"Ugly Sisters" of the Russian Navy

66 216 144
"Ugly Sisters" of the Russian Navy


In the Russian Empire, unlike other maritime powers, there was no position of "chief shipbuilder", the holder of which determined the appearance of future ships. In its place there was a collective body - the Marine Technical Committee (MTK). In addition, oversight of the development fleet was carried out by the "inspector of shipbuilding". During the period described, the chairman of the MTC was Vice-Admiral Fyodor Dubasov, and the inspector was Lieutenant General Engineer Nikolai Kuteinikov.




Vice Admiral Fedor Dubasov, Chairman of the Ministry of Transport and Communications


Lieutenant General Nikolai Kuteinikov

The question of what ships would replace the Borodino-class battleships was raised in the MTC back in 1902 (since a 20-year shipbuilding program for 1902-1923 was adopted) and caused heated discussions. But, as Nicholas II's resolution stated: "Shipbuilding cannot stop without the most harmful consequences for the state", so the Minister of Finance Count Sergei Witte allocated 12 million rubles in December 1902 for 1903, and promised to allocate the same amount for 1904. And this despite the fact that no one had any idea what needed to be built...


The battleship Borodino is a proven option...

It became clear that there were three possible directions to move: either build the tried and tested Borodino-class battleships, or slightly improve the current design, or build a completely new ship. Seventeen variants of the “ship of the future” concept were considered. Among them were some rather bold proposals, the implementation of which could lead to the appearance of the first dreadnoughts in Russia – ships without artillery medium caliber, but... bureaucratic routine led to the victory of the "improved Borodino" project.

When designing the ship, revolutionary solutions were considered, such as installing main caliber guns with a barrel length of 50 calibers instead of the standard 40, which, together with increasing the gun elevation angle, could have given a significant increase in firing range. But it did not work out: heavier guns gave a strong overload, which resulted in an increase in displacement, determined at 16 tons, so Vice-Admiral Dubasov did not insist on installing new guns, and it was decided to install the old 500-caliber guns. So what was the novelty of the project?


"South Carolina" is one of the sources of inspiration

Strictly speaking, in the installation of 12x203-mm medium-caliber guns instead of 12x152-mm. In addition, the sides of the new ships were designed straight, unlike the sloping sides of the squadron battleships of the Borodino type, and instead of the usual masts, they decided to install new-fangled lattice masts, like on the American South Carolinas (the turrets for the battleships were developed by Vladimir Shukhov, the author of the "turret on Shabolovka"). The longitudinal underwater armored bulkhead was moved from the side by 16 feet instead of 6 on the Borodino.

It must be said that changes were constantly being made to the project. Moreover, with the laying of the foundation in 1903, this practice did not stop, but only intensified! The fact is that the MTC was greatly influenced by Tsushima, which forced the project to be redrawn during construction. The redrawn itself was based on the experience of the lost battle, but this experience was known exclusively from newspapers: the prisoners had not yet managed to return from Japan, and the interned ships remained in the ports where they were interned.

For example, the armor of the new ship was "smeared" along the side: an armor belt 8-8,5 inches thick and 4-5 inches at the ends, but above it was placed another armor belt 5 inches thick and 3,5 inches at the ends. The third armor belt covered the casemate of 203-mm guns and was 5 inches thick (inside the casemate, the guns were separated from each other by traverses). But this was not the end: above the third armor belt was placed the fourth - covering the casemate of 120-mm guns - 3,5 inches thick.


Main caliber...

The ship's armament was originally to consist of two main caliber turrets with 4x305 mm guns and six intermediate caliber turrets on each side for 12x203 mm guns with a barrel length of 50 calibers, but... again they did not fit into the weight criteria, and it was decided to abandon the middle intermediate caliber turret in favor of placing the guns in a casemate. However, due to the weight saved, it was considered possible to install three guns in the casemate instead of a pair, thereby increasing the number of 8'' guns to fourteen. The "feature" of the new ships was the ring-shaped ammunition magazines of the main caliber turrets, which allowed the rate of fire of the 12'' guns to be doubled: if on the Borodino-class battleships it was one shot every 66 seconds, then on the new ships, as practice later showed, one shot with mechanical loading was fired in 32 seconds.

Initially, it was planned to use 20 semi-automatic 75-mm guns protected by 76-mm armor and 20 semi-automatic 47-mm guns as an anti-mine caliber. In addition, the ship was planned to have five 75-mm landing guns and 8 machine guns. The new battleship was also supposed to carry six torpedo tubes: five underwater and one above water. Given the low speed and short range of the torpedoes of that time, this weapon should have been considered completely useless already at the time of design (it is quite difficult to imagine that in battle someone would be able to approach a ship with such powerful artillery at a torpedo salvo range), but the inertia of thinking worked...


8'' towers of "St. Andrew the First-Called"

The ship's speed was planned to be higher than that of the Borodino-class battleships by a knot — 19 knots. True, to achieve this using triple-expansion steam engines with a capacity of 17 hp, given that the Borodino-class battleships, which had a displacement of 635 tons less, had engines of 1500 hp, was not entirely justified optimism. Especially if you consider that, given the chaos in shipbuilding at that time (the Putilov and Metallichesky factories could make a mistake of 16 tons in determining the weight of 300-mm caliber turrets...), an increase in displacement during the construction of a ship was common practice (S. O. Makarov immediately estimated the real displacement of the ships planned for construction to be significantly higher than 203 thousand tons). In an effort to reduce the displacement of the future predreadnought (although this name was not yet in use), it was decided to abandon the forecastle. And, just to be on the safe side, reduce the freeboard height.


Ksavery Ratnik - Head of the Baltic Plant

Changes to the project were made literally on the fly. The head of the Baltic plant, Ksavery (often written as "Savery") Ratnik, who was to build one of the ships, took an active part in making changes to the project. "Ships", because it was decided to build a series of two "sister ships". Having experience in building battleships of the "Borodino" type, he guessed that during construction, refrigeration units, laundries, mechanical means for lifting boats would appear in the project, and from there it would not be far to innovations in armament, and it would be desirable to include all of the above in the project before the ships were laid down. Naive!


"Emperor Paul I" under construction

On August 15, 1903, complete sets of drawings were transferred to the Baltic and St. Petersburg port plants, on August 16, orders were issued for the construction of the ships, and on August 22, the ships were named Andrei Pervozvanny and Emperor Paul I. True, work on Andrei Pervozvanny began only on March 2 of the following year, and on Emperor Paul I on October 14. According to the plan, the ships were to be launched by the summer of 1906. But the harsh reality of pre-revolutionary shipbuilding immediately began to make changes to such optimistic plans. The first changes were made after the death of Admiral Makarov and the battleship Petropavlovsk by Japanese mines - it was decided to remove the mines from the new ships (it was believed that the instant death of Petropavlovsk was caused by the detonation of the mines on board). Then, realizing that the 75mm and 47mm guns were no longer relevant as anti-mine caliber, they were replaced with 12x120mm guns. The number of torpedo tubes was also reduced from six to four. The drive of the anchor device capstans was changed from electric to steam. The combat topsail with a machine gun was removed.

On April 28, 1905, the Andrei Pervozvanny was officially laid down: "His Imperial Highness General-Admiral Alexei Alexandrovich" personally attached a silver keel plate to the ship's keel ("Emperor Paul I" was laid down on October 27, 1905). After which, changes to the project continued: it was decided to abandon two of the four torpedo tubes, the thickness of the armored deck plating was reduced from 38,1 to 31,7 mm, the thickness of the upper and lower decks was reduced to 6,35 mm, transverse bulkheads were introduced between the upper and lower decks, the thickness of the rotating parts of the 12'' and 8'' gun turrets was reduced, and so on and so forth...


The Dreadnought - the ship that changed everything...

At the same time, all the changes were, by and large, useless work: the Dreadnought had already been laid down in England, making the project of the Andrei Pervozvanny and the Emperor Paul I stillborn. Instead of normal side portholes in the cabins and quarters, ceiling ones were designed, with a diameter of slightly more than 15 cm, which was also presented as a revolutionary solution that allowed for increasing the ship's protection, but in fact turned the officers' cabins and sailors' quarters into real gas chambers (the ventilation system on the ships was also very imperfect).


Launch of the Emperor Paul I

The first of the ships was launched on October 7, 1906, 4 months behind schedule, with the ship's readiness at that point being 51 percent. And that was only the beginning: the First Russian Revolution was in full swing, and strikes and terrorist attacks are not conducive to ship building. In addition, the ship's completion time was affected by delays in components from suppliers, for example, the armor covers for the main caliber turrets arrived at the Metal Plant only in April 1910, and both masts were installed at the same time. The work was slowed down by the lack of portholes: the conditions inside the ships, with no ventilation, were like those in a hot shop. In general, the last defects on board the ships were eliminated in 1912 - an epic long-term construction project!

Meanwhile, while still at the plant, the squadron battleships became battleships - the appearance of the "Dreadnought" led to a change in the usual classification. The St. Andrew's flag was raised on the "Andrei Pervozvanny" on June 1, 1910, after which the ship entered the armed reserve ("Emperor Paul I" entered the armed reserve on September 7, 1910). However, no one had any unnecessary doubts about the real combat capability of the new ships.


