Military Review

Why the USSR did not build a single battleship

511
Why the USSR did not build a single battleship



foreword

Corruption in the office of the Grand Duke Alexei Aleksandrovich, brother of Alexander the Third, reached such astronomical proportions that the armor plates of the ships were fastened with wooden sleeves. Non-explosive shells and the Tsushima pogrom - these are, in brief, the results of the work of the Naval Department, headed by the Grand Duke. No one has done more to defeat Russia in the Russo-Japanese War than this man.

Already scolded by the mention of the fact that the Russian cruiser Varyag was built in the USA. It would seem that there is nothing strange in this. The cruiser was ordered, paid for and built on time - where is the crime here?
However, it is rarely mentioned that the second participant of the legendary battle of Chemulpo - the gunboat "Koreyets" - was built at the shipyard Bergsund Mekaniksa in Sweden.

Gentlemen, let me ask one question: Did anything ever build in the Russian Empire at the turn of the XIX – XX centuries?

Armored cruiser "Svetlana", the place of construction - Le Havre, France;
Armored cruiser "Admiral Kornilov" - Saint-Nazaire, France;
Armored Cruiser "Askold" - Kiel, Germany;
Armored cruiser "Boyar" - Copenhagen, Denmark;
The armored cruiser Bayan - Toulon, France;
Armored cruiser "Admiral Makarov", built at the shipyard "Forge & Chantier", France;
The armored cruiser Rurik was built at the Vickers shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness, England;
Battleship Retvizan, built by William Cram & Sans, Philadelphia, USA;
The battleship "Tsesarevich" - built in La Seyne-sur-Mer in France ...

This could be ridiculous if it were not for our homeland. A situation in which half of the domestic fleet built on foreign shipyards, clearly pointed out the steep problems in the Russian Empire in the late XIX - early XX centuries: domestic industry was in deep decline and stagnation. Sometimes she could not afford even the simplest destroyers and destroyers - almost all of them were built abroad.

The “Whale” destroyers series, the construction site was the shipyard of Friedrich Schiechau, Elbing, Germany;
The series "Trout" ("Attentive"), were built at the factory of A. Norman in France;
Series "Lieutenant Burakov" - "Forge & Chantier" and the Norman plant, France;
A series of destroyers "Mechanical Engineer Zverev" - Shipyard Schihau, Germany.

The destroyers of the series "Rider" and "Falcon" - built in Germany and, accordingly, in the UK; Pernov destroyer - plant of A. Norman, France; Batum - Yarrow Shipyard in Glasgow, UK; "Adler" - Shipyard Schihau, Germany ...

Dear gentlemen, comrades, what is written here is just a cry from the heart. When the liberal public once again sang a song about how well Russia's development proceeded at the beginning of the century, and then the damned “commies” came along and ruined everything - don’t believe a single word of these scoundrels.

The armored cruiser Varyag from America and the armored cruiser Admiral Makarov, built in France, are the true picture of those events. Before the First World War, the Russian Empire bought everything abroad - from ships and airplanes to small ones. weapons. With such a pace of development, we had every chance to push through the next, second world war, forever disappearing from the political map of the world. Fortunately, fate decreed otherwise.

A country called the Soviet Union has learned to do everything on their own.

Saga of not built battleships

On the vast expanses of the Internet, a most amusing poster-de-motivator walks along:



Gulag and battleships - it is strong. However, the author of the poster is somehow right: the Soviet Union really did not launch and did not commission a single battleship (despite the fact that it was twice adopted for their construction).
What a contrast against this background are the achievements of the pre-revolutionary domestic shipbuilding!
Between 1909 and 1917 7 battleship dreadnoughts of the types “Sevastopol” and “Empress Maria” were added to the navy of the Russian Empire.

This is not counting the unfinished battleship "Emperor Nicholas I" and four super dreadnoughts of the type "Izmail", which were already launched and were in high degree of readiness - only World War I and the Revolution did not allow Russian shipbuilders to complete what they had begun.


Linear ship "Gangut" - the first Russian dreadnought of the type "Sevastopol"

The harsh truth is that “Sevastopol” and “Empress Maria” are simply ashamed to be compared with their peers - the British super-dreadnoughts “Orion”, “King George V” or Japanese Congo-class battlecruisers. "Sevastopol" and "Empress Maria" were built on deliberately outdated projects, and delays in their construction, caused by unprecedented corruption in the Navy Department, weak industry and the general unfavorable situation in the country, led to the fact that at the time of entry into service Russian "dreadnoughts" were almost the weakest in the world.

The main caliber of "Sevastopol" (305 mm) look curious against the background of 343 mm guns "Orion" or 356 mm artillery Japanese "Congo". As for the armor - it was just a shame: "Tsushima syndrome" and the fear of high-explosive shells took up over common sense. Even without that, thin armor was “smeared” all over the ship - this was at the time when the “probable enemy” had built battleships with 13,5 and 14-inch guns - one of their projectiles could sew Sevastopol through and undermine the ammunition cellars.

Uncompleted “Izmail” was a little better - despite its solid firepower (12 x 356 mm - in this parameter Izmail could compare with the best foreign analogues) and high speed (estimated value - more than 27 nodes), the newest Russian super-dreadnought could hardly have become a serious argument in a dispute with his British peer Queen Elizabeth or Japanese Fuso. The armor is too weak - the security of the “Izmailov” was below any criticism.

Speaking of domestic shipbuilding of the beginning of the twentieth century, one cannot help mentioning the legendary Noviki, the world's best destroyers at the start of the First World War. Four excellent 102 mm guns of the Obukhovsky Plant, liquid fuel boilers, 36 nodes, the ability to take on board up to 50 mines - Noviki became the world standard in designing destroyers.

Well, Novik is the exception that confirms the general rule. The glory of Novikov was like a falling star - the brightest, but quickly extinguished flash in the impenetrable blackness of the everyday life of the imperial Navy.

It remains to state an obvious fact: the attempt of pre-revolutionary Russia to become a naval power failed miserably - the underdeveloped industry of the Russian Empire lost the “arms race” to the leading world powers.

By the way, the USSR twice took up the construction of battleships. Unlike the “pre-revolutionary” battleships, which were morally outdated at the laying stage, the Soviet project 23 (“Soviet Union”) and the project 82 (“Stalingrad”) were quite modern ships — powerful, balanced and in no way inferior in terms of characteristics to their foreign counterparts. .

The first time to finish the battleships prevented the war. A lot has affected pre-revolutionary backwardness of the domestic industry. Industrialization only gained momentum, and such an ambitious project turned out to be a “tough nut” for Soviet shipbuilders - the battleships turned little by little into long-term construction.

The second attempt was made at the beginning of 1950's - alas, the era of dreadnoughts and hot artillery duels inexorably disappeared. The completion of the "Stalingrad" was canceled a couple of years after their laying.

Did the USSR buy ships abroad?

Yes, I bought it. Before the war, the Union acquired the unfinished German cruiser Luttsov (Petropavlovsk) and the leader of the destroyers Tashkent, built in Italy according to the original design.
Something else? Yes.

For example, MAN ordered twenty ship diesel engines of the type G7Z52 / 70 with power 2200 hp. and type G7V74 power 1500 hp Also for the fleet samples of propeller shafts, steering gears, ship anti-fouling paints, 406-mm and 280-mm ship-mounted towers, bomb-bombs, sonar equipment were purchased ...

You do not need to have a “seven heads in the forehead” to understand the obvious thing - in the pre-war years, the Soviet Union bought TECHNOLOGIES
Everything else he did himself.

With the beginning of the Cold War, the situation took an even tougher turn - in direct confrontation with the Euro-Atlantic civilization, the Union could rely only on itself. It’s just ridiculous to imagine an atomic submarine missile carrier for the Soviet Navy being built somewhere in the British Glasgow or in the American Philadelphia.

And the Union managed! Restoring the economy and industry after a terrible war, the USSR rolled out to the expanses of the World Ocean SUCH FLEET in 1960-s, from which both halves of the Earth trembled - in time with the submarine rocket carriers swaying around the piers in Gremikha and Krasheninnikov Bay.

It would be good to steal ready-made technologies in the West, but bad luck, there was nothing to steal - what the USSR did was often unparalleled in the world.



The first in the world sea ballistic missile and its underwater carrier; The “singing frigates” of the 61 project are the first ships in the world with a fully gas-turbine power plant; Legend-M sea space reconnaissance and target designation system ...

Anti-ship missiles - here the USSR Navy was not equal at all.

The reproachful phrase "the USSR has not built a single battleship" can only cause Homeric laughter. The Soviet Union was able to build titanium submarines, aircraft carrying cruisers and the giant Orlan nuclear submarines - any dreadnought dies against the background of these MASTERPADS of design ideas.

It’s simply not necessary to talk about any borrowing from the West - the Soviet ships had their well-recognized authentic appearance, layout, dimensions and a specific set of weapons. Moreover, the USSR Navy itself was a single alternative to the fleets of Western countries (by default, the US Navy). The leadership of the USSR Navy developed a completely original (and absolutely correct!) Concept of countering the US Navy and boldly adhered to the chosen direction, creating specific, previously unseen, samples of naval equipment:
- large anti-submarine ships - missile cruisers with hypertrophied PLO armament;
- heavy aircraft carrying cruisers;
- submarines with cruise missiles, the so-called. "Aircraft carrier killers";
- attack missile cruisers, known as the "grin of socialism" ...


Soviet naval power

Unique ships of the measuring complex of 1914 Marshal Nedelin Ave., nodes of ultra-long ocean communication (a low-frequency impulse of enormous power directed to the earth's crust, can be accepted even on board a submarine), small rocket ships and a mosquito fleet armed with large missiles (enough remember what a sensation in the world made the drowning of the Israeli "Eilat").

All this - own technologies and own production. Made in USSR.

Someone will probably ask a question about the large landing ships of the 775 project - the BDK of this type was built in the period from 1974 to 1991 year in Poland. The answer is simple: it was a purely political decision, dictated by the desire to support its ally in the Warsaw bloc.

I will say more - Finnish shipyards regularly received orders from the Soviet Navy - mainly the matter concerned the construction of tugboats and the floating tower. Purely economic motives — it was unprofitable for Soviet shipyards to mess with this “trifle”, because nuclear submarines and TAVKRs were on the stocks of Severodvinsk and Nikolaev.

Known история with the purchase of TOSHIBA machines for precise machining of screws of Soviet submarines is nothing more than a curiosity. In the end, they bought the machine, not the finished destroyer or submarine.

Finally, the Soviet Navy never disdained to use foreign equipment when it came to captured ships.

