were they going to "shove" them?

            This is more of a question for the Admiralty, but I can imagine how to bring it up to 8-12" without damaging the rest.
            1. 0
              13 March 2025 20: 40
              Theoretically, it would have been possible to "stick together" something like the "Espagne", the dimensions are practically the same. However, this is a "battleship for the poor" and its combat effectiveness has not been tested in combat.
        2. +2
          13 March 2025 18: 43
          Talks about a single caliber, if I'm not mistaken, were going on even before the Russo-Japanese War (in Russia, a project for a ship with 12, I think, 8'' was proposed back in 1883), but until the Dreadnought they remained just talk.
          1. 0
            13 March 2025 19: 19
            Yes, that's right, the starting whistle was given by Cuniberti's project from 1902.
  11. +2
    12 March 2025 11: 05
    Good article. The ship turned out to be successful, the main thing is that it was optimized for specific purposes. And in practice it fully justified itself. This is what it means to correctly formulate the technical tasks of the project and determine the area of ​​use. Many fleets had better ships, but the purpose of their use was vague, as a result they did not show themselves in practice. A waste of money.
    1. 0
      12 March 2025 11: 44
      I wonder how the "Radetzkys" performed? What outstanding thing did they do?
      1. +2
        13 March 2025 14: 37
        And what outstanding achievements did the "King Edward VII" or "Andrew the First-Called" accomplish? If we take the spherical Jutlander in a vacuum - nothing, but war is not only general battles. Predreadnoughts pulled the work of shelling the enemy coast, covering the landings (the Galipoli operation depended only on them) and other military routine.
        1. 0
          13 March 2025 17: 35
          The previous commentator simply said that other battleships did not show themselves in any way, but the "Radetzky" ones fully justified themselves in practice. So I ask - how? In my opinion, our battleships brought many times more benefit, the German ones were even at Jutland, the British and French at the Dardanelles, and the Austrians spent the entire war in the base.
          1. +2
            13 March 2025 18: 44
            No, the Austrians worked along the coast, and before that - during the First World War, few people except the British were active with the Germans...
  12. +2
    12 March 2025 11: 10
    Perhaps it would be more correct to call the article "Radetsky - the ideal coastal defense battleship"? With its cruising range. And the article is interesting, despite the inaccuracies.
    1. +1
      13 March 2025 14: 38
      Rather, it is an armoured ship for a specific theatre of operations - the Adriatic is still a sea, and it was not built for operations in the local skerries.
  13. 0
    12 March 2025 11: 25
    Nothing is ideal. And for some reason the Austrians did not strive to somehow influence the blockade in the Strait of Otranto with an "ideal" battleship. Not with raids by destroyers, but with battleships of the "Radetzky" type, which sat after the blockade was established like mice behind a broom.
  14. +2
    13 March 2025 09: 27
    but, on the other hand, in Russia, the "Evstafiy" was laid down in 1911

    Evstafiy was commissioned in 1911. Its foundations were laid back in 1904.