Pyotr Voynovich Rimsky-Korsakov

The commander of the Emperor Paul I, Captain 1st Rank Pyotr Rimsky-Korsakov, expressed it best:

"I have had occasion more than once to express my opinion that the ships Emperor Paul I and Andrey Pervozvanny cannot be made into dreadnoughts, no matter how much they are improved. And therefore they will never reach the point of being equal to our future battleships. At the same time, one cannot doubt for a moment that these ships, in the form in which they are now thought out, will always remain very serious opponents for the most powerful battleships... Our two ships at certain course angles can successfully compete even with the English battleship Dreadnought. But with all that, they will always remain ships of only the second line of combat ships of the active fleet: they will be put there under their own power, which, even according to the project, is 3 knots slower than the speed of the future battleships of our fleet. Why, one might ask, what is called going out of one's way to improve them in one direction, knowingly worsening other combat qualities of primary importance, such as, for example, the ship's speed? Thus, I believe that it is absolutely necessary now and finally to clarify to what extent the ships "Andrey Pervozvanny" and "Emperor Pavel I" satisfy modern tactical requirements and, having understood this, firmly decide what these ships can give and what can be demanded of them. We must reconcile ourselves to this situation and order them to be completed as they are currently designed."


The battleships held the wave so-so...

Subsequent operation showed that the new ships had very questionable combat capability. Let's start with their seaworthiness: due to the absence of a forecastle and a low side, they were very low. The bow of the predreadnoughts was flooded at the slightest swell, so the ability to fire from the bow main caliber turret was highly dependent on the weather. Speed... Even a modest 19 knots became an unattainable dream for them: none of the battleships could show more than 18,3 knots on a measured mile. Seaworthiness can also be supplemented by such a criterion as habitability: these ships had very poor habitability - subsequently, portholes had to be cut in the sides at the plant, because the capacity of the ship's ventilation was not enough to create a normal atmosphere in the cockpits and officers' cabins. And the appearance of the battleships with archaic cylindrical turrets and futuristic “Shukhov” masts was so strange that the ships received the nickname “ugly sisters”.


In all their glory, the “Shukhov” masts have not yet been cut off...

The situation with armament is more complicated. Yes, Andrey Pervozvanny and Imperator Pavel I were the weakest of the pre-readnoughts: 203 mm of auxiliary artillery was clearly less than 240 mm on the Radetskys or 234 mm on the King Edward VII-class battleships, but the number of barrels somewhat equalized the odds. On the other hand, the rapid-fire 12'' main caliber guns of the Russian battleships were superior to similar guns of the English counterpart (even if they were slightly inferior to the Austrian ones). But the problem lay in the rate of fire itself! The fact is that the guns of the "ugly sisters" were designed for shells of the 1895 and 1907 models, weighing 331,7 kg and having a length of 2,65-3,16 calibers. And in 1911, the Russian Imperial Navy adopted shells weighing 470 kg and 5 calibers long. And they did not fit into the ring shell magazines of Andrei Pervozvanny and Imperator Pavel I! As a result, during the War, the old Slava and Tsesarevich could fire at least something at the German battleships that could damage them, but the newer pre-readnoughts could not...


In the ice of the Gulf of Finland...

The fate of the "ugly sisters" was a bit strange. They did not have any big battles or feats: even in Moonzund and the Irben Strait, the "Slava" and "Tsesarevich" (by that time renamed "Grazhdanin") fought the Germans. True, it cannot be said that the "sisters" were idle - they carried out operations to support the actions of destroyers and cruisers. On the other hand... The long construction of the ships led to good training of the crew in matters of survivability and operation of the materiel. If we take "Andrei Pervozvanny", then also to high cohesion of the crew. As a result, when the revolution began, very few ships retained real combat capability, and the predreadnoughts were just among them. Moreover, there were no officers killed on Andrei Pervozvanny (there were on the Emperor Paul I, renamed the Republic). The armor smeared over the sides of these ships was also "in the theme": during the "Ice March" from Helsinki to Kronstadt, which began on February 19, 1918, Andrei Pervozvanny quite successfully performed the role of an icebreaker for some time, despite the fact that the ice hummocks on some sections of the route reached 5 meters in height!


"Artillery is hitting its own..."

After the crossing, Andrey Pervozvanny joined the DOT, an active detachment of ships of the Baltic Fleet. It did not fight in this capacity. At least not with the enemy. In 1919, the battleship actively fired at the rebellious Kronstadt fort Krasnaya Gorka: 568 shells were fired. Respublika did not take part in this event: the crew there was of much lower quality, so immediately after the crossing from Helsinki, the ship was transferred to the port for storage. It was listed in the Kronstadt Naval Forces, but had no real value.


Lev Mikhailovich Galler made a great career in the Soviet Navy. But the "von" part of his name had to be removed...

During the "Kronstadt wake-up call" at 18 a.m. on August 1919, 13, the "Andrei Pervozvanny" received a torpedo from an English torpedo boat in the bow. The sailors' training made a difference: despite the fact that the crew was far from full on board, the fight for the ship's survivability under the leadership of the commander (and future Soviet admiral) Lev Haller was carried out in an exemplary manner - the bulkhead on the 45th frame was battened down in a timely manner, the leak from the chain locker was plugged with wedges, and the bilge pumps coped with the influx of water. The continuous armoring served the ship well: the armor absorbed the force of the torpedo explosion - two plates were heavily deformed and lagged behind the side by 75-20 cm, two - shifted, lagging behind the side by 80-8000 mm. In principle, the damage was trivial and could be solved by putting it in a dock for three months, but... During a revolution, chaos is guaranteed, and they didn't even try to restore the ship. Meanwhile, the crew was running away. The process was especially active after the second Kronstadt mutiny: among the XNUMX participants in the mutiny who left for Finland, there were plenty of sailors from the battleship.


The Soviet Union needs a lot of needles!

In 1923, Andrey Pervozvanny and Respublika were transferred to the stock property department for dismantling. The ships that survived the revolution had no real combat value. But... the battleships had a chance to shoot at the Germans with their guns during the Great Patriotic War: by that time, the 8'' turret mounts were installed on the Krasnoarmeysky (former Krasnaya Gorka) and Pervomaysky (former Totleben) forts. And the 12'' gun mounts were installed on the TM-2-12 artillery railway transporters.


Leonid Sobolev, in his youth - navigator of the battleship "Emperor Pavel I"

These battleships did not have the brightest fate, but... Most people who are not indifferent to the fleet are very familiar with them. The fact is that two brothers, Alexander and Leonid Sobolev, served on the Emperor Paul I, and later on the Andrei Pervozvanny. The elder, Alexander, according to some sources, shot himself after receiving an order to shell the Krasnaya Gorka fort. And the younger, Leonid, became a famous Soviet writer. The battleship Generalissimo from his novel Capital Repairs was written off from the Emperor Paul I...
144 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    15 March 2025 06: 17
    Well, everything in the design of "Andrey" has its logical explanation - Shukhov turrets for centralized fire control (the fact that it didn't work out is another question), numerous 203mm artillery - compensation for the low rate of fire of the "most important" caliber, solid armor is explained by the strong impression of the shimoza, deterioration in seaworthiness - so the Gulf of Finland allows it... but why was it necessary to attach a ram, and one of such an outstanding size and shape in the terry French style of the 80s of the 19th century?
    1. +5
      15 March 2025 08: 31
      There were 203 mm guns. And 254 mm are already other dimensions and weight. They simply could not be installed on such a ship, taking into account their normal protection.
      We don't really know anything about foreign ships of that generation. It's quite possible that paper specifications hide huge shortcomings in the practical part.
      And if we are to criticize... The English completed the entire series of "Lord Nelsons" after the construction of "Dreadnought" and its successors had already begun. Even the guns on "Dreadnought" were borrowed from them.
      1. +5
        18 March 2025 11: 03
        Quote: MCmaximus
        There were 203 mm guns. And 254 mm are already different dimensions and weight.

        254 mm guns - this is also a natural question: "Why 254 mm? Let's replace them with 305 mm." And the mess with designing a full-fledged battleship begins... smile
        Overseas, similar reasoning led to the emergence of "South Carolina".
    2. +4
      15 March 2025 08: 35
      The debility of rams in European fleets is inexplicable. The Japanese, for example, refused rams immediately on what they built themselves. One only has to read how much hassle there was in technology because of this spy. No, they overcame everything.
      1. +4
        15 March 2025 11: 43
        Quote: MCmaximus
        The debilism of rams in European fleets is inexplicable.
        It's easy to explain: they had a real example of the ineffectiveness of artillery and the effectiveness of ramming before their eyes. That same "experience is the son of difficult mistakes." The trick is that later in history two such morons did not meet in battle at the same time, so the situation never repeated itself.
        1. +3
          15 March 2025 14: 35
          The trick is that no two such morons ever met in battle at the same time in history, so the situation never happened again.