Epilogue

- The admiral does not spare funds for his new beloved, they say that the last gift - a luxurious collection of diamonds - was purchased with funds earmarked for the “Chilean contract” (note Russia planning to buy out the battleships under construction in England for the Chilean Navy).

- What did you want, sir? Eliza Ballet is now one of the richest women in Russia.

- Yes, the Grand Duke knows a lot about kickbacks - it’s not by chance that the contract for the supply of ship's armor was transferred from the Izhora factory to the private Mariupol plant, which drives hack at twice the price (9,9 instead of 4,4 rubles per pound).


Approximately in this vein, the high society St. Petersburg public in the early twentieth century gossiped among themselves - the Most Gracious Sovereign, Admiral, Grand Duke Alexey Alexandrovich rested notably on the Cote d'Azur and generously gave gifts to his young beloved, French ballerina Eliza Ballet, until Rus -Japanese war.

"Go away, Prince Tsushimsky"! - screamed furious public, at the sight of Alexei Alexandrovich entering the stalls of the Mikhailovsky Theater, which almost brought the admiral to a heart attack.
It got that day and his passion - a ballerina shining with “pebbles” was showered with all kinds of litter with shouts: “This is where our Pacific Fleet is! The blood of Russian sailors on your diamonds ”!

30 May 1905, the Grand Duke Alexey Alexandrovich resigned from his post as chief of the fleet and the Navy Department and drove off to Paris with Balletta.

Gentlemen, do you have the impression of déjà vu?

Author:
511 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 09: 03
    40
    and the author is aware that Ishmael is a battle cruiser, and Fuso and Queen Elizabeth are battleships, and that it is inappropriate to compare their booking, to put it mildly?
    1. lx
      lx 1 August 2013 09: 54
      +2
      the author does not care about the facts when the soul sings, and the words fly :)
      it's Oleg Kaptsov!
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 1 August 2013 10: 02
        60
        Quote: lx
        the author does not care about the facts when the soul sings, and the words fly :)
        it's Oleg Kaptsov!


        Have you tried to write anything other than criticisms? Only the one who doesn’t make a mistake is not mistaken
        1. Denis
          Denis 1 August 2013 19: 16
          +5
          Quote: Vadivak
          Only the one who doesn’t make a mistake is not mistaken
          There are inaccuracies and they are not good for the article.
          Gentlemen, let me ask one question: Did anything ever build in the Russian Empire at the turn of the XIX – XX centuries?
          Just offhand, the first ones that came to mind were "Slava" and "Potemkin", they weren't built by the Tajiks
          a song about how well and correctly the development of Russia went at the beginning of the century, and then the damned “commies” came and all “screwed up” - do not believe a single word of these scoundrels.
          Liberasts with their songs are as disgusting as the couple in the photo at the end of the article, but you have to be objective. The communists, then still the Bolsheviks, may not specifically destroy anything, but ...
          Sikorsky, only one last name! And still, Zvorykin’s experience in electronics would be out of place, and not only his

          Try technology, it’s well written about it, separate from politics
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 2 August 2013 14: 16
            +9
            Quote: Denis
            There are inaccuracies and they are not good for the article.


            Criticism should be objective, supported by facts and not emotions like

            Quote: ...
            the author does not care about the facts when the soul sings, and the words fly :) this is Oleg Kaptsov!
            1. Gari
              Gari 2 August 2013 15: 37
              +8
              So I ask myself and you the same question.
              Fellow Citizens
              Gentlemen, do you have the impression of déjà vu?
            2. Denis
              Denis 2 August 2013 23: 43
              +3
              Quote: Vadivak
              Criticism must be objective, supported by facts and not emotions
              It seemed to me that I brought the facts, but I tried to turn off emotions
          2. Raven1972
            Raven1972 2 August 2013 19: 24
            +7
            Quote: Denis
            Sikorsky, only one last name

            What about Tupolev, Lavochkin, Yakovlev, Polikarpov, Petlyakov, Ilyushin? And Kamov, Mil, Cheryomukhin? TsAGI-1 EA first flight - 1932 in 1934 set a height record - 605m, but what about Sikorsky? And they did well without him ... hi
            1. Denis
              Denis 2 August 2013 23: 39
              +5
              Quote: Raven1972
              But what about Sikorsky? And they managed perfectly well without him.
              It’s possible to eat doggystyle from a bowl, but a spoon is better
              Would it be worse with him and others?
            2. Gregazov
              Gregazov 7 August 2013 08: 37
              +2
              We managed it. It is not known how much better it would be with him, but it is known how much America would be worse without him.
            3. Fedya
              Fedya 30 September 2013 21: 56
              +1
              But they didn’t do it! In the Soviet Union, only piston helicopters could be made, turbine helicopters could be made after Eisenhower "sold" American helicopters to Khrushchev.
              1. marder7
                marder7 27 August 2017 20: 19
                0
                "double-circuit turbojet engine" 1940 Arkhip Osipovich Lyulka. familiar surname? TR-1 tests were completed in 1947 in Leningrad after the war, before it was not before him was a blockade, war, devastation
                and MiG 15 what do you think flew ???
                1. kalibr
                  kalibr 3 October 2017 07: 31
                  +1
                  Yes, engines from England, like the Tu-28. Derwen and Ning are called. It is clear that after the purchase they were renamed.
                2. Zhelezyakin
                  Zhelezyakin 2 October 2018 15: 45
                  0
                  Mikhailovich, not Osipovich! Yours faithfully hi
                3. Artem Popov
                  Artem Popov 15 October 2018 00: 35
                  -1
                  every single Soviet aircraft engine: piston, jet and rocket engines were either copied or licensed, starting the mod tree. Take any aircraft or launch vehicle, go "up" the history of its engine - I have not found a single original Soviet design, 100% borrowings.
                  Perhaps the same thing happened with gasoline / diesel engines, there is already too much assortment, but what I checked turned out to be licensed in the end.
          3. nov_tech.vrn
            nov_tech.vrn 6 August 2013 10: 29
            +1
            Zvorykin and Sikorsky, and Shukhov’s oil pumping work, Nikola Teslo, is also in the United States, they knew how and can outbid talented workers, especially if they have tararams in their homeland.
            1. Artem Popov
              Artem Popov 15 October 2018 00: 37
              -1
              If in their homeland they go to be shot for their education, but, "regretting", they put them on a "philosophical steamer"
          4. lelyk72
            lelyk72 6 August 2013 18: 54
            +1
            I don’t know about Sikorsky, but Zvorykin, in my opinion, ran away ....... So it’s hardly possible for the Communists to reproach him .....
          5. Sweetheart
            Sweetheart 24 August 2018 14: 41
            -1
            Quote: Denis
            Sikorsky, only one last name! And still, Zvorykin’s experience in electronics would be out of place, and not only his

            They chose what they chose, the country did without them in the end. And to moan about Sikorsky ... in the end, none other than he created means of war against us for Americans.
      2. Julio Jurenito
        Julio Jurenito 23 August 2017 14: 33
        0
        The author is so shamelessly and voluptuously jamming the famous owl on the globe, so he is reluctant to comment.
        KG / AM.
      3. marder7
        marder7 27 August 2017 20: 15
        0
        "Congo" is also a battlecruiser and its GK 356 mm! not 305
    2. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 1 August 2013 10: 32
      17
      Quote: fon_Shpee
      and the author is aware that Ishmael is a battle cruiser, and Fuso and Queen Elizabeth are battleships, and that it is inappropriate to compare their booking, to put it mildly?

      You can compare with HMS "Hood". Believe me, the feeling of shame won't go anywhere.
      1. fon_Shpee
        fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 11: 43
        +3
        Quote: Rakti-Kali
        Quote: fon_Shpee
        and the author is aware that Ishmael is a battle cruiser, and Fuso and Queen Elizabeth are battleships, and that it is inappropriate to compare their booking, to put it mildly?

        You can compare with HMS "Hood". Believe me, the feeling of shame won't go anywhere.


        Comparing ships of different types with different purposes and missions, and still not a very weak difference in design ... To put it mildly, "ridiculous"
        1. tverskoi77
          tverskoi77 1 August 2013 12: 20
          44
          Comparing ships of different types with different purposes and missions, and still not a very weak difference in design ... To put it mildly, "ridiculous"

          You not only read the text, you also read it. The author does not compare the classes of ships and their performance characteristics, he compares tsarist Russia with other countries, its level of development. And at the same time with the USSR.
          A powerful fleet appeared with us only during the USSR, after the Second World War.
          1. old man54
            old man54 1 August 2013 15: 35
            18
            Quote: tverskoi77
            You not only read the text, you also read it. The author does not compare the classes of ships and their performance characteristics, he compares tsarist Russia with other countries, its level of development. And at the same time with the USSR.

            Well, finally, a perspicacious, thoughtful member of the forum appeared, you "+"!
            The author, Oleg Kaptsov, despite these slightly humorous, with lively humor, texts of his articles, invites us to "brainwash", by himself, he actually gives an analysis, and a comparative analysis. And to agree with him or not, it's up to everyone personally! Sorry. hi
            1. kavad
              kavad 6 August 2013 14: 49
              0
              "with lively humor texts"

              Well, yes, straight Petrosyan.
              And where is the humor? Although some of Kant will find humor ...
          2. Yoshkin Kot
            Yoshkin Kot 3 August 2013 11: 56
            -5
            the fleet probably reached its peak in the 1920s angry
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 12: 45
              +4
              The fleet reached the dawn of the 1950-80's
              1. Yoshkin Kot
                Yoshkin Kot 3 August 2013 14: 30
                -3
                after its total annihilation, not without the participation of the Bolsheviks and their military coup, traditionally for them, to the foundation, and then, tearing the navel and lowering the population into terrible poverty
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 5 August 2013 03: 46
                  +1
                  For total destruction, say thank you to your "white brothers" and "allies". If not for the civilian, the entire fleet would have remained intact.
                2. marder7
                  marder7 27 August 2017 20: 36
                  +2
                  "Bolshevik military coup": - Do not remind the respected WHEN Nicholas 2 renounced? don't remember 1917 FEBRUARY! October 25, when the king Aurora fired, there was no half a year already !!! and the country was intensively ruined by Kerensky and KO. so don’t translate arrows! am
              2. Mista_dj
                Mista_dj 3 August 2013 15: 23
                +1
                The heyday of what?
                And is it dawn?
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 5 August 2013 03: 47
                  +1
                  Kanechna, what a dawn there is, the fleet is only the second in the world. The dash is dawn.
          3. Setrac
            Setrac 3 August 2013 12: 07
            +2
            Quote: tverskoi77
            You not only read the text, you also read it. The author does not compare the classes of ships and their performance characteristics, he compares tsarist Russia with other countries, its level of development