          I would not claim such a thing; the losses of our ships from “friendly” rams almost annually adjusted the size of the fleet, both military and civilian.
        2. 0
          April 12 2025 04: 39
          Well, the only effective example of ramming was the battle of Lissa, but the naval artillery of that time could not penetrate that armor. Since then, the competition between armor and projectiles has led to the victory of the projectile.
    3. +3
      15 March 2025 12: 09
      Everything is explained logically, but the result was a “hodgepodge” of demands put forward at different times in different circumstances…
      1. +1
        15 March 2025 14: 46
        Yes, I understand everything, and attempts to follow trends, and attempts to at least somehow take into account the experience of the RYaV, history is their judge. But who was this particularly respected person sitting in the MTK, who pushed through such an unfashionable (even harmful) spyware contrary to all trends and experience? Let the giant of thought into the studio!
        1. +5
          15 March 2025 16: 36
          The Chairman of the MTC was Dubasov, but I don't think it was his initiative. It seems that the admiral in this position simply didn't need anything: no 50-caliber guns, oh well, put in the old ones, ram, let it be, we can't change the project...
        2. 0
          18 March 2025 11: 11
          Quote: mark1
          But who was the particularly respected person sitting in the MTC that pushed through such an unfashionable (even harmful) spyware contrary to all trends and experience?

          The RIF officers bitterly joked that in the eternal war between the floating personnel and the "Spitz", the headquarters maintains neutrality, while the MTC is clearly hostile. smile
  2. +9
    15 March 2025 06: 52
    In my distant time as a cadet of the TOVVMU, we had a teacher of the subject VMI (naval history) captain 2nd rank Shugaley. So he told us that a young lieutenant on a ship (submarine) in his cabin on the shelf must have three books: KU VMF USSR, Cruisers Pikul and Major Repairs Sobolev
    1. +7
      15 March 2025 07: 49
      Quote from: FoBoss_VM
      Pikul's cruisers
      Well, this book will take you in a completely different direction. Although it's quite suitable for schoolchildren. It's something like Dumas's "Three Musketeers", interesting to read, but there's not even a penny of historical truth wink
    2. +3
      15 March 2025 10: 57
      Pikul's "Cruisers" is fiction for children, it's interesting to read, but in practical terms it gives nothing. As for Sobolev, I can say that he was, to put it mildly, not a very good person, so I'd better keep quiet about his work. As for the article itself. Predreadnoughts,
      At that time, everyone was building them, except for the USA. Therefore, there is no point in scolding Russian admirals or shipbuilders. The only thing that surprises me is that the ships for the Black Sea Fleet were built according to a separate project and were significantly inferior in performance characteristics to the Baltic ones. There is no logic here.
      1. +3
        15 March 2025 12: 05
        The predreadnoughts themselves were an unsuccessful class, but against the background of the entire class, the Andrey and the Imperator looked very unfavorable. Firstly, the main caliber was like that of battleships (even the Radetsky had 45-caliber guns), secondly, the weak intermediate caliber was 8'', less than that of the Nelsons and Radetsky, and thirdly, the low speed, predreadnoughts were usually a couple of knots faster than battleships.
        1. +1
          15 March 2025 13: 04
          The "Lord Nelson" had a speed of 18,5 knots, like the "Pervozvanny". The large intermediate caliber is also a relative question. The British complained that the fountain from the fall of a 24-mm. shell was practically no different from a 305-mm. It was very difficult to adjust fire. Therefore, they preferred to fire with one of them.
          1. -1
            15 March 2025 16: 37
            If I'm not mistaken, the Nelson's main caliber was 50 calibers long...
            1. +5
              15 March 2025 16: 52
              The Nelson, like the Dreadnought, Bellerophon and Invincible, had the Mk. X, 305/45. The Mk. XI, 305/50 were on the St. Vincents. However, they were unsuccessful and the British quickly switched to the 343/45.
              1. 0
                16 March 2025 12: 18
                The British complained, but the Spanish on the Hispanias did not notice the shortcomings of the 50-caliber guns, despite the fact that their battleships had fought...
                1. 0
                  16 March 2025 12: 59
                  And where did the "Espagnes" fight?)))
                  1. 0
                    16 March 2025 19: 00
                    In Morocco, then in the Civil War...
                    1. 0
                      16 March 2025 19: 21
                      What ships did he sink?))) and his sister ships too)))
                      1. 0
                        17 March 2025 09: 22
                        "Jaime I" sank a couple of Francoist gunboats. "Alfoso" too, if memory serves, a gunboat or two...
                      2. 0
                        17 March 2025 09: 23
                        The gunboat is a serious opponent for a battleship, somewhere on the level of the Nagato.
                      3. 0
                        17 March 2025 10: 07
                        They were built for reasons of prestige, so the benefit... They didn't count on it, but at least they got some.
                      4. 0
                        17 March 2025 11: 00
                        Prestige is good, of course, but it would be better to build more useful units for the fleet.
                      5. 0
                        17 March 2025 11: 17
                        The Spanish Armada of the early 8th century was a pitiful sight, they wanted to somehow compensate for the loss of the Spanish-American War, at first, they even wanted to buy XNUMX "Mikas", but while they found the money, the "Dreadnought" appeared and they wanted to be like the big boys. They could either build one real dreadnought, or three small ones, they chose the second option, and they were not mistaken: the ships turned out to be complete crap, but ... The shipbuilding industry gained experience, money and began to develop. Soon they were building heavy cruisers of the "Canarias" type - they can no longer be called crap. And today even small aircraft carriers are being built for import ...
                      6. 0
                        17 March 2025 12: 41
                        The "Canarias" were built with very strong support from the British. Almost all the engineering and technical personnel at the shipyards were British. And many things were purchased in England, so the Spanish did not have any special merit there. And even now the "Navantia" belongs to the British, so as to pay less taxes. Well, and about the Spanish aircraft carriers - you can't tell without tears)))
                      7. 0
                        19 March 2025 13: 12
                        Did the Germans build many aircraft carriers? And the Italians? The Swedes? Spanish shipbuilding is quite developed for the scale of the economy of an average European country...
                      8. 0
                        19 March 2025 13: 55
                        "Prince of Asturias" is not an aircraft carrier, but a misunderstanding))) even the British "Invincibles", which are bigger, showed themselves during the Falklands War, almost nothing)))
                      9. 0
                        19 March 2025 22: 23
                        Hmm... And when was the shipbuilding industry ever evaluated by the combat qualities of its ships? Spanish shipyards are doing a good job of exporting ships, I myself happened to be on a Thai aircraft carrier built by Spain back in 2005. And that means - PROFIT! The money is coming in regularly, and that's the main thing for business! As for the quality of the ships... The Thais also bought themselves an aircraft carrier for prestige)))
                      10. 0
                        20 March 2025 09: 21
                        "Prince of Asturias" was built according to an American design and for American money. Spain simply did not have the money for an aircraft carrier, and it did not need one. A ship with one propeller and one propeller is nonsense. And the rest of the performance characteristics are pure nonsense. The Thais generally operate the aircraft carrier as a museum and entertainment center))) there is an advertisement on the Internet.
                      11. 0
                        20 March 2025 17: 06
                        Why even talk about the performance characteristics of this equipment? It's business and only business. Both the Spanish and the Thais need an aircraft carrier solely for reasons of prestige. As a sort of specialist in local (Southeast Asian) political psychology (I was enlightened by local correspondents and embassies), there, showing off, in principle, means an inadequate amount. And an aircraft carrier is a level 84 show off...
              2. 0
                16 March 2025 17: 22
                The following 305 mm guns turned out to be unsuccessful. Which were installed on the "Neptunes". Almost worse than the previous ones which were installed on the dreadnought-like dreadnoughts.
              3. 0
                17 March 2025 15: 11
                Maybe I'm wrong. I won't get into literature. Saint Vincents, the same Neptunes. These guns were unsuccessful on them. Worse than the previous ones.
      2. +2
        15 March 2025 12: 19
        Probably with the exception of Germany. In the US, the Connecticut is quite a pre-dreadnought.
        1. 0
          15 March 2025 13: 13
          The "Connecticuts" can be classified as pre-dreadnoughts, but with a big stretch. And then, among the weakest - at the level of "Radetzky" or "Evstafiy". For the sake of economy, they tried to "pack" everything into the minimum dimensions of the hull. Two auxiliary calibers - 203 and 178 mm. - is not the most reasonable solution. The armor is so-so.
          1. +2
            15 March 2025 13: 18
            Regarding "Evstafiy" you certainly went overboard. It's a regular battleship, slightly reinforced. As for the armor - is the 280 mm belt so-so? The only downside is the two calibers, here yes, the Americans overdid it.
            1. +1
              15 March 2025 13: 31
              Well, "Evstafiy" and "Zlatoust" were built in parallel with the Baltic pre-dreadnoughts and why they were not of the same type, I do not understand. And formally they had a reinforced intermediate caliber of 203 mm. albeit only 4 pcs. However, these eight-inch guns fired at "Goeben".
              280 mm. for "Connecticuts" - this is only in the middle. The Americans managed to "smear" the GBP along the entire length of the hull, at the ends 102 mm. The upper belt is 178 mm. not very reliable protection. The Americans are far from "Nelson".
              1. +4
                15 March 2025 13: 41
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Well, "Evstafiy" and "Zlatoust" were built in parallel with the Baltic pre-dreadnoughts, and why they were not of the same type, I don't understand.

                If in the case of the "Pavls" they were "improved "Borodinos", then the "Evstafii" were "improved "Potemkin" with all its Black Sea specifics...
                1. 0
                  15 March 2025 14: 15
                  What prevented the Black Sea specifics from being brought up to the Baltic ones? Instead of 152 mm, make the entire intermediate caliber 203 mm.
                  1. +1
                    16 March 2025 09: 52
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    What prevented the Black Sea specifics from being brought up to the level of the Baltic ones?

                    And why? "Zlatousty" in its current form covered everything that the Turks had and could ever independently build like a bull covers a sheep.
                    And against the dreadnoughts ordered from England, the Pervozvannye are just as useless as the Zlatousty.
                    And if there is no difference, why pay more? (twice)
                    1. 0
                      16 March 2025 13: 01
                      And a couple of years later, when the Turks ordered dreadnoughts from England, they had to build them themselves. Therefore, when a ship is being built that takes a long time to build and lasts even longer, you have to think a little ahead.
                      1. 0
                        17 March 2025 18: 54
                        Again
                        And against the dreadnoughts ordered from England, the Pervozvannye are just as useless as the Zlatousty.
                      2. 0
                        17 March 2025 21: 18
                        I agree, but the Turks never received them)))
              2. 0
                15 March 2025 13: 47
                Well, in terms of armor, all battleships were far from the Nelson. And as for the Evstafiy, it seemed like they were originally planning to replace the entire armor with 203mm, but something didn't work out, either there wasn't enough money, or something else, but we got what we got.
                1. 0
                  15 March 2025 14: 16
                  No matter how much I read about "Eustathius" and "Chrysostom", I still couldn't find a clear answer as to why they didn't make such a completely logical replacement.
                  1. +1
                    15 March 2025 15: 46
                    "Initially, it was planned to build 2 battleships for the Black Sea Fleet according to the drawings and specifications of the EBR "Prince Potemkin Tavrichesky" being built at that time, with all 152mm guns replaced with 203mm ones. For financial reasons, the guns were only replaced in the lower casemate." Quote from the reference book by Yu.V.Apalkov "Combat ships of the Russian fleet. 8.1917 - 10.1917"
                    I don't know how much you can trust this source, especially since as far as I know, the eight-inch guns were placed in the upper casemate and not in the lower one. But I'm selling it for what I bought it for.
                    1. +1
                      15 March 2025 16: 46
                      I also read Kuznetsov's book "Battleships of the Ioann Zlatoust type". Alas, the explanations about the 203-mm caliber, in it, as in others, are approximately at the level of: "It was a time of famine, there was little bread, so butter was spread directly on sausage."
                    2. 0
                      17 March 2025 15: 13
                      Eh... Even the masters make mistakes.
                      In all the photos (and in real life) the 203mm are in the upper casemates.
                      1. 0
                        17 March 2025 15: 19
                        Initially they wanted to put this in the lower casemates, but then common sense prevailed.
                  2. 0
                    17 March 2025 15: 02
                    There was no particular point. The main caliber was 305 mm anyway. And 203 was neither this nor that.
                    1. +1
                      17 March 2025 15: 21
                      There was no special meaning in a class like pre-dreadnoughts, the rest is already a derivative of the main one)
                      1. 0
                        18 March 2025 06: 23
                        The minus is not mine. It's just that when they were designed and laid down, not everyone knew that they were pre-dreadnoughts))
                        Well, and there is always a financial and technical issue. The money has been allocated, construction has begun, the plant cannot be stopped, etc. Which is what happened, for example, with the English "Lord Nelsons"
                      2. 0
                        18 March 2025 09: 11
                        It's hard to say. Almost everyone has made this mistake. However, if rich England could afford useless expenses, then poorer countries could think about saving.
              3. 0
                18 March 2025 11: 17
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Well, "Evstafiy" and "Zlatoust" were built in parallel with the Baltic pre-dreadnoughts and why they were not of the same type, I do not understand. And formally they had a reinforced intermediate caliber of 203 mm. albeit only 4 pcs.

                So "Evstafii" is, it seems, the Russian version of the "King Edward VII" EBM. The British built an EBM of the same type, intermediate between the classic EBM and the pre-dreadnought - with a dual-caliber secondary caliber and four large secondary caliber guns.
                1. 0
                  18 March 2025 11: 27
                  One can assume. But why not build identical ships? They built dreadnoughts later, and before that they built cruisers of the Bogatyr type. And then suddenly everyone went their own way.
                  1. +1
                    18 March 2025 11: 42
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    One can assume. But why not build identical ships?

                    Because the big pots of the BF and the Black Sea Fleet of the armored era were always different. The Black Sea Fleet traded speed for armor and the range of the main battery - its EBRs had to slowly descend the mountain and suppress the Turkish BO in the Bosphorus.
                    In fact, the Black Sea Fleet was built as a fleet for one operation: suppression of the Baltic Fleet, landing and possible battle in the Straits with Turkey’s allies.
                    Even the Black Sea battleships differed from the Baltic ones - traditionally, they increased their armor at the expense of speed. And then, while the Izmails were being built in the Baltic, the vector of shipbuilding in the Black Sea Fleet moved towards the Nikolai Pervyi, which did not receive 14" main guns only for reasons of tactical homogeneity.
                    1. 0
                      18 March 2025 12: 44
                      Well, I wouldn't say that the Baltic battleships were that different from the Black Sea ones. And the "bogatyrs" were generally built according to the same project. The Black Sea dreadnoughts had their own specifics, but again, I wouldn't say that they were fundamentally different from the Baltic ones. Let's just say that they were built later and some changes were made to their design,
                      because life did not stand still.
                      1. 0
                        18 March 2025 16: 22
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Well, I wouldn’t say that the Baltic battleships were that different from the Black Sea ones.

                        Compare the same-age ships - "Sevastopol" and "Tri Svyatelya". The Black Sea ship has the same type of armor but the armor belt is a third thicker, and the difference in turret armor is even more significant.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And the "bogatyrs" were generally built according to the same design.

                        The Black Sea Fleet was always unlucky with cruisers - they were ordered only when the old ones were completely unable to perform their tasks. So they took projects "from stock".
                        If I remember correctly, when ordering turbine cruise missiles, the Black Sea Svetlanas were still different from the Baltic ones.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        The Black Sea dreadnoughts had their own specifics, but again, I wouldn’t say that they were fundamentally different from the Baltic ones.

                        Well, well, well... a normal armor belt (and not the horror that was tested on the copy of the "Seva" compartment in the Black Sea Fleet) - but a slow speed. If the "Empresses" had 23 Baltic knots - "Goeben" (after a year of basing in Turkey) would not have escaped from them.
                      2. 0
                        18 March 2025 17: 34
                        Well, I'm not saying that they are all the same type, although that would be right if I were to think about it. And they are not exactly the same age, it would be more correct to compare "Navarin" with "Svyatiteli" both by year and by performance characteristics.
                        Well, let's say, the Baltic cruisers weren't very lucky either. As a result, almost all of them went to the Far East and few returned.
                        The Baltic dreadnoughts were built for a specific task - combat with German dreadnoughts at the Central Military Aviation Station. And therefore, they had exactly these performance characteristics and it is difficult to come up with others. The Black Sea dreadnoughts were built to counter those that the Turks ordered from England. They had slightly different requirements.
                      3. 0
                        19 March 2025 10: 33
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And they are not exactly the same age; it would be more correct to compare Navarin with the Saints, both in terms of years and performance characteristics.

                        Nope. "Tri Svyatelitelya" was already built on the basis of "Navarin". And the difference in the laying dates between "Seva" and "Tremya Svyatelitelya" is six months. "Navarin" was laid down two years before the Black Sea EBR, and by the time the Black Sea EBR was laid down it had already been launched.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        The Baltic dreadnoughts were built for a specific task - combat with German dreadnoughts at the CMAP. And therefore, they had exactly these performance characteristics and it is difficult to come up with others.