            The author compares the countries, citing the navy as an example, a shameless petty deceiver, let's take a land army as an example! Let me remind you that in the middle of the 19th century, all the strongest countries fought against Russia, and Russia, fighting against almost the whole world, brought this war to a draw, an unprecedented case in history, it was the same tsarist, "backward" Russia, before the arrival of the communists it was still half a century ...
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 12: 47
              +5
              Yeah, and then I barely took Turkey to 1878 and merged in front of the threat of the Naglich squadron. About the Crimean War - too bravura, but, in principle, close to the truth. But then everything was only worse.
          4. Mista_dj
            Mista_dj 3 August 2013 15: 22
            +1
            Brad!
            Bullshit!
            36 of your likes = 36 fools who do not have the slightest idea about the issue under discussion.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 5 August 2013 03: 48
              +2
              That's for me? Well, justify. You have a lot of knowledge. So far, only one only slogans.
        2. REZMovec
          REZMovec 3 August 2013 12: 26
          -1
          von Spee - change the flag - you should have a swastika! (It's disgusting to see a fascist under the flag of a Great Country)
      2. Pamir210
        Pamir210 1 August 2013 18: 55
        +6
        weird. I am absolutely not ashamed of Ishmael.
        Moreover, Ishmael was only listed as a battlecruiser.
        In terms of armament and armor, it was absolutely not inferior to its peers, whether they were battle cruisers or many battleships of other states.
      3. Revolver
        Revolver 1 August 2013 19: 53
        +6
        Quote: Rakti-Kali
        Quote: fon_Shpee
        and the author is aware that Ishmael is a battle cruiser, and Fuso and Queen Elizabeth are battleships, and that it is inappropriate to compare their booking, to put it mildly?

        You can compare with HMS "Hood". Believe me, the feeling of shame won't go anywhere.

        Well, HMS "Hood" was sunk by almost the first hit of Bismarck.
        1. Crang
          Crang 1 August 2013 20: 01
          +3
          It is rather an accident. It happens. Although "Bismarck" must think, it would have won all the same then.
          1. Containers
            Containers 2 August 2013 01: 19
            14
            Bismarck snapped one from the whole horde, seemingly losing it in all respects (caliber, number of guns). And tore them assholes. With one heavy cruiser in an escort. What would happen if they were both there with Tirpitz ... Honestly, I respect German shipbuilders for this ship. Rather, for these ships, even though Tirpitz died in general, ingloriously.
            1. Pamir210
              Pamir210 2 August 2013 17: 04
              -7
              tore their asses?) is it in what reality?
              1. Containers
                Containers 3 August 2013 02: 00
                +5
                In this reality.
                1. Pamir210
                  Pamir210 3 August 2013 08: 59
                  -6
                  in this reality he was drowned.
                  He took no one except Hood.
                  Question - who is there and who kicked it?
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 3 August 2013 09: 32
                    +8
                    Destroyed Hood. Damaged Welsh badly. He diverted a cloud of enemy resources to himself in the form of oil for the squadron, gasoline for the aircraft (several of which were shot down by Bismarck), hundreds of shells and dozens of torpedoes that were fired at him. Agree - "Bismarck" justified its existence by all 120%.
                    1. Pamir210
                      Pamir210 6 August 2013 10: 26
                      -2
                      Not justified ... not paid back.
                      Especially if you recall the traditional high cost of German ships.
                      1. notingem
                        notingem 29 August 2017 12: 14
                        0
                        He paid for everything. Hood at the bottom of the sea. I look and see the managers bred. The Germans had to buy Bismarck in China. Cheaper
              2. notingem
                notingem 29 August 2017 12: 08
                0
                In the Danish Strait. 2 to 1 ratio.
            2. Mista_dj
              Mista_dj 3 August 2013 15: 29
              +5
              I fully support you!
              The ship was first-class, with an excellent crew!
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 3 August 2013 12: 15
            +1
            Quote: Krang
            It is rather an accident. It happens. Although "Bismarck" must think, it would have won all the same then.

            You can compare what success Bismarck, Hood and the same Marat have achieved! And if the role of Bimark and Hood in the Second World War was insignificant (their contribution to the victory is insignificant), then the role of Marat in the defense of Leningrad is huge.
        2. fon_Shpee
          fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 20: 04
          0
          Almost right - third)
      4. Containers
        Containers 2 August 2013 01: 14
        +6
        Well, damn it. Hood was designed at 16, lowered at 18
        Ishmael was designed at 12, launched at 17.
        The difference in projects of 4 years at the beginning of the 20th century is just a crazy term in those days.
        1. Mista_dj
          Mista_dj 3 August 2013 15: 33
          +1
          You seriously overestimate the importance of scientific and technological progress in those years in the design of heavy artillery platforms for ocean theater.
      5. misterwulf
        misterwulf 2 August 2013 15: 52
        0
        Will be worse
    3. Kars
      Kars 1 August 2013 10: 39
      14
      Quote: fon_Shpee
      "Izmail" - battle cruiser

      Quinn wouldn’t refuse to shoot at him.
      1. kotdavin4i
        kotdavin4i 1 August 2013 11: 16
        11
        Quote: Kars
        And the concept of battleship is a linear cruiser

        Battleship - short for "battleship". So in Russia in 1907 a new type of ship was named in memory of ancient wooden sailing battleships. Initially, it was assumed that the new ships would revive linear tactics, but they soon abandoned it.
        The English equivalent of this term - battleship (literally: warship) - also came from sailing battleships. In 1794, the term “line-of-battle ship” was abbreviated as “battle ship”. Later it was used in relation to any warship. Since the late 1880s, unofficially, it was most often applied to squadron battleships. In 1892, a reclassification of the British fleet called the word “battleship” a class of superheavy ships, which included several particularly heavy squadron battleships
        1. Kars
          Kars 1 August 2013 11: 34
          +3
          Quote: kotdavin4i
          Battleship - short for "battleship".

          Can not be.
          Quote: kotdavin4i
          In 1892, the reclassification of the British fleet called the word “battleship” a class of superheavy ships, which included several particularly heavy squadron battleships

          And that in 92 was something heavier than the EBR?
          1. washi
            washi 1 August 2013 15: 45
            +3
            In 1892 Peter the Great was the ideal for the Royal Navy.
            And on your photo there is a nedolinkor of the "Gangut" type, most likely "Petropavlovsk"
            1. Kars
              Kars 1 August 2013 16: 10
              +2
              Quote: Vasya
              And on your photo there is a Nedolinkor of the "Gangut" type,

              Really.
              Quote: Vasya
              1892 the ideal for the Royal Navy was "Peter the Great"

              is it a parapet? And the Piano does not channel?
              1. washi
                washi 1 August 2013 16: 23
                0
                Our first to offer linear towers. Yes, and linearly elevated, but the strangers - the Americans - were the first to use it again.
              2. Karlsonn
                Karlsonn 1 August 2013 16: 45
                +1
                Kars Hi hi , I think they’ll tell you a lot of new things now. wassat
                1. Kars
                  Kars 1 August 2013 20: 37
                  +1
                  Quote: Karlsonn
                  Kars hello
                  hi
                  Quote: Karlsonn
                  I think they will tell you a lot of new things now

                  I have no doubt
    4. Santa Fe
      1 August 2013 10: 41
      +6
      Quote: fon_Shpee
      Ishmael is a battle cruiser, while Fuso and Queen Elizabeth are battleships, and that comparing their booking is, to put it mildly, inappropriate?

      Was there a paragraph in the British Maritime Charter?
      p. 1 "Request an unknown vessel for its classification"
      p. 2 "If it is a Russian battle cruiser, the battleships Queen Elizabeth will not open fire from their 381 mm guns."


      "Ishmael" - this is the best that RI had at that time
      But the battleships like Queen Elizabeth or Fuso, we really did not have
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 1 August 2013 12: 11
        17 th
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        Was there a paragraph in the British Maritime Charter?
        p. 1 "Request an unknown vessel for its classification"
        p. 2 "If it is a Russian battle cruiser, the battleships Queen Elizabeth will not open fire from their 381 mm guns."

        I am interested in the history of war. Can you tell me where this document comes from? Queens were the best English battleships of two wars. They never ran from opponents. In the Battle of Jutland, the entry of the 5th Squadron into battle took flight of the Hipper battlecruisers.

        In general, World War I showed the complete unsuitability of the Germans. The Germans fled almost the entire war, and the British caught up to them. Well, in Jutland, only a miracle saved the Germans from defeat. And then they managed to become disgraced so that no Tsushima stood nearby.
        1. revnagan
          revnagan 1 August 2013 12: 21
          14
          Quote: Bakht
          Well, in Jutland, only a miracle saved the Germans from defeat.

          Not a miracle, but an elementary miscalculation of the English admiral.
          Quote: Bakht
          And then they managed to become disgraced so that no Tsushima stood nearby.

          Well, with such a balance of power, this is not a shame. Yes, and the losses of the parties are quite comparable. Rather, the Angles
          1. Bakht
            Bakht 1 August 2013 12: 53
            +1
            Well no. I do not think so. It is a miracle. The miscalculation was in German plans. Well, Jutland himself will have to consider it. Shame I call another. Even under Tsushima, Russian ships kept order until the last. And the Germans under fire in Jutland broke the system. Roughly speaking, they fled.
            1. washi
              washi 1 August 2013 16: 37
              0
              They forgot that they live in Slavic lands. Those. they are Slavs - arias
            2. revnagan
              revnagan 1 August 2013 23: 26
              +9
              Quote: Bakht
              Even under Tsushima, Russian ships kept order until the last. And the Germans under fire in Jutland broke the system. Roughly speaking, they fled.