                        If this were so, the "Empresses" would be much better suited for this. Because when working as a floating battery, the armor rules. And minus two knots of speed when based only fifty miles from the position does not matter.
                      4. 0
                        19 March 2025 12: 15
                        The laying dates are a very relative concept, given the long-term construction that reigned at the time. A more objective parameter is commissioning. "Sisoy" - August 1896, "Navarin" - June 1896, "Tri Svyatelya" - 1895.
                        The Baltic dreadnoughts - for combat at the CMAP, they need deck armor, not side armor. Because at the combat distances that were assumed, the shells will fall at a large angle, i.e.
                        into the deck, and there are three armored decks. And the Germans will not be able to reduce the distance in any way, because of the minefields. And against German 280-mm. shells, at such distances, 225-mm. armor + coal pits + 50-mm armored deck slope is quite adequate.
                        protection. But on the Black Sea, dreadnoughts built in England with 305-mm main guns were supposed. And there the combat distances could be anything, choosing the right one is not easy. That is why the main belt there was thicker.
              4. 0
                11 June 2025 19: 19
                In general, it is quite clear. There are different shipbuilding schools on the Black and Baltic Seas. The Black Sea is a limited closed naval theater without the possibility of going out to the ocean, and the Baltic Sea provided just such an opportunity. The discussed pair are the ugly descendants of the battleships of the Borodino type, and Evstafiy and Zlatoust are the descendants of Potemkin
                1. 0
                  11 June 2025 23: 34
                  There was only one school of shipbuilding, and the Baltic and Black Sea battleships were designed in St. Petersburg. The Black Sea ones were simply designed based on those built in England with 305-mm main guns, and possibly 343-mm. That's why they were shorter, to make the armor belt thicker.
            2. 0
              23 November 2025 19: 55
              I have serious doubts about the 280mm belt on Evstafiy. I remember it being 229mm.
            3. The comment was deleted.
        2. 0
          16 March 2025 19: 02
          It is difficult to say whether American battleships can be classified as pre-readnoughts: they initially had 203 mm auxiliary artillery, it is simply a national feature...
      3. +1
        15 March 2025 22: 19
        The only thing that surprises me is that the ships for the Black Sea Fleet were built according to a separate project and were significantly inferior in performance characteristics to the Baltic ones. There is no logic here.
        Different theaters of operations, that's the only explanation. And the shipyards are different.
        1. 0
          16 March 2025 00: 22
          What is the fundamental difference between the Black Sea and the Baltic? They were built almost simultaneously. Shipyards - both Black Sea Fleets, were built at state shipyards, "Pavel I" too.
          1. 0
            16 March 2025 08: 00
            The Baltic - war with Germany and access to the Atlantic. The Black Sea - war with Turkey and access to the Mediterranean. Shipyards differed in equipment for different classes of ships.
            1. 0
              16 March 2025 09: 17
              It's not about the factories. Dreadnoughts were built at the Black Sea Fleet and quite successfully.
              1. 0
                16 March 2025 10: 03
                It's not about the factories. Dreadnoughts were built at the Black Sea Fleet and quite successfully.
                They built it, but according to a modified design.
                1. 0
                  16 March 2025 13: 14
                  The Black Sea dreadnoughts were not that different from the Baltic ones. The volume of work and technology were the same.
              2. 0
                18 March 2025 14: 39
                It's about factories. With the development of standardization, there was no point in bothering with uniformity in distant factories. And at the same time, Evstafiy and Zlatoust were the same as Potemkin at the enterprises. It was possible to use all the equipment and not transport it back and forth.
                Yes, and the Black Sea battleships were better.
            2. 0
              16 March 2025 10: 28
              Nikolaev factories built dreadnoughts very well. They built three, the fourth was in high stages of readiness, but 1917 prevented its completion.
          2. +1
            16 March 2025 11: 36
            The Baltic is the "gateway" to the open ocean and, for some time now, the "floating rear" of the Pacific Ocean squadron.
            The Black Sea, by virtue of treaties, is a closed theater, less demanding in terms of the speed and range of ships + a separate specific task: facilitating a breakthrough of fortifications in the Straits.
            1. 0
              16 March 2025 11: 50
              The Black Sea Fleet ships also went to serve in the Mediterranean. The treaty could be rewritten, which was subsequently done. The breakthrough to the Bosphorus somehow did not happen, although in 1915, the allies tearfully asked for it.
      4. +1
        16 March 2025 09: 28
        Quote: TermNachTER
        Pre-dreadnoughts,
        At that time, everyone was building, except the USA.

        "Connecticut", "Virginia" and "Mississippi" look at you with a feeling of deep bewilderment)))
        1. 0
          16 March 2025 10: 29
          Let's just say that these were very weak pre-dreadnoughts, due to the stinginess of Congress.
          1. 0
            16 March 2025 10: 35
            Quote: TermNachTER
            So to speak

            Let's say you don't know how to admit mistakes.
            1. 0
              16 March 2025 10: 37
              Why. If I'm wrong somewhere, I admit it. "Connecticuts", like "Radetzkie" in terms of the total performance characteristics, are among the weakest. Which is what I said right away, that I don't understand the author's delight.
              1. 0
                16 March 2025 11: 01
                Well, the weakest are probably the Italians.
                1. 0
                  16 March 2025 11: 08
                  Well, I don't even know. As for me, "Regina Elena" is even worse than "Evstafiy". At least it has 4 305-mm.
                  1. 0
                    16 March 2025 11: 11
                    Well, that's what I wrote, that they are the weakest.)) Three "Evstafii" could more or less withstand "Goeben", and it seems to me that three "Elena" would have been dispersed in no time.
                    1. 0
                      16 March 2025 11: 14
                      At Cape Sarych, only "Evstafiy" actually fired, "Zlatoust" only occasionally, "Potemkin" did not participate at all, only "pressured" the Germans with its presence. So, "Evstafiy" performed quite well. But if "Pervozvanny" and "Pavel" had been in their place, the situation would have been more interesting.
                      1. 0
                        16 March 2025 11: 21
                        Well, I don't think anything would have changed. Their main gun is the same, and the eight-inch guns wouldn't do much harm to the Goeben.
                      2. 0
                        16 March 2025 11: 46
                        Well, firstly, they had a speed two knots higher. The Germans would not have been able to break away so quickly. Secondly, more eight-inch guns could have participated in the salvo. They had pretty good performance characteristics. At the combat distances at Cape Sarych, they could penetrate everything except the main belt, turrets and main battery barbettes. That is, they could cause damage, albeit not critical, but quite significant.
    3. +1
      April 18 2025 17: 20
      Quote from: FoBoss_VM
      So he told us that a young lieutenant on a ship (submarine) must have three books on the shelf in his cabin: the USSR Navy Manual, Pikul's Cruisers, and Sobolev's Capital Repairs.

      Why not Priboy's "Tsushima" and Semenov's "Payback"?
  3. 0
    15 March 2025 07: 51
    I remember that in the 70s of the last century, there was an article in "Technology for Youth" about "St. Andrew the First-Called".
  4. +6
    15 March 2025 08: 16
    There is no need to write the same thing about torpedoes. EVERYONE installed torpedoes on large ships. And paid a lot of attention to torpedo preparation. It is enough to read the Germans. They even installed torpedoes on Nelsons. So the fact that ours removed them over and over again is a sign that at least here they were smarter than the others.
    The main complaint about these ships is the main battery. But given the relative uselessness of these ships, it is also worth noting that the Russian fleet turned out to be the smartest and most insightful. Only two of them were built.
    1. +1
      15 March 2025 21: 25
      Quote: MCmaximus
      There is no need to write the same thing about torpedoes. EVERYONE installed torpedoes on large ships.

      The reason is also clear, by the way, not for a linear battle, as some people think, but for finishing off. Suvorov is a clear example of this, they threw a mountain of shells at him, but he still doesn't sink.
  5. +8
    15 March 2025 08: 23
    Regarding ugliness - very relative. In any case, "Borodino" is better. Those are beautiful only in terms of modern steampunk. Above-water side without portholes with maximum armor? The decision is correct based on the results of Tsushima. Only here they finished about "Oslyabya". "Andrey" would have survived such damage without choking. And would have asked for more. And as for the fact that they screwed up with the ventilation, even now you have to look hard to find a good ventilation specialist. Those same Americans eventually made their last battleships without a single hole in the above-water sides. And it is clear why. That is, in principle - it is correct.
    1. +2
      15 March 2025 11: 59
      As for the ugliness, in my opinion, contemporaries knew better, and you won't get a good word about these ships from them. As for the portholes, the problem was not their absence, but the unsuccessful ventilation system, which turned their absence into a significant drawback.
      1. 0
        15 March 2025 12: 26
        Poor ventilation is a consequence of the lack of portholes. And these were the first experiments. It is not surprising that they were unsuccessful.
      2. 0
        15 March 2025 12: 36
        French curves of the bodies are the height of aesthetics. laughing
        Shipbuilding and technological nonsense.
        1. 0
          15 March 2025 14: 39
          Quote: MCmaximus
          Shipbuilding and technological nonsense

          At a certain stage, this was not nonsense for the French: an armored, hermetically sealed "box", a more stable artillery platform, greater opportunities for firing guns during pursuit and retreat.
          1. 0
            15 March 2025 15: 00
            I'm talking about the shape of the freeboard.
            In general, the inward tilt of the sides when listing is bad from a purely theoretical point of view. Bending sheets is expensive. And also the crowded spar deck. A couple of high-explosive shells and all the iron is tied in a knot.
            1. +1
              15 March 2025 16: 00
              Quote: MCmaximus
              In general, the inward tilt of the sides when the ship is heeled is bad from a purely theoretical point of view.

              For this purpose, they had an upper armor belt installed, and behind it a cofferdam.
              A couple of high explosive shells and all the iron tied in a knot.

              The French conducted many experiments and came to the conclusion that a pair of high-explosive shells would not tie all the iron into a knot.
              1. 0
                15 March 2025 16: 51
                Tsushima has its own experience. French experiences are no guide for us. And about the upper side... What does armor have to do with it? We are talking about principles. True for any ship.
                1. +1
                  15 March 2025 17: 16
                  Quote: MCmaximus
                  Tsushima has its own experience.

                  Tsushima is a very bad experience.
                  French experiments are not a guide for us

                  The allies shared their experiences with Russia.
                  What does armor have to do with it? We are talking about principles. True for any ship.