              There was nothing else for the Russian ships under Tsushima. Yapy possessed an absolute advantage in speed and did what they wanted. Speed-fire-maneuver, and yapi-in ladies. am
              And in the Battle of Jutland, the Germans soberly and most importantly, quickly assessed the situation and made the right choice. It’s impossible to win, the whole Grand Fleet is in front of them, not the squadron. Continue the battle, ruin the entire fleet of the open sea ... We took advantage of the circumstances and left having saved the fleet. And they fled, they didn’t run ... War is not a match of noble knights They imposed unfavorable battle conditions on you, and you managed to slip out, honor and praise. Geliko-laughed twice, and Scheer along the way. And by loss-battleship and heavy cruiser in the Fritz; the British, three battlecruisers and three armored, not weak, right? So the Angles, blundered in full.
              1. Containers
                Containers 2 August 2013 01: 30
                +6
                Grandfleet in Jutland firmly received in the teeth. And therefore, he further tried not to meet with the Hochseeflotte / Kriegsmarine, without having very great superiority.
                1. Pamir210
                  Pamir210 6 August 2013 15: 18
                  0
                  Apparently from a similar "fortress" Jellicoe after the battle reported about the 4-hour readiness of the fleet for battle and campaign.
                  After the battle, the Hochseeflotte got up for repairs for several months.
                  But the meeting did not work out as it should, precisely because the Germans were just not looking for a fight.
              2. Val_y
                Val_y 2 August 2013 14: 14
                +1
                You are wrong, Togo himself screwed up a lot, but Rozhdestvensky did not take advantage of his mistake and screwed up the battle. The Japs really had an advantage in high-explosive shells (effectively but not efficiently) even the Borodino coal bulkhead could withstand 5cm, the one that ...
                1. kavad
                  kavad 6 August 2013 14: 59
                  0
                  It just turned out that in order to incapacitate a ship, it was not necessary to heat it.
              3. dustycat
                dustycat 2 August 2013 19: 42
                +3
                Quote: revnagan

                There was nothing else for the Russian ships under Tsushima. Yapy possessed an absolute advantage in speed and did what they wanted. Speed-fire-maneuver, and yapi-in ladies. am

                See the battle diagram.
                Togo laughed even more.
                If Rozhdestvensky didn’t sway harder after - he began to let new armadillos go forward - the Tsushima battle would become a disgrace to the Japanese.
                Speed ​​for battleships - useless quality - too big a goal.
                Power of fire and aiming their trump card.
                The power of the fire was sufficient, there was no aiming - even the operators of the rangefinders did not know how to use them. And the crews themselves were assembled from raiders - by no means excellent pupils of the fire and drill.
                Nevertheless, they managed to prepare enough and something they could.
            3. Mister X
              Mister X 2 August 2013 19: 50
              +2
              Quote: Bakht
              Even under Tsushima, Russian ships kept order until the last.
              And the Germans under fire in Jutland broke the system

              I did not serve in the Navy, but I read something about tactics.
              Even in the days of sailing ships, as a result of the constant failures of the British fleet “land civil” John Clerk thought about the problem and came to the conclusion
              that British naval sailors used unsuccessful naval tactics:
              fight with the enemy in the same wake column, ship against ship.
              In his work "Movement of the Fleets" he recommended breaking his wake formation, dividing the squadron into several detachments, and starting a scuffle.
              John Clerk assured that even if the battle turns into a general dump,
              victory will be for those who do it first, do it consciously, by calculation, all of a sudden.
              Admirals Ushakov and Nelson proved him right in practice.

              They say that Admiral Rozhdestvensky had a maneuque about the wake system.

              Is this very system important?
            4. Su-9
              Su-9 3 August 2013 08: 57
              +2
              Under tsushima, unfortunately, the RIF could only do what to keep in order. There was nowhere to go. Neither maneuver, nor fire ... But the Germans sank more than the LV and moved away. And their fleet controlled the entire theater of operations until the end of the war. Do you see the difference?
          2. washi
            washi 1 August 2013 16: 35
            +4
            Not a miracle, but an elementary miscalculation of the English admiral.
            And also the shitty quality of English ships
        2. old man54
          old man54 1 August 2013 15: 39
          +1
          Quote: Bakht
          I am interested in the history of war.

          perfectly!
          Quote: Bakht
          In the battle of Jutland, the entry of the 5 squadron into battle took flight of the Hipper battlecruisers. In general, the First World War showed the Germans to be completely unsuitable.

          Quote: Bakht
          Well, in Jutland, only a miracle saved the Germans from defeat. And then they managed to become disgraced so that no Tsushima stood nearby.

          Very interesting! And who, in your opinion, won that battle of Jutland, eh? hi
          1. old man54
            old man54 1 August 2013 18: 30
            0
            Quote: old man54
            Very interesting! And who, in your opinion, won that battle of Jutland, eh?

            Apparently Bakht will not deign me his answer, well, well, that's his right! Then I would ask the author of the article to answer this question instead, I really want to know the opinion of Oleg! laughing hi I hope Mr. Kaptsov forgive me for such a forwarding question? wink
            1. Santa Fe
              1 August 2013 19: 06
              +1
              Quote: old man54
              who, in your opinion, won that battle of Jutland

              Normal Situation -
              formally, the Germans inflicted more damage on the enemy, but in the "strategic" plan - a draw

              Many interesting coincidences, facts of heroism, miscalculations and frankly stupid "blunders" on both sides
              Quote: old man54
              I hope Mr. Kaptsov forgive me for such a forwarding question?

              hi Andrey, come on another time without formalities, contract? drinks
              1. old man54
                old man54 1 August 2013 23: 22
                -1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Normal sitation

                Well ... I would not say that the situation is very typical, sorry. It doesn’t often happen that, in fact, having won the battle, at least formally, according to the score, the winning side strategically loses. But I agree with you, Oleg.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                formally, the Germans did more damage to the enemy

                I agree completely! It's not even interesting to argue with you, Oleg. we often have the same opinions! wink
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                but in the "strategic" plan - a draw

                Well, I would still say that the strategic consequences after this battle had a very negative effect on the Germans, on the initiative of their command, and on the courage to enter the North Sea from the Kiel Canal. I am talking primarily about the main forces of the German high seas fleet. But nevertheless, they went out and carried out operations, these little shavers after the 1 MV spread the false idea around the world that after this battle the German fleet was afraid to leave the base. Clean lies! But they became more cautious at times!
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Many interesting coincidences, facts of heroism, miscalculations and frankly stupid "blunders" on both sides

                Well, I do not agree! As far as I know, so many shoals in that battle were messed up by the admirals of the fleet of Her Majesty, and just the English captains of ships of various ranks, then I think it’s very difficult where else to find it! laughing In the book by A.G. Sick "Clash of the Giants", to which the member of the forum is sending below, such a joke is described that I think Zadornov himself will envy the comic moments. The Germans somehow had more discipline and reason in managing squadrons. The Brita were stupidly crushed by the number of ships, but not by the quality of the command staff and the perfection of their decisions, alas! lol
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Andrey, come on another time without formalities, contract?

                Good. not a question, but did I offend something, Oleg? If anything, I didn’t want to, I'm sorry! repeat
            2. Bakht
              Bakht 1 August 2013 19: 38
              0
              A lot of apologies. Didn’t you answer? Perhaps tormented to answer. But I remember that I wrote that the battle of Jutland was won by the British. I gave an explanation. I won’t write again.

              Those interested can see the book by A.G. Sick "Clash of the Giants". I can pull quotes from there.
        3. washi
          washi 1 August 2013 16: 34
          +1
          And I thought the opposite. The Angles built massively stupid, vulnerable ships. The Germans are quality, but not enough.
          The Jutland battle was won by the (morally) Germans. As well as Prokhorovskoye (judging by the losses). The Wehrmacht evacuated its tanks, and ours burned. Due to the lack of command and control, as evidenced by the memoirs of Our commanders, the Army operation has developed into a fist fight.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 3 August 2013 12: 44
            0
            Quote: Vasya
            As well as Prokhorovskoye (judging by the losses).

            The different ideology of tank building, the Germans, maniacs, repaired everything, the Russians were well aware that it was often cheaper to make a new one than to repair a damaged one.
        4. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 1 August 2013 20: 35
          +3
          Quote: Bakht
          In general, World War I showed the complete unsuitability of the Germans. The Germans fled almost the entire war, and the British caught up to them. Well, in Jutland, only a miracle saved the Germans from defeat. And then they managed to become disgraced so that no Tsushima stood nearby.


          And what was expressed by this unsuitability? In a series of victories of a weak cruising squadron over allies with gigantic numerical superiority in the southern part of the oceans? Or the destruction of up to a third of the entire merchant fleet of England? In the successful raids of the German destroyers in the English Channel?
          In terms of training, the Germans exceeded the British.
          The losses of the British in the battle of Jutland were significantly greater than those of the Germans. After Jutland, the High Seas Fleet went to sea more than once, but the English fleet did not begin to accept the battle.

          I do not argue that the German fleet was far from an Invincible armada, but you should not consider it weak.
          1. Bakht
            Bakht 1 August 2013 20: 58
            +3
            I did not consider him weak. But here is the rest ....

            After Jutland, the High Seas Fleet practically did not go to sea. It has only been under repair for six months. Raiding operations - they are raiding. A weak cruising squadron defeated an even weaker one. As the two battlecruisers met her, so the Germans and excellent training did not help. But these are all the details that everyone can find both pros and cons.

            The main idea of ​​the German version of the naval war was ... defeat. The reasoning was of this type. Perhaps we will be defeated, but inflict such losses on the British that England will lose her dominance of the seas. Therefore England will evade the fight. But England did not shy away from the fight. And she was actively looking for the Germans. And finally, on May 31, 1916, "that day" struck. The British advantage was overwhelming. Almost twice as many battleships. It seems 2 against 26. But the Germans could not drown a single one. Suppose they even drowned 16-5 pieces (there would not be enough shells for more shells). And what would change?

            And now, as promised, quotes:

            Therefore, we can say that the score is 2½: 1½ in favor of the Germans. Their fleet was young, but its ships and equipment were better than the English; its captains, officers and sailors are no worse trained, and in some aspects even better. Moreover, they had the commander in chief of a decisive fighter, not inferior to Jellico as a tactician. Von Hipper (he received noble dignity for this battle; Scheer refused) was undoubtedly the most talented admiral of the First World War on both sides of the front.
            -------------
            “The morning after the battle, Jellico discovered that he reigned supreme in the North Sea, where there was no trace of the enemy. This state of affairs perfectly suited his goals. ” The Berliner Tageblatt noted: “The German fleet barely escaped a crushing defeat. Now it is clear to any rational person that this battle could and should be the last. ” The neutral New York newspaper summed up the result: "The German fleet wounded its jailer, but remained in prison."
            -------------
            Jellico could not risk his dreadnoughts to "win or lose everything." The last captain of the 1st rank Herbert Rind reflected in his diary:

            “It is absolutely necessary to look at the whole war as a whole, and not focus on one German fleet. We had to exhaust Germany, destroy Germany. The destruction of the German fleet is a means of achieving a result, not the result itself. If, in trying to destroy the German fleet, we risk jeopardizing a global goal, such a risk is too great. "


            You can find many explanations for the cautious actions of Jellico. But he was right in one. England put out its entire fleet and he did not want to take risks. The goals of the war at sea were achieved. I wrote that the whole strategy of the Germans was wrong. The construction of the fleet before the war turned out to be an irrational investment.

            PS Sorry for the long message. But I sucked the Jutland battle many times. The tactical white of the Germans and their strategic defeat.

            An analogy from the Battle of Kursk. After the battle of Prokhorovka, they wanted to put Rotmistrov on trial for huge losses. But on a mature reflection, they were awarded, since his 5th Guards TA stopped the German strategic offensive.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 2 August 2013 14: 58
              +3
              “The morning after the battle, Jellico discovered that he reigned supreme in the North Sea, where there was no trace of the enemy.


              Yeah, I wonder who, then, sank the English KRL at the next exit of the Nagl's fleet? Who made the raids on the Norwegian convoys? And so the Grand Fleet didn’t jump out to sea in full force so as not to fall under torpedoes.
              1. Bakht
                Bakht 2 August 2013 15: 19
                -1
                Which English KRL (we must think the light cruiser) were sunk?

                The North Sea War ended after Jutland. Of course, there were exits of individual ships and squadrons. But the Germans were no longer looking for a big battle. And the British, in order to do something, began to dig trenches in the sea. So to speak, "positional warfare in sea performance." In the maritime parlance, it was called the Great Minefield. How much money was drowned at sea for this idea is unknown.
                1. dustycat
                  dustycat 2 August 2013 19: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Bakht
                  The war in the North Sea ended after Jutland. Of course, there were separate ship and squadron exits.

                  Near Jutland, the era of squadron battles ended - battleships were too big a target with insufficient survivability against their main weapons.
                  Tanks are now repeating their fate.
                  The era of shock groups has come - including aircraft carriers.
                  The Germans quickly realized this and changed tactics.
                  And very successfully.
                  The British quickly learned their lesson - Bismarck was destroyed by an aircraft carrier strike group.
                  Too big, too expensive, too convenient targets.
                  1. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 20: 42
                    0
                    Quote: dustycat
                    Near Jutland, the era of squadron battles ended - battleships were too big a target with insufficient survivability against their main weapons. The tanks are now repeating their fate. The era of strike groups - including aircraft carriers - has come. The Germans quickly realized this and changed tactics. And very successfully. The English quickly learned their lesson - Bismarck was destroyed by an aircraft carrier strike group. Too large, too expensive, too convenient targets.


                    1. And what was the reason for this lack of survivability - in the deaths of several battlecruisers that were not designed to fight battleships? During the battle of Jutland, not one battleship was lost. The latter fought the entire WWII and successfully operated in WWII.
                    2. About tanks - don’t tell me that they continue to be riveted and modernized. Maximum - redo in T-BMP.

                    3. What did the Germans learn? What other shock groups? The third Reich was not even able to put into operation a single aircraft carrier, relying solely on submarines. And then, the first attacks by carrier-based aircraft began to inflict the British. In addition, the latter built their aircraft carriers before the start of 2MB.
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 3 August 2013 03: 31
                      0
                      1. And what was the reason for this lack of survivability - in the deaths of several battlecruisers that were not designed to fight battleships? During the battle of Jutland, not one battleship was lost. The latter fought the entire WWII and successfully operated in WWII.


                      If you look at the damage to the ships, then Worspite, who even left the battlefield, received very serious damage from the English side, and the FOM head battleships from the German side. With a longer fire exposure, they could be sunk.
                      1. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 3 August 2013 20: 14
                        0
                        Quote: alicante11
                        If you look at the damage to the ships, then Worspite, who even left the battlefield, received very serious damage from the English side, and the FOM head battleships from the German side. With a longer fire exposure, they could be sunk.


                        Sorry, but there are injuries in battle. Or do you think that some other class of the ship at that time could surpass the battleships in its effectiveness? Submarines at that time were extremely primitive, there was not even an idea how to use them. And they were not able to destroy the military fleets. Cruisers, destroyers and destroyers - could not fight on equal terms with the LC.
                      2. alicante11
                        alicante11 4 August 2013 03: 22
                        0
                        Yes God forbid. The question was that not a single battleship was lost. And the question was precisely the lack of vitality of LCR, which were lost. Compared to battleships.
                      3. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 4 August 2013 22: 38
                        0
                        Quote: alicante11
                        And the question was precisely the lack of vitality of LCR, which were lost. Compared to battleships.


                        Here about this - you are absolutely right. LKR - did not justify the money invested in them and turned into mass graves, aircraft carriers (in the minority) or went to be scrapped.
              2. alicante11
                alicante11 3 August 2013 03: 28
                0
                Not destroyed, but damaged by signfish. Who found him through a clash with Hood and POW. And just Nelson and Rodney were sunk.
            2. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 03: 26
              +1
              Study, study and study again. The first (and last) FOM exit after Jutland in order to lure the GF to the veils of the submarine (Jutland, by the way, also happened as a result of this). The operation was carried out on 18-19 on August. For this purpose, the entire FOM, with the exception of several LCRs still under repair, went to sea.
              As a result of this exit, FOM and GF converged for 55 miles, but no collision occurred. But on the positioning lines of the German submarines, the British cruise ships "Nottingham" and "Falmouth" were destroyed.

              The war in the North Sea ended after Jutland.


              This is complete stupidity, you forgive me. War is not only and not so much a general battle. And everyday combat work.
              If you want to know what the fleets did after Jutland. Read the memories of Scheer on the one hand and Corbet, at least, or something on the other. And do not say nonsense.
    5. alicante11
      alicante11 2 August 2013 14: 52
      +4
      Queens were the best English battleships of two wars. They never ran from opponents.


      Yeah, and who was there by the tail of Beatty, when he saw Sheer and began to flee at all his shoulder blades? I'll give you a pin, there is also "Worspite" got robust from the Kenigovs and even, if memory serves, did not wait for the end of the battle, he drove home to lick his wounds.

      In general, World War I showed the complete unsuitability of the Germans. The Germans fled almost the entire war, and the British caught up to them. Well, in Jutland, only a miracle saved the Germans from defeat.


      The Germans performed their tasks. It was necessary to shell the coast - they fired. It was necessary to catch the English with the help of submarines at the bases. The first time it didn’t work out - Jutland happened, the second time it was possible to at least make a KRL. It was necessary to drag on the Channel Barrage - dragon or. It was necessary to crush the convoys - they destroyed it even at the end of the war. Well, I'm not talking about Weddigen. The Angles just suffered from unsuitability. They could not block and destroy the fleet so inferior to them.

      Well, in Jutland, only a miracle saved the Germans from defeat. And then they managed to become disgraced so that no Tsushima stood nearby.


      This miracle is called "Turning all friends by 16 points", which the Angles, by the way, did not know how to do.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 2 August 2013 15: 51
        -2
        The queens still remained the best battleships of the two wars. The Worspite Rake is quite a bit in the first collision. Like Barham. As Patients wrote

        "The commander of the 5th battleship squadron, Evan-Thomas, made a truly titanic effort to destroy the best battleships in the British fleet. It is not his fault that the Germans failed to do this."

        Already in the second phase of the battle, Warspite received 13 hits and returned to the harbor on its own. Does this mean that the ship was bad? Rather, the opposite.

        I already wrote about the 16-point turn. The Germans trained precisely in anticipation of such a force majeure. If you have to urgently flee. But they could not make the third turn. I have already quoted.

        Well, the result of Jutland is

        ... already 12 hours after returning to the harbor, the British commander in chief announced that 26 dreadnought and 6 battlecruisers were ready to re-engage. Only Marlboro and Worthspite were sent to shipyards for repairs. Barem, Malaya, Lyon and Tiger could well wait until the fleet included 4 ships undergoing current repairs (battleships Emperor of India, Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign, battle cruiser "Australia"). Sheer had 4 dreadnought and all battlecruisers suffered severe damage, they needed a long repair, and he refrained from such statements. Koenig, Grosser Kurfürst and Markgraf needed immediate repairs, although the Koenig Albert battleship was not yet ready. The German battlecruisers suffered such severe injuries that they did not go into operation by the end of the year, while the Marlboro, the last to complete the repair, returned to Scapa Flow by early August.

        I did not call and call professional unfitness not individual operations or actions of ships. I wrote that "the First World War showed the complete incompetence of the Germans." By the way, like the Second, despite the loud victories. The very idea of ​​the High Seas Fleet was not viable. The theory quietly rested at the bottom of the North Sea. Were German ships better than English ones? Maybe. But how was this advantage bought? The shipbuilders seriously said that one word was missing in the name of the German fleet. It was the High North Sea Fleet. There was not enough autonomy. The fleet was imprisoned for operations in the North Sea and did nothing. You can cite as many examples of the successful actions of the German sailors as you like. Just always remember how many neutral (or German) ships could come to German ports with a cargo of at least canned meat.
    6. Ulan
      Ulan 2 August 2013 19: 28
      +3
      What nonsense? The Germans, on the contrary, perfectly shot and maneuvered in the battle of Jutland. The same battle of battle cruisers when the Germans, having one cruiser less and a smaller caliber of main guns, sent to the bottom two British battle cruisers, who were saved from complete defeat only by retreating to the main forces of the Grand Fleet.
      The Germans perfectly performed the most difficult maneuver with the entire fleet in conditions of poor visibility - the "all suddenly" turn.
      "They fled" can be said only if two equal fleets came together in battle, and the Germans had only 16 dreadnoughts in the main formation against 24 English ones.
      The initial information was that part of the English fleet went to sea and the Germans intended to destroy it.
      When the German commander realized that the whole "Grand Fleet" was in front of him, he made the right and reasonable decision - to withdraw from the battle and not allow the superior enemy forces to defeat the German fleet.
      What a shame? That he correctly assessed the situation, made the right decision and brilliantly executed it?
      The losses of the British fleet were higher and this despite the fact that the German fleet was much weaker.
      I believe that the Battle of Jutland is a disgrace to England, which had an overwhelming advantage in quantity and in caliber and speed and missed the enemy, and even suffered losses greater than the Germans.
      That's a shame so shame.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 2 August 2013 20: 11
        0
        This is a conversation between the blind and the deaf. :-)

        How did the fuss start? The Germans could not stand the concentrated fire of the British fleet, broke the formation and fled. It is a fact. The first two "turns all of a sudden" were performed well. But the third did not work out. Only the selfless attack of the battlecruisers saved the day. And Scheer himself gave the order. At a peak, he decided to sacrifice battlecruisers to save the fleet. This is what I call shame. And not only me. I quoted a quote, so that the whole fleet breaks formation and fled - if this is not a shame, then I do not know what to talk about.