                  Because the thin upper belt, located above the main belt, protected from high-explosive shells. Cofferdams protected from water ingress in case of penetration of the thin upper belt. So, the principles of stability are not violated.
                  1. +1
                    15 March 2025 18: 45
                    1. Look at the photo of the "Eagle" after the battle. Have the French seen anything like this?
                    2. The principles of the ship theory are simple. The greater the above-water volume that enters the water during heeling, the better. And that's it. Cofferdams, armor - all this is secondary. They do not increase the volume of the above-water part of the ship in any way. They can reduce damage. But... At certain angles of heeling, the volume begins to decrease. They are large, I do not argue. At such angles, the ship is most likely not a tenant. But the moment of capsizing comes earlier. And there are also dynamic factors when the heeling can become excessive. Narrowing can be justified. But it is much better not to do it and have a larger angle of the stability diagram.
                    1. +1
                      15 March 2025 19: 26
                      Quote: MCmaximus
                      Look at the photo of the "Eagle" after the battle. Have the French seen anything like this?

                      This is not the fault of the design, but the miscalculations of the squadron commander. You might as well look at photographs of the "Tsarevich".
                      Cofferdams, armor - all this is secondary. They do not increase the volume of the above-water part of the ship in any way.

                      They primarily provide protection against water entering the ship's hull, which causes listing. If the ship's protection is not penetrated by shells and there is no water entering, the volume of the ship's above-water part is secondary.
                      It is possible to justify the narrowing. But it is much better not to do it and have a larger angle of the stability diagram.

                      Look closely at the design diagram of the French battleship. These are the first designs. It should be understood that this was done based on the tactical views of the French.
                    2. +1
                      15 March 2025 21: 36
                      Quote: MCmaximus
                      2. The principles of the ship theory are simple. The greater the surface volume that enters the water during heeling, the better.

                      Controversial. A slanted side reduces the upper weight (and moment of inertia), while a high unarmored side, on the contrary, will scoop up excess water through holes when listing.
                      1. 0
                        16 March 2025 07: 45
                        You always want to ask: why has no one used this French zaum? Well, we are fine, the general-admiral foisted it on us at the instigation of his whores.
                        You can put forward any ideas. But! Armor or no armor or all sorts of cofferdams, but the ship's theory is as solid as a rock. It's like arguing with physics.
                      2. 0
                        16 March 2025 07: 50
                        And about the moment of inertia. English battleships are simply lower than French ones. And it's easy to see. Haven't you calculated the moment of inertia?
                      3. 0
                        16 March 2025 08: 01
                        Well, here's a practical point. A ship with a straight side got a hole, and the same thing happened with a slanted one. Which hole is easier to patch? Definitely on a ship with a straight side.
                      4. +2
                        16 March 2025 13: 35
                        Quote: MCmaximus
                        Which hole is easier to patch? Definitely on a ship with a straight side.

                        Please look at the picture above. The same Borodino has a straight side in the area of ​​the waterline, and in the area of ​​the upper BP too. The upper part is slanted, which shouldn't be under water anyway. And it's hard to patch up any hole in the steel side, its edges are curly. wink
                      5. +2
                        16 March 2025 16: 35
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        The upper part is collapsed, which shouldn’t be under water anyway.

                        "Collapse" of the sides in French is a relative concept;
                        Pictured is the French coastal defense battleship "Henri IV" in the Dardanelles.
                      6. 0
                        17 March 2025 15: 07
                        During a storm, there was always water on the slopes of the "Orel". We had to seal the ports. And according to the regulations, they should not leak. And what about holes? Any rough seas require sealing the damage to the side. The above-water volume is the reserve of buoyancy. When it decreases, the sides collapse = stability decreases.
                      7. +2
                        17 March 2025 20: 08
                        Quote: MCmaximus
                        The above-water volume is the reserve buoyancy.

                        The buoyancy reserve will be if this volume is hermetically sealed. You've seen the photo of the Eagle after Tsushima, haven't you? Above the armor belt, it's a solid colander. The argument is unsuccessful, it doesn't work for a combat ship. The fact is that it's not technologically advanced, and there are unnecessary problems with ease of use.
                      8. 0
                        18 March 2025 06: 19
                        Your arguments are not very clear. If the damage is above the armor belt, then shouldn't it be patched up? Yes, the sailors fanatically eliminated, if they could, any holes in the above-water side! Always. And any. They don't need to be explained what the presence of any kind of abnormal openings even above the VL is fraught with. Even if 100 days of calm are predicted. The torn edges of the holes were cut off. They still lacked French elegance. I think that in our fleet these French things were cursed back then. Yes, and somehow the French themselves tied up with this nonsense. Others - did not even start.
                        Why bother pulling this owl at all?
                        Your arguments, to put it mildly, are not convincing at all. It would be fine if this were written at the beginning of the 20th century. But now?!
                        Well, it's only recently that rounded sides have appeared on high-speed yachts for singles. But this is so that the water drains. And everything is done there so that a person does not climb onto the deck unnecessarily. Because the boat breaks through the waves and the water flows in a stream. Everything else is not done like that. This is technological nonsense. And an extremely impractical thing in everyday service.
                      9. +1
                        18 March 2025 08: 45
                        Quote: MCmaximus
                        The ragged edges of the holes were cut off. They still lacked French elegance.

                        I don't understand why you're so hung up on these holes. When patching holes, it doesn't matter what shape the side is, it has nothing to do with the matter at all.

                        Well, and regarding "cutting the edges" you are a big optimist. You don't have electric welding or an autogenous torch yet, what are you going to use to cut steel sheets 10-15 mm thick? Scissors?
                      10. 0
                        18 March 2025 11: 33
                        There was no gas cutting in the RYaV. But they tried to straighten the edges. It was possible to use chisels and sledgehammers to a certain extent. As much as humanly possible. Some people chopped off the Emians' noses with an axe during the Great Patriotic War. laughing
                        Well, as for "clung to"... Well, I'll stop. I just don't understand your passion for French shipbuilding perversions. That's why I'm trying to understand.
                        I will stay at my place.
                      11. +1
                        18 March 2025 20: 27
                        Quote: MCmaximus
                        I just don’t understand your passion for French shipbuilding perversions.

                        I have no sympathy for these French forms, the excess of design and that's it. But these perversions of the designers did not have any serious consequences for the critical parameters or characteristics of the ship. Here you are clearly wrong.
  6. +3
    15 March 2025 09: 39
    I wonder: why "sisters" and not brothers? We are not English, they have a ship "she", "shi"
    1. +2
      15 March 2025 11: 56
      At the beginning of the 20th century, England dictated naval fashion to everyone, hence the sisters.
  7. +3
    15 March 2025 10: 28
    A much more interesting project would have been one with a slightly longer hull, 3 linear 305mm turrets (as was later done on the Sevastopols, adding another turret) and an average caliber of 152mm. At least 3/4 of that would have made it a modern battleship. But as it is, it's neither fish nor fowl. We really like to cling to the old ways.
    1. +4
      15 March 2025 12: 29
      I think that there is no point in engaging in alternativeism. What was in technology, was. In technology, everything is justified one way or another. And somehow justified. It is in people's actions that there can be many options. Yes, and that...
      1. +2
        15 March 2025 14: 23
        "In technology" there were already German battleships of the first half of the 1890s of the "Brandenburg" type, from which it was only half a step to a squadron battleship with three linearly arranged main battery turrets with guns of the same ballistics.

        But in the story with "Andrey" and "Pavel" our gray-haired grandfathers in the ranks of vice-admiral and lieutenant general were not ready to even change 12"/40 to 12"/50. What more "revolutionary" solutions could we expect here?

        The revolution in battleship building was being made at this time by younger people in other places. For example, in the USA:

        "One of the first was a design by Lieutenant Matt H. Signor published in the US Naval Institute Proceedings in March 1902. The design proposed a ship armed with two triple 305-inch (254 mm) turrets at the ends and two triple 60-inch (127 mm) turrets on the sides. The anti-torpedo caliber consisted of 305-caliber 1902-inch (38 mm) guns. The design was criticized in detail, but everyone was attracted by its firepower. Navy ordnance expert Professor P. R. Alger proposed using eight XNUMX-inch (XNUMX mm) guns instead of three mixed-caliber turrets, which became one of the first proposals for an "all big gun" ship. Future Chief Naval Designer David W. Taylor (aged XNUMX in XNUMX) proposed equipping the new ship with steam turbines, and the problem of their low efficiency at medium speeds can be solved by using variable pitch propellers.

        In May 1902, the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Construction and Repair, while studying various options for the battleship Mississippi, considered a design for a 17-knot battleship with a hexagonal arrangement of six twin turrets with 254 mm guns. But perhaps the greatest contribution was made by Lieutenant Commander H. S. Poundstone (he was 1902 years old in 42). In December 1902, he sent a letter to President Roosevelt proposing a sharp increase in the size of the ships and, instead of a battery of 305 mm and 203 mm guns, a switch to a battery of 280 and 229 mm guns. His designs were not published until 1903. In October 1903, Cuniberti's work "The Ideal Battleship for the British Navy" was published in Europe, presenting a design for a ship with a single main caliber. This forced Poundstone to revise his ideas in favor of a ship armed with a single 280 mm caliber, which would effectively destroy Cuniberti's battleship at the expected combat ranges. When Poundstone's idea was discussed at the annual conference in Newport in the summer of 1903, a naval game was conducted that showed that a ship with a hexagonal arrangement of 280 mm or 305 mm guns had superiority over three ships of existing types.