        I give an extended quote

        In 19.17, Scheer gave another order - "To act against the vanguard of the enemy", so they could cover the withdrawal of their linear fleet from a safer distance without falling into crushing fire. However, Hartog maneuvered so unsuccessfully that he dangerously approached the head of the Scheer column and forced the Koenig to deviate from the course. As a result, the ships of the 3rd battleship squadron were knocked together, and some of them had to fall out of order to the right to avoid a collision. The ships followed at a low speed, at a minimum distance from one another, practically in the formation of the front. Despite the decrease in speed, the Kaiserin went under the very side of the Prince Regent of Luitpold and cut off the stern of the Kaiser. Some ships were forced to stall vehicles or even back up. Such crowding of ships under the strongest enemy fire was extremely dangerous, and in a short time the British made a large number of hits. Scheer, for the third time in the evening, ordered a combat turn of 16 points to the right. The maneuver was carried out mainly thanks to the initiative of individual captains. Friedrich der Grosse, for example, turned left, Markgraf and Ostfriesland made a turn without waiting for the Kaiser and Thuringen. To save the situation helped the flagship of Admiral Benke, who went into the wind and put a smoke screen. The crisis resolved at 19.35, when all the battleships were already moving west with the maximum speed that the Mauvee battleships could squeeze. The departure was covered by 4 battlecruisers who survived terrible trials. After the skirmish, which lasted 15 minutes against 25 minutes of the first skirmish, the German ships again disappeared into the fog. But in general, there can only be one impression of this episode - the Germans could not stand the concentrated fire of the British battleships and fled in panic, breaking the line. This is an unprecedented event in the history of naval warfare. Even the defeated and destroyed squadrons did not allow themselves anything like that. The Spaniards near Santiago, the Russians under Tsushima, the Japanese in the Surigao Strait kept the formation to the end, their squadrons acted as a whole. Only a few ships tried to escape when the battle was actually over. Personally, I can’t recall the cases of the stampede of the whole fleet.

        The first episode (battle of the battle cruisers) you interpret very freely. Hipper's task was to lure the battlecruisers under the blow of Scheer. Therefore, despite the destruction of 2 English battlecruisers, he continued to leave, and the British pursued him. And when the battleships of the 5th squadron approached, then Hipper himself was saved by the appearance of the German fleet at the price.

        The Germans fired well, the British also did well. The percentage of hits with the Germans was 3 with a penny against almost 3% with the British. Not that much of a difference. In terms of the number of sunk ships, the Germans seem to have won. And the number of damaged unconditionally lost.

        It reminds a cocky boy who in the yard mated with a healthy guy. And the big guy hung a couple of Fingals. Only the next day, a big man walked around the yard and a cocky boy went to the hospital for six months. If this is a victory, then I do not mind. In the end, Pierre also won.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 20: 46
          +1
          Quote: Bakht
          How did the fuss begin? The Germans could not stand the concentrated fire of the English fleet, broke the system and fled.


          In addition, I note that for the entire WWII in the Baltic, the Germans were able to conduct ONE (!) Successful operation against the weaker Baltic Fleet - Riga. And even then, only after the RI fleet was already destroyed by unrest and as an organized force ceased to exist.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 3 August 2013 05: 04
            0
            Once, but twice :). And the first time back in the 15, when, the collapse of the fleet had not yet been heard.
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 3 August 2013 20: 15
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              Once but twice


              And what were the results from this operation in the year 15? Please clarify.
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 4 August 2013 03: 25
                0
                The usual ones are the MAP breakthrough, destroyers walked around the water protected by it, after which the German fleet considered its mission accomplished and went to its bases, proving the possibility of a MAP breakthrough. Which allowed in the 17 to return already with the landing.
                1. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 4 August 2013 22: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: alicante11
                  The usual ones are the MAP breakthrough, destroyers walked around the water protected by it, after which the German fleet considered its mission accomplished and went to its bases, proving the possibility of a MAP breakthrough.


                  alicante11! Sorry, but this is not an indicator - raiding operations are not a battle. And then, why did they wait until 17, until the fleet of the Russian Empire collapsed under the influence of revolutionary propaganda? Still, not everything is so simple.
                  1. alicante11
                    alicante11 5 August 2013 03: 52
                    -1
                    Yes, everything is simple. The ISF fleet to break through the position, but then it was also necessary to keep the coast with a land army. In 15, the Germans still could not afford it.
                  2. fon_Shpee
                    fon_Shpee 5 August 2013 09: 12
                    0
                    nonsense. until the end of the war, the German fleet could not break into the Gulf of Finland, and it was not there either. remember the mound, the death of a destroyer squadron sent along the killer path of our intelligence. the Kaiser himself complained that his army was acting much better than his fleet.

                    By the way, if for the monzund - an insignificant breakthrough was made by the Germans only when they put up incomparably more ships, compared to the Russian fleet (and even then, ours still "won" by blocking the passage with "glory")

                    so the German navy couldn't fucking. "The fortress of Peter the Great" turned out to be stronger.
                  3. alicante11
                    alicante11 5 August 2013 10: 34
                    -1
                    Did he WANT to break through there? Was this your strategic purpose, for which it would be worth paying the losses that the Germans would have incurred during the breakthrough?

                    By the way, if for moonsund - an insignificant breakthrough was made by the Germans only when they put out incomparably more ships


                    And the Germans in WWI could ALWAYS put up superior forces against the BF. At any time as you wish. And this is a war, not a knightly tournament. This is precisely the possibility of the Germans to exert superior forces and speaks of the possibility of a breakthrough.

                    so the German navy couldn't fucking. "The fortress of Peter the Great" turned out to be stronger.


                    Talk about the strength of the fortress, which they did not try to storm, at least not correctly.
                  4. fon_Shpee
                    fon_Shpee 5 August 2013 12: 24
                    0
                    Indeed, did the German fleet want to carry out raids on the coast of the Russian Empire, and specifically to all fleet bases and the capital? ...

                    he prayed to put it, only they did not dare to meddle in minefields, and this constrained their actions (the British fettered them from the west, the Russians from the east, and the German was locked in the Baltic - they invested awesomely in the navy). So the question should be asked - is the fleet so powerful, balanced and professional, which cannot clear minefields with minesweepers and provide cover for their work from the so "incompetent Russian fleet" (as many here call it). At the same time, do not forget that the German fleet was second only to the fleet of the Lady of the Seas.

                    Did not try to storm? Sir, Peter the Great Fortress - this is the entire defense of the Navy of the Empire in the Baltic, starting from the Gulf of Riga, including the islands. Do you want to say that the Germans have never fired a torpedo and shell there?
                  5. alicante11
                    alicante11 5 August 2013 12: 58
                    -1
                    Indeed, did the German fleet want to carry out raids on the coast of the Russian Empire, and specifically to all fleet bases and the capital? ...


                    And what goals can they pursue?

                    he prayed to expose, only they didn’t dare to meddle in the minefields, and this fettered their actions


                    HOW could defensive minefields hamper the actions of the Germans?

                    Did not try to storm? Sir, Peter the Great Fortress - this is the entire defense of the Navy of the Empire in the Baltic, starting from the Gulf of Riga, including the islands. Do you want to say that the Germans have never fired a torpedo and shell there?


                    Then let's say this. By the MOST fortress - i.e. Porkkala-Udd - Revel position, didn’t really shoot. Just tried to slip at night on a linden fairway. For which they paid. But the advanced fort - MAP in the Gulf of Riga - was stormed twice and quite successfully.
                  6. fon_Shpee
                    fon_Shpee 6 August 2013 10: 07
                    0
                    You seriously do not understand what can be achieved by bombing all of the above?

                    I will explain it to a child: they stupidly blocked all the waters with mines so that it was impossible to walk in them without a special card. the Germans could not destroy the mines. hence - the German fleet could not operate "in our waters". hence he was fettered. if you don’t understand this either, then ...

                    So you yourself said that they did not attack the fortress? and now the back is turned on. Well, you are an interesting interlocutor ...
            2. Denis
              Denis 5 August 2013 19: 13
              +2
              Quote: fon_Shpee
              until the end of the war, the German fleet could not break into the Gulf of Finland, and even it was not near it
              Here, mine productions played by the bad tsar’s tsar’s admiral Essen and the reptile Kolchak in general, too. Historians did not like to remember about them, as well as about Kolchak’s polar studies
            3. fon_Shpee
              fon_Shpee 6 August 2013 10: 09
              +1
              Holy truth
  • alicante11
    alicante11 3 August 2013 05: 05
    -1
    The percentage of hits from the Angles was something around 1,5% against 3 with more than the Germans.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 3 August 2013 06: 41
      0
      Correcting myself, the Angles gave 2,2% hits against 3,4 German. 1.5% - these are hits of the Beatty battlecruisers.
  • Ulan
    Ulan 3 August 2013 12: 19
    +1
    Everything is beautifully painted, except for the fact that the British had an overwhelming advantage in caliber and speed and in numbers and could not crush the Germans.
    It was necessary to manage with such an advantage, better intelligence, and other things, miss the Germans, and even get a stars. Only not from a boy.
    A more accurate comparison - two boxers could not beat one and even bruises and bumps from him got it.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 1 August 2013 13: 49
    +1
    I wonder if you can refer to where these articles of the charter are taken from. And that in fact these LKR not even entered service. Not to mention the fact that the Russians were allies of the Naglichans in WWI, so why shoot them at all, and even from 381-mm guns :). Also, it is somehow strange that the KEs in Jutland fired well at the German LKR, the strongest of which, for example, the Derflinger, had the same booking as our Ishmaels.
    1. Kars
      Kars 1 August 2013 16: 11
      +5
      Quote: alicante11
      Interesting, but you can reference where these paragraphs of the charter are taken

      Quote: Bakht
      I am interested in the history of war. Can you tell me where this document comes from?



      Guys, where's your sense of humor?
      1. Karlsonn
        Karlsonn 1 August 2013 16: 48
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Guys, where's your sense of humor?


        Under the table rolled, not when to get it, it is necessary to respond to koment!
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 2 August 2013 09: 22
          +1
          So for humorous posts there is still a smiley face. And then you never know in the Network of wiseacres who do not find such things.
    2. washi
      washi 1 August 2013 16: 42
      +1
      In addition to stupidly armor there is also its location. There is a placement of shells. German ships, in this regard, were better. Only the moral weakness of the German l \ s did not completely destroy the British.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 1 August 2013 20: 23
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    "Ishmael" is the best thing that RI had at that time


    Unfortunately, they did not have time to commission the Izmailov. And in general, all the battleships of the Republic of Ingushetia were closer in doctrine to the Italian ships.
    But this is not a reason to consider the "Empresses" bad ships.
  • Crang
    Crang 1 August 2013 11: 38
    0
    Ishmael is only nominally a battle cruiser. He surpassed the previous domestic dreadnoughts in all respects, incl. and for security. In relation to "Fuso" or "Queen Elizabeth" our "Ishmaels" were typical battleships.
    1. Santa Fe
      1 August 2013 11: 48
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      In relation to "Fuso" or "Queen Elizabeth" our "Ishmaels" were typical battleships.