        The memorandum prepared following the conference discussed the need to switch to a single main caliber. On the one hand, a distance of 2700–3000 m determined the minimum approach distance in an artillery battle without the risk of receiving a torpedo salvo from the enemy. At this distance, 178 mm and 203 mm guns could not effectively hit battleships protected by thick armor. On the other hand, to hit high-speed maneuverable targets such as destroyers, it was not the shell power that was required, but the rate of fire, for which guns of much smaller calibers were well suited. Therefore, there were simply no tasks for the medium artillery on the ship. As a result, it was proposed to create a ship with twelve 305 mm guns and as many 76,2 mm guns as possible.

        Based on the conference's findings, the General Board of the United States Navy sent a formal request to the Bureau of Design in October to design a ship with a single-gun main caliber. However, work on the project was not started, as the Bureau was overloaded with work on current projects. But on January 26, 1904, this request was reissued for the creation of a ship with four 305 mm, eight 254 mm, and anti-torpedo 76 mm guns. And even on this project, the Bureau's work was not started until September 1904.

        At the next summer conference, three projects were compared - the current order of the General Council under the name "South Caroline", the battleship "Connecticut" and last year's project with a homogeneous main caliber. The minimum range of artillery combat was also adopted as 2700 m (3000 yards). As a result of armor penetration calculations, it was concluded that even a 254 mm gun was insufficient to confidently penetrate armor and only 305 mm guns had the required effectiveness. In terms of speed, it was concluded that even a three-knot advantage in speed (18 knots versus 15) did not give an advantage to a faster squadron, since an attempt to "put a stick over the T" could be neutralized by a slower squadron at any time by turning to the side.

        Meanwhile, Poundstone continued his work, submitting three designs to the General Board in June 1904, the last of which, USS Possible, had twelve 280 mm guns on a displacement of 19 tons. He enlisted the help of Lieutenant Commander W. S. Sims, who had done much to improve the art of gunnery control in the U.S. Navy. When President Roosevelt reviewed the design for the new ship, the design bureau insisted that a ship with a uniform caliber would be impractical, and that the presence of a second caliber gun could be a decisive factor in combat. Sims countered this with the results of the 330 practice firings and Poundstone's design. The President was interested, but the issue of the 1904 mm caliber was unclear. In October 254, W. L. Rogers of the Naval War College prepared a memorandum in which he pointed out that at increasing combat ranges, 1904 mm guns, due to their greater accuracy and destructive power, acquired an overwhelming advantage over 305 mm guns. He estimated that a battleship with ten 254 mm guns would have a displacement of 305 tons, and with twelve, 18 tons.

        In October 1904, the design bureau came to the conclusion that simply replacing the 203-inch (254 mm) side guns in the Connecticut design with twin-gun 305-inch (16 mm) or single-gun 000-inch (16 mm) guns was not so simple. The increase in weight, taking into account the large cutouts for the barbettes in the upper deck, led to the appearance of unacceptable stresses in the hull. It took at least three months to solve these problems. In the end, the bureau came to the conclusion that it was unrealistic to fit side turrets of such a caliber within the 000-ton limit without significantly deteriorating the strength of the hull or armor. But these conclusions were too late. Having no proposals or arguments from the Navy to lift the limit, Congress left the 3-ton limit in effect, allocating funds for the construction of two battleships, the South Caroline and the Michigan, on March 1905, XNUMX.

        Chief Designer Washington L. Capps (he was 1905 years old in 41. In 1903, Capps became the Chief Builder of the Navy and also the Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair with the rank of Rear Admiral) made a radical decision. He decided that the main thing for the future ship would be action in a line during a linear battle of the main forces, and therefore priority was given to obtaining the maximum broadside. The desire to still get a strong enough broadside to the bow and stern led to the appearance of a scheme that later became classic - a linear-elevated arrangement of turrets in the centerline - two in the bow and stern, one on top of the other. This "S" scheme is dated April 1905.

        The biggest concerns were caused by firing one turret over another directly into the bow or stern. Many experts considered such firing impossible due to the impact of muzzle gases and the shock wave from the shot on the calculation of the lower turret. The lack of such data forced the designers of the British "Dreadnought" to place the turrets as far apart as possible. The Americans solved this issue by experiment. True, this was done only in March 1907, when it was too late to make changes to the "South Caroline" project. One 305-mm gun was dismantled from the turret of the monitor "Florida" and installed on the superstructure. First, cattle were driven into the turret and several shots were fired. After it became clear that the cattle were not harmed, the experiment was carried out on volunteer officers led by Capps. The only improvement that was recommended upon completion of the tests was an increase in the thickness of the rear wall..."
        1. +2
          15 March 2025 14: 56
          That's the point. The issue is that three towers did not solve the issue of firepower. Even the Japanese still installed 4 guns. The breakthrough was provided by countries with slightly different industrial development. The Americans had a decently developed naval science. They calculated a lot at the tip of the pen. How and why is another question. The English were the first in everything. On the one hand, they could afford experiments, and on the other, the first does not look back.
          1. +2
            15 March 2025 20: 34
            I believe it is not a matter of industrial development, but rather that the old p-duns under the leadership of an incompetent corrupt official were responsible for the construction of the fleet. After Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich resigned on June 2, 1905, the old p-duns remained and managed to simultaneously approve the development of truly effective new-generation armor-piercing shells and "scared projects" with "high-explosive" armor protection, which would have been so useful in the conditions of the past Russo-Japanese War, but which, of course, could not withstand the new 305 mm armor-piercing shells.

            It is possible to argue about who was the first to start the actual design of a battleship with all big guns, the Americans or the British, but the British, who had "got their hands on it", designed and built much faster.

            But American designers, "squeezed" by Congress within the 16000-ton displacement limit, managed to build battleships that were significantly inferior to the Dreadnought in speed alone. In armor protection, in structural underwater protection, and in the rate of fire of the main battery artillery (up to 2 rounds per minute versus up to 1,5 rounds per minute), the South Caroline-class battleships were superior to the Dreadnought. Considering the quality of the British and American 305 mm shells of that time, I would boldly bet on the victory of the American battleship in a hypothetical battle. And in general, the Americans at that time were already thinking faster than the British. By 1908, they realized that it was time to switch from 305 mm to 356 mm main battery guns. On the Delaware-class battleships that followed the South Caroline-class battleships, they switched to 127 mm anti-mine artillery and abandoned the ram stem. On the Nevada-class battleships, they boldly revived the "all or nothing" armor protection scheme, which has since become known as "American", etc., etc.
            1. +1
              16 March 2025 07: 48
              Yes, the mere arrangement of all the guns in the DP on all the battleships at once speaks of the Americans being much more intelligent than all of us European old farts.
        2. +1
          15 March 2025 16: 43
          In Russia, a project for a battleship with a single main caliber was proposed back in 1883, but 12 8'' guns were planned as the main caliber…
          1. 0
            15 March 2025 21: 16
            But on the armored cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, built from 1883 to 1888, the scheme with four barbette twin-gun 8" main caliber mounts was not only proposed, but even implemented. But this scheme, as the French demonstrated on their battleships up to 12" (or so) caliber, scaled poorly, and gave at best the same six guns in a broadside, so important for a squadron battleship, as the more economical scheme of the German Brandenburgs.

            In any case, it was too early to expect the appearance of battleships with all big guns in the 1890s. The 1890s became the era of the arrival of truly rapid-fire artillery of medium caliber and high-explosive shells with high explosives, with which, "unexpectedly" for the Russian admirals, the Japanese routed Russian armored squadrons in artillery battles during the Russo-Japanese War.

            What kind of innovations ahead of their time are we talking about here? In the MTK, both in the 1890s and even in the early 1900s, they still didn't understand that real high-explosive shells were needed, and that rapid-fire artillery should really be rapid-fire, and not like what was produced in the 6" turrets of Russian battleships from the Poltava to the Borodino class.

            I would like to blame everything on one Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, who knew a lot about ballerinas, but it doesn't work. The entire "conservatory" under his leadership had a poor understanding of what was actually happening in the issue of building the world's military fleets in the 1890s and early 1900s. Not much changed after the General-Admiral left his post. The Sevastopol-class battleships were frankly lucky to never encounter their classmates in battle. Otherwise, there would have been every chance to see with their own eyes that the admirals and generals responsible for building the fleet were only able to "prepare for the past war" even after the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War.
          2. +2
            16 March 2025 09: 44
            Quote: Flying_Dutchman
            In Russia, a project for a battleship with a single main caliber was proposed back in 1883, but 12 8'' guns were planned as the main caliber…

            You got it a little mixed up
            Stepanov's 1884 project assumed 8x12"\35.
            8" Civil Code was offered to VK Alexander Mikhailovich and Skvortsov EMNIP in 1898
            But they had very little to do with dreadnoughts.
        3. +1
          15 March 2025 17: 07
          In technology, there were already German battleships of the first half of the 1890s of the Brandenburg type, from which it was only half a step to a squadron battleship with three linearly arranged main battery turrets with guns of the same ballistics.

          The same could be said about our Black Sea series: Catherine II and her sisters.
          Diagrams of both concepts for clarity.
        4. 0
          18 March 2025 11: 28
          Quote: AlexanderA
          The revolution in battleship building was being made at that time by younger people in other places. For example, in the USA

          The funniest thing is that in the US, when building the "South Carolinas", they encountered the same problem as on the "Andreichs" - a directive limitation on displacement. And as a result, they got the same "ugly sisters", only with eight 12".
          1. 0
            18 March 2025 15: 54
            The only thing that showed the wretchedness of the American "sisters" with their 16 thousand long tons of normal displacement was their insufficient speed for first-generation dreadnoughts.

            "The designers faced a problem that Friedman calls "the squeeze": a battleship's basic elements (armament, propulsion, and armor) typically accounted for about 60 percent of its designed displacement. The dominance of one of these factors, which he called "the three fundamental qualities of war," forced designers to compromise on one or both of the others. In the end, they chose armament and armor over speed; as a result, the top speed of the South Carolina-class ships was lower than that of all future U.S. battleships.

            [...]

            While both ships exceeded 20 knots under ideal test conditions, the Navy expected the normal top speed to be around 18,5 knots."


            The Andrey Pervozvanny-class battleships, with a normal displacement of 17 thousand tons, i.e. more than a thousand tons more than the American dreadnought "sisters", failed in terms of armament, speed and armor.

            Among the pre-dreadnoughts of the latest generation, with a far from "modest" displacement in comparison with their "classmates", they turned out to be almost the most wretched.
            1. 0
              18 March 2025 16: 11
              Quote: AlexanderA
              The only thing that showed the wretchedness of the American "sisters" with their 16 thousand long tons of normal displacement was their insufficient speed for first-generation dreadnoughts.

              Plus poor seaworthiness and the lack of a real PMK.
              1. 0
                18 March 2025 17: 33
                Seaworthiness was not brilliant, of course, but during service it allowed to cross the Atlantic to Europe and back seven times (including four times as a troop transport in the fall of 1918 to deliver soldiers from Europe back to the USA). Anti-mine caliber... the maximum rate of fire, by the way, was higher than that of the 18 cwt QF Mark I "Dreadnought". The British gun had separate-case loading. The American gun 3"/50 Mark 2 - unitary loading.

                In general, if we take into account that on the "Dreadnought" 8 guns on the forecastle and poop decks located in the area of ​​action of the main battery guns' muzzle gases were on disassemblable mounts, were normally stored disassembled and were supposed to be installed only before use, therefore during the service of the "Dreadnought" they were rarely in their places, then with the secondary battery on the "Dreadnought" in my opinion it was even worse.
                1. 0
                  19 March 2025 10: 44
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  Seaworthiness was not particularly good, but during the service it allowed her to cross the Atlantic to Europe and back seven times.

                  Well, the Americans even had it across the Atlantic it: smile

                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  In general, if we take into account that on the "Dreadnought" 8 guns on the forecastle and poop decks located in the area of ​​action of the main battery guns' muzzle gases were on disassemblable mounts, were normally stored disassembled and were supposed to be installed only before use, therefore during the service of the "Dreadnought" they were rarely in their places, then with the secondary battery on the "Dreadnought" in my opinion it was even worse.

                  So it is better to compare the "Carolines" not with the "Dreadnought", but with the "Bellerophons" - these Englishmen were launched a year before the Americans, and they already had a 4" secondary battery.
                  That is, the Yankees had a year to understand that the 3" PMK was already useless. But the Yankees did not change it to at least 4".
                  1. 0
                    19 March 2025 13: 09
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Well, the Americans even had this across the Atlantic: wink

                    The voyage of the Miantonomo is a unique case. And it should be noted that most of the Miantonomo's journey consisted of towing this miracle of American armored shipbuilding of the 1860s by the steamship Augusta. Looking back from today, it is a strong mixture of stupidity and courage. wink
                    So it is better to compare the "Carolines" not with the "Dreadnought", but with the "Bellerophons" - these Englishmen were launched a year before the Americans, and they already had a 4" secondary battery.

                    Bellerophon was launched in the summer of 1907 when "When it was too late to make changes to the South Caroline project"In any case, later even some of these 76 mm guns had to be removed. "to compensate for the increased top weight resulting from the modifications".

                    Frankly speaking, I cannot blame the American designers for the aforementioned shortcomings of the project. Only the Spanish later succeeded in "compacting" a carrier of eight 305 mm guns into a similar (even slightly smaller) displacement.

                    And even though the España-class dreadnoughts with their steam turbines demonstrated a slightly higher maximum speed. And their secondary battery guns were 102 mm. But in terms of armor protection, the Spaniards were definitely inferior to the first-borns of American dreadnought construction.

                    In my humble opinion, due to their successful armor protection scheme and good main battery artillery and ammunition, the South Carolines could successfully conduct an artillery battle with almost any dreadnought with 305 mm artillery during the First World War. Even though, due to their insufficient speed, these ships would not have been able to impose such a battle in most cases, or to avoid it.
    2. 0
      16 March 2025 12: 30
      The most interesting thing is that at the time of the construction of the Andrei, Spain was already building a series of three mini-dreadnoughts of the España type, which, with the same +/- displacement, had four turrets with eight 50-caliber guns...
      1. 0
        16 March 2025 13: 49
        You're confusing something. The lead "Espana" was laid down in 1909, "Pervozvannye" were undergoing sea trials at that time.
        1. 0
          16 March 2025 19: 06
          As far as I remember, "Andrey" entered service in 1912, in 1910 caps were installed on her main caliber turrets, I doubt that she was taken out for sea trials without turret caps...
  8. +2
    15 March 2025 14: 04
    Quote: TermNachTER
    However, these eight-inch guns did fire at the Goeben.

    So what? "Slava" also fired at German battleships, but this fact does not make it a pre-dreadnought.))
  9. 0
    15 March 2025 16: 57
    Still, before writing an article about a ship, it would be nice to read at least something about it. At least at the level of popular literature.
  10. +1
    15 March 2025 17: 28
    Collegial decision. Collegial responsibility.
    Either everyone is responsible for mistakes, or no one is.

    Thanks for the interesting article!
  11. 0
    17 March 2025 01: 42
    I read this work "Major Repairs". Lots of interesting things. The article also reminded me of this novel.
  12. 0
    17 March 2025 19: 06
    Quote: TermNachTER
    Nikolaev factories built dreadnoughts very well. They built three, the fourth was in high stages of readiness, but 1917 prevented its completion.


    In the low one.
    There is 46-40% readiness for the main mechanisms, no more than 7% for auxiliary ones, and close to zero for electrical equipment.
    And although the construction of the Nikolai was formally stopped by the Provisional Government a month before its own end, the British were largely to blame for systematically delaying the delivery of blanks and finished metal.
  13. 0
    19 March 2025 06: 37
    Yes, after 1906, when the British commissioned the dreadnought, it would have been better to dismantle these freaks on the slipways, and send the guns ordered for them to the coastal batteries.
  14. 0
    31 March 2025 20: 26
    The article is a free retelling of the works of Melnikov Rafail our Mikhalych. Of course, without reference to sources. I tried to have conversations with the "author" about self-respect, unfortunately to no avail.
    Anyway!
    Regarding the steamships themselves. Let's blame their builders for the lack of radar on the ships! After all, the effect of radio wave reflection was discovered during the very first tests of Popov's devices. After all, they are the ones who are blamed for the lack of a single large main caliber. And never mind that at the time of laying down this idea was only just being formulated in the minds of the most extravagant naval figures. And again, never mind that no one in the world, at least at the very beginning of the 20th century, took these same figures seriously.
    Rafail Mikhalych's idea to cram additional 12" towers into a steamship ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, unfortunately, does not fit into any weight or layout gates.
    By and large, the only real complaints can be about the ship's seaworthiness and habitability. All this can be solved by introducing a forecastle and slightly reducing the armor area to compensate for the load.
    In all other respects, the result was a virtually ideal ship for combat in a mine-artillery position.
    The 120 mm guns made any attacks by enemy mine forces unrealistic, the 8" guns made it possible to cover minesweepers and the light cruisers accompanying them at distances inaccessible to them, and the very presence of 12" guns required the presence of enemy battle forces, which, in general, were supposed to be tied down by the allied English fleet.
    Or it would have been necessary to simply dismantle the ships on the slipways and immediately charge the construction of single-caliber battleships. But how possible was this in the realities of post-Tsushima Russia?
  15. 0
    31 March 2025 20: 35
    Quote: Victor Masyuk
    Yes, after 1906, when the British commissioned the dreadnought, it would have been better to dismantle these freaks on the slipways, and send the guns ordered for them to the coastal batteries.

    Firstly, in a phrase constructed in this way, the word "dreadnought" should be written with a capital letter. Such "Freudian" blunders, like an infallible litmus test, show how much the participant in the dispute reads.
    Secondly, at the time of commissioning, the British themselves did not yet know about the ongoing revolution. The option that this steamship would remain a worthy exhibit of the "Chamber of Amazing Curiosities" was not at all excluded. And against the background of "normal" battleships of that time, Andrei and Pavel look quite on the general level. Inferior to Agamemnon in the power of the second main gun (by the way, not so much, the Russian 8" of that time fired a 110 kg shell, and the English 9,2" 170 kg), Andrei was head and shoulders above the British in the power of the secondary battery. After the successful night attacks of Togo's destroyers on the fragments of the Second Squadron, this was a very serious argument.
  16. 0
    31 March 2025 20: 38
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Still, before writing an article about a ship, it would be nice to read at least something about it. At least at the level of popular literature.

    You beat me to it! Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, VO is increasingly turning into a "Writers' Union".
    P.S. When will it be possible to download your articles in a format that is easy to read?