      The most interesting thing is that the Ishmael had the same displacement as KUin, but was weaker armed and much worse protected. What was the reserve in / and spent on?

      GEM? Ishmael's speed was only 2 knots higher. - too insignificant to neglect armor for this
      1. Kars
        Kars 1 August 2013 11: 58
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The most interesting thing is that "Izmail" had the same displacement as KUin.

        I’m more interested in which year the Ishmaels would be completed without a war at all, or with the best successes of RI. Who would be their peers? Was it by chance not Washington and Nagato?
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 20: 51
          0
          Quote: Kars
          by chance not Washington and Nagato?


          Italian LC, why not the enemy? :)

          Quote: Krang
          Ishmael is only nominally a battle cruiser.


          Unfortunately, the entire shipbuilding program of the Republic of Ingushetia was destroyed during the Civil War. And all the mortgaged battleships and LC left for scrapping.
          1. Kars
            Kars 2 August 2013 21: 44
            +1
            Quote: Blackgrifon
            Italian LC, why not the enemy? :)

            But let’s take the Austro-Hungarian one again? Or in the Republic of Ingushetia, take the rank of a minor sea power?
            1. Su-9
              Su-9 3 August 2013 09: 15
              0
              Karst, with all due respect to your opinion, the Tegethofs were very personal, and their teams were above average. In any case, in the fight against the Reef, their chances would be great.
            2. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 3 August 2013 20: 17
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              But let’s take the Austro-Hungarian one again? Or in the Republic of Ingushetia, take the rank of a minor sea power?


              It's stupid to argue with iron arguments - I agree. :) But the Izmailov had quite a large modernization reserve - I think they could cope with the British.
      2. old man54
        old man54 1 August 2013 18: 33
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The most interesting thing is that the Ishmael had the same displacement as KUin, but was weaker armed and much worse protected. What was the reserve in / and spent on?

        and for what? I really don't know, but it would be interesting to hear. hi
      3. Crang
        Crang 1 August 2013 19: 18
        +9
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The most interesting thing is that "Izmail" had the same displacement as KUin, but was less armed and much worse protected. What was the reserve spent on?

        The key word in this phrase is "weaker armed". Who told you that the weaker armed then? Just significantly stronger. The main armament of the Queen Elizabeth consisted of 4 MK.I gun mounts with 8 381mm / L42 guns. Projectile weight 871kg. The mass of the side salvo is 6968 kg (this is not much more than the mass of the side salvo of our 12-inch dreadnoughts). The maximum firing range of 22,4 km (121kbt) is less than that of our old battleships of the battleship class.
        "Izmail", in turn, had 4 built gun mounts with 12 guns 356mm / L52. They fired projectiles weighing 748kg (Model 1911/13g) at a distance of 23,2km (125kbt). The mass of the side salvo is 8976kg, which is 29% more than that of the Englishman. At the same time, the individual power of the domestic 356mm projectile was almost as good as the British 381mm. Thus, it is obvious that the Ishmaels were significantly superior in firepower to Queen Elizabeth, Worspite and Royal Sovereign, and even Vanguard. In terms of the mass of the onboard salvo, they were somewhere between the Ishmaels and the Sevastopol (dreadnoughts, otherwise some are starting to get confused).
        In terms of protection, the Ishmaels were also not much inferior to the British battleships, utterly superior in this respect to their battle cruisers. This is where the reserve was spent.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 August 2013 19: 34
          +3
          A definite plus :))) And then I already thought, then I need to write an educational program on Ishmael :)))
        2. Su-9
          Su-9 3 August 2013 09: 23
          +1
          Maximum firing range is a bad indicator. Then 10 miles no one really shot. As I understand it, the RIF had problems with rate of fire during the war. Because of this, the number of Ishmael trunks does not really provide such an advantage. Plus, unfortunately, the traditionally low quality of the project because you yourself know what. So it would be hard for us to compete with the Quins.
          1. Crang
            Crang 3 August 2013 09: 35
            +1
            Ishmael had no problems with the rate of fire. His 356mm gun mounts, like the 305mm gun mounts of previous battleships, fired a volley in 35s.
            1. Su-9
              Su-9 8 August 2013 03: 30
              0
              And how many such volleys could they give? Even Slava fired 1 time in 3 minutes at the height of Mozund .. And this is from well-tested cannons with not sophisticated shells.
              Krang, problems with rate of fire do not arise from constructive errors. It was smooth on paper ... They arise from poor quality construction and poor crew training. There were problems with both points in the RIF. Even in the best years, on the Black Sea, when they drove the Germans. Check out the literature. Plus a new type of ammunition that would cause additional problems.
              I was a big fan of raiders until I read how disastrous the concept itself was. I doubt very much that Izmail could be at the level of even an average raider. Plus a weak (for many reasons) crew.
              And of course, any real battleship would have left him no inheritance (a vivid example: Bismarck vs. Hood).
      4. yehat
        yehat 24 August 2018 14: 38
        0
        Ishmael had 4 towers of 3 guns each, and the Queens had one less tower.
        if you count even roughly how you could spend the weight of the tower on booking, then the ship could receive partial protection from modern dreadnoughts.
        But there is another nuance - in the Republic of Ingushetia they did not make enough good armor, and therefore it might be more rational to spend reserves on additional weapons, especially considering that the Russian shooting system provided good chances to cover the target first.
    2. washi
      washi 1 August 2013 16: 47
      0
      Where did you see "Ishmael" alive? This is a project, the beginning of construction, etc. In fact, they washed the loot and took it to the west. Noviki: the best destroyers of 1914 - buildings of the German
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 20: 56
        +1
        Quote: Vasya
        Where did you see "Ishmael" alive? This is a project, the beginning of construction, etc. In fact, they washed the loot and took it to the west. Noviki: the best destroyers of 1914 - buildings of the German


        Just do not start, about corruption and "taken away" :) "Ishmaels" were founded and by the time of Russia's withdrawal from the war they were in a high degree of readiness.
        Noviks were the best destroyers at the beginning of WWI, as were the Ilya Muromets bombers. But technical progress did not stand still and by the middle of the War they lost their superiority.
        1. Denis
          Denis 3 August 2013 00: 03
          +1
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          by the middle of the war they had lost their superiority.
          Compare LTX
          Modification Ilya Muromets IM Kievsky Ilya Muromets E
          Wingspan, m
          upper 32.00 30.95 30.40
          lower 22.00 22.45 24.40
          Length, m 22.00 19.00 18.50
          Height, m
          Wing Area, m2 182.00 150.00 190.00
          Weight, kg
          empty aircraft 3800 3040 4200
          normal take-off 5100 4650 6100
          Engine type 4 PD Argus / 2 PD Argus + 2 PD Argus 4 PD Renault
          Horsepower 4 x 100/2 x 140 + 2 x 125 4 x 220
          Maximum speed, km / h 95/100 137
          Cruising speed, km / h 70/85 120
          Practical range, km 270 500 540
          Flight Duration, h 3.0 5.0 4.0
          Maximum rate of climb, m / min 40 67 100
          Practical ceiling, m 1500 3000 4000
          Crew 7 7 7
          Armament: up to 4 machine guns
          up to 400 kg of bombs 37 mm Hotchkiss cannon, 2 Maxim machine guns, 2 Madsen submachine guns and 2 Mauser pistols.
          and 240 kg of bombs or
          3 machine guns and up to 400 kg
          7 machine gun bombs
          up to 520 kg bombs

          и

          Modification of Vimy IV
          Wingspan, m 20.73
          Length, m 13.27
          Height, m ​​4.76
          Wing area, m2 122.44
          Weight, kg
          empty 3230 aircraft
          normal takeoff 4937
          maximum takeoff 5670
          Engine type 2 PD Rolls-Royce Eagle VIII
          Power, hp 2 x 360
          Maximum speed, km / h 165
          Cruising speed, km / h 131
          Practical range, km 1150
          Practical ceiling, m 2315
          Crew 3
          Armament: Three 7.7 mm Lewis machine guns
          bombs weighing up to 1132 kg on external suspensions

          and facts like First flight: 1914,and First flight: 1917that obviously is no longer
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          to the middle of the war
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 3 August 2013 20: 20
            0
            Quote: Denis
            and such facts as the first flight: 1914, as well as the first flight: 1917, which is clearly no longer


            Don't understand your comment? Ilya Muromets of 17 years and new German bombers of the same year compare. There is no TTX at hand, but as far as I remember, the Germans went ahead in terms of combat load.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • aleks
    aleks 1 August 2013 12: 04
    0
    In the Russian fleet, they are qualified as battleships - 'Sevastopol, and Izmail
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 2 August 2013 19: 33
      +1
      Line cruisers are a type of battleship.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 1 August 2013 13: 54
    +1
    Let's just say that Izmailov's linear service is their big drawback. Since by this time, CEs had already appeared, which, losing only 2-3 knots, could hit these LKR at any distance. They would also lose to the German Bismarcs in booking and speed. So the main type of application of Izmailov was about - to run into the enemy's line fleet, throw shells at it and quickly dump it, until they hit the tinsel. It would be better to add armor instead of 4 356mm guns.
    1. Crang
      Crang 1 August 2013 19: 53
      +1
      You have lumped everything together. "Bismarck" is a modern fast battleship of the new generation 2nd MV. Why compare it with the Ishmaels? You would have compared it with the Yamato ... So if the Ishmael had been completed, I am sure it would have been reclassified into a battleship (as you did with the Congo) with its speed of 26,5uz. It is certainly better than the same "Congo" and many battleships of the 1st MV and the interwar period.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 2 August 2013 09: 29
        +1
        Crang

        I didn’t dump anything. The Bismarck is a project of the German battle cruiser of the WWI. They even bleli laid, two for sure. But not completed. It’s not my fault that you don’t know.

        It is certainly better than the same "Congo" and many battleships of the 1st MV and the interwar period.


        There are no questions about Congo. It's cardboard. But Hood in the appropriate amount of taxis. But when did Congo come into operation? If my sclerosis didn’t change me, it was in 1914, and the Ishmaels a year before that were only laid and with our speed of construction it would have to be compared not with Congo or even Yamashiro, but quite with Nagato and Mutsu.
        1. Crang
          Crang 2 August 2013 10: 40
          0
          Quote: alicante11
          I didn’t dump anything. The Bismarck is a project of the German battle cruiser of the WWI.

          Then why are you confusing people? You say so - battlecruisers of the Mackensen class.
          Quote: alicante11
          But Hood in the appropriate amount of taxis.

          Who told you that "Hood" rules? In terms of armament, our "Izmail" is more powerful. On defense ... The question is difficult. Remember what happened to the "Hood" in the battle with the "Bismarck" - not the most powerful battleship of WW2? Hood's defense was not originally a fountain either. Then, of course, it was strengthened, but as it turned out, it was not enough.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 2 August 2013 11: 18
            -1
            Then why are you confusing people? You say so - battlecruisers of the Mackensen class.


            Confused confused :). And people specify before starting to approve something. Just the name of the head was forgotten, but Bismarck is not forgotten :).

            Who told you that "Hood" rules? In terms of armament, our "Izmail" is more powerful.


            Still, 380mm is more powerful than 356mm, whatever one may say. With equal reservations, Izmailov will be pushed from a greater distance. And, thanks to the superiority in speed, they will be able to keep this distance. In general, the project is approximately equal, which is why I said that it "rules".
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 August 2013 11: 31
              +3
              Quote: alicante11
              Just the name of the head was forgotten, but Bismarck is not forgotten :).

              Well, you have a memory! :))) Generally speaking, one of the four Mackensens only planned to call "Fürst Bismarck" - "Erzats A", who at first wanted to call "Frdrich Karl", then "Fürst Bismarck" :))) I am without reference book and did not realize where the Bismarck belonged to the Mackensens.
              Quote: alicante11
              Still, 380mm is more powerful than 356mm, anyway. If the reservation is equal, they will pierce Izmailov from a greater distance

              Yes, but with a one and a half-fold superiority in the number of trunks, the frequency of hits with coverings at Izmail will probably be higher.
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 2 August 2013 12: 14
                0
                Well, you have a memory! :)))


                Selective :). Just too lazy to climb directories.

                Yes, but with a one and a half-fold superiority in the number of trunks, the frequency of hits with coverings at Izmail will probably be higher.


                If I remember correctly one holivar on Tsushima (Tsushima forums), then it was said that they shot at the indicated time in one volley at one gun in the tower. Accordingly, we had to go through the 3 cycle, during the third, it seems that a simple first gun was marked. Therefore, the layout of the artillery of Sevastopol and Izmail, respectively, was recognized as not optimal, not fully using the rate of fire of the guns.
                Actually, that's why I never put three-gun towers on ships in the KShI. Although this is not taken into account, it is closer to real life.
            2. Crang
              Crang 2 August 2013 11: 45
              +1
              But 356mm is 12 pieces, and 381mm is only 8. As for the armor penetration, I would not say that right away either. Our barrel is 52 caliber, while the British has only 42, i.e. the initial velocity, and hence the flatness and kinetic energy of impact, our projectile will be at least at the level. The mass of our side salvo is 30% greater. The only thing in which the "Hood" really excelled the "Izmail" was in the optimal arrangement of the main gun mounts.
              1. Crang
                Crang 2 August 2013 11: 49
                0
                To catch up - here it is interesting to compare the main caliber of the "Bismarck" 8-380mm / L50 guns with 805-kg shells with the main caliber "Hood" 8-381mm / L42 with 871-kg shells or with the main caliber "Nelson" 9-406mm and the weight of the shell a little over a ton. So despite the greater caliber and mass of the British salvo, the "Bismarck" artillery will hit both of them.
              2. alicante11
                alicante11 2 August 2013 12: 59
                0
                I don’t recall the offspring of the guns of one generation, so that the smaller caliber would beat the larger in armor penetration due to the length of the barrel. But the dispersion of shells and increased wear of long trunks still had a place to be.
            3. fon_Shpee
              fon_Shpee 2 August 2013 14: 55
              0
              he probably meant the weight of the salvo.

              take the mass of the shell, multiply by the number of trunks and compare the values
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 2 August 2013 15: 22
                0
                I do not want :). Because the weight of the salvo is not "our everything." You can throw out a bunch of shells and not pierce their armor. Or, with a couple of hits that pierced the main belt, let the pepelats go to the bottom. Although, of course, mainly the comparison of the emitted weights rules. But this is because early-value tools are usually compared. Just different in number.
                1. fon_Shpee
                  fon_Shpee 2 August 2013 16: 29
                  0
                  in general, in this matter there is a darkness of all kinds of probabilities (it also happens that a shell stupidly flashes an unprotected body and explodes where the thread is under the bottom).

                  But our Staffers in the Empire had a basic rule: as many trunks of the main caliber as possible. (there are more chances to hit 12 shells than 8 shells)
                  1. alicante11
                    alicante11 3 August 2013 04: 45
                    0
                    in general, in this matter there is a darkness of all kinds of probabilities (it also happens that a shell stupidly flashes an unprotected body and explodes where the thread is under the bottom).


                    Actually, it's called "lucky shot". And no one will build ships counting on him. Because it may or may not be.

                    But our Staffers in the Empire had a basic rule: as many trunks of the main caliber as possible. (there are more chances to hit 12 shells than 8 shells)


                    SUAO normal and trainers need to train, and not invent schemes. Each scheme has its pros and cons. However, in the D.S. the dispute is pointless. Ishmael and thin are approximately equal and the advantage will depend on the specific theater and the specific combat situation.
            4. yehat
              yehat 24 August 2018 15: 50
              0
              380 "certainly more powerful" ???
              Izmail's cannons received new "heavy" shells and, due to much better ballistics, were at least no worse, but the poor had only 8 guns, while Izmail had 12.
              so who is thicker and longer in the end))))
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 20: 58
            0
            Quote: Krang
            Who told you that "Hood" rules?


            The history of LK "Hood" well shows how he steers - having a battleship and battle cruiser, the British could not defeat a battleship and a heavy cruiser.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 04: 47
              0
              Uh-huh, that's just a wonderful case of "lucky-shot". The fighter, although it got more than Hood, crawled home and a year later was already trampled by Japanese planes on the other side of the earth. But on this, Bismarck exhausted all his luck. In addition, do not forget that the fighter had just entered service and the crew was not yet experienced. So, in principle, the result of the battle is natural.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 3 August 2013 20: 24
                0
                Quote: alicante11
                So, in principle, the result of the battle is logical.


                I do not agree - Prince Eugen - mute. TK - could not be compared in terms of its performance characteristics with POW. The latter, as you yourself noticed, was not only a new LC, it was precisely a LC. So it’s not just the crew.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 4 August 2013 03: 27
                  0
                  Well, do not agree. Just take and take a look at the battle at the Coronel. When the prize arrows of Spee almost dry laid out the British. And everything will become clear.
                  1. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 4 August 2013 22: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: alicante11
                    When the prize arrows of Spee almost dry laid out the British. And everything will become clear.


                    Yes, BUT there are a couple of "BUT" :)
                    1. The Germans never said "rule Germany over the seas"
                    2. German commandos almost always exceeded the commandants of their opponents.
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 5 August 2013 03: 57
                      0
                      And what does it have to do with it?
                      You can say anything. No one has canceled the psychological war. By the way, the complex before the Angles could not be overcome.
  • nnz226
    nnz226 1 August 2013 13: 56
    +5
    Battleships of the "Gangut" type were so sickly armored that the headquarters did not dare to put them "in line" so as not to take off from the very first hit. No wonder the most powerful ships of the Baltic Fleet spent the entire First World War in the rear at the wall, and the crews were stupid from idleness, and rebelled for nothing. (see the article about the last fleet of non-Soviet Russia). Even when the Baltic Fleet went to defend the revolution in Moonsund, the old "Glory" had to be deployed against the battleships of the High Seas Fleet of Germany (since even though she was normally armored)
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 1 August 2013 14: 35
      -1
      We didn't have enough ships for the "line". In general, in WWI in the Baltic, any battleships were completely unnecessary.
      1. Crang
        Crang 2 August 2013 10: 42
        0
        In WW1 in the Baltic, ours could put eight battleships against enemy dreadnoughts: Sevastopol, Poltava, Gangut, Petropavlovsk, Andrew the First-Called, Emperor Pavel, Glory, Citizen. Of course, not God knows what, but not so little. Taking into account the KRB, it was possible to fight.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 3 August 2013 04: 49
          0
          In WW1 in the Baltic, ours could put eight battleships against enemy dreadnoughts: Sevastopol, Poltava, Gangut, Petropavlovsk, Andrew the First-Called, Emperor Pavel, Glory, Citizen. Of course, not God knows what, but not so little. Taking into account the KRB, it was possible to fight.


          Hmm, Slavik and Caesar are generally super linkors. Yes, they even Nassau would be on one tooth. From the task in the WWII - the battle in the mine-artillery position. Shoot minesweepers.
          1. Crang
            Crang 3 August 2013 07: 49
            +1
            "Nassau"? Hrenas two. Why, then, did you have to attract "Kenigov"? Because "Nassau" and "Posen" tried to destroy "Glory" - they could not. I had to attract a new generation of dreadnoughts.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 09: 18
              0
              Yeah, behind the minefields. And in the linear battle in question?
              1. Crang
                Crang 3 August 2013 09: 47
                0
                "Nassau" and "Posen" fought with "Slava" without any minefields. Of course, if you set the task to fight to the death, then “Nassau” would most likely defeat “Glory”, but the question is at what cost. It could be very large and didn’t smell like one tooth. Affected by the high power and range of the 305mm guns of the "Glory" in comparison with the 283mm guns of the "Nassau", as well as the protection of our link. But "Königu" our "Glory" really merged, and how he fought with him in real life - this is one of the best options for his outcome. The "Kenigi" were distinguished by the fact that their vertical protection (GBP thickness up to 350mm) was of a new generation and corresponded to the battleships of the 2nd MV. The 331kg shells of "Slava", even equipped with APC-caps, had practically no chance of penetrating into the "Konig" HHC. The only option for "Slava" in a one-on-one battle with this monster is a distance of> 80kbt, where the 152mm AU of the SC "Glory" is still working, but the SC "Keniga" is no longer working. Plus, at this range, the probability of hitting strongly depends not on the number of barrels, but on the MSA and the training of the gunners. Plus a very powerful horizontal defense of "Glory". But even in this case, Slava's chances of a successful outcome of the battle were very small. In addition, the German was faster and therefore "Slava" would hardly have been able to keep the distance he needed. Nothing can be done - the German fleet was stupidly more powerful than ours. And tugboats, schooners and hydrographic vessels could not replenish this power.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 3 August 2013 10: 19
                  0
                  This is when they fought with Slavik without minefields?
                  Who told you that the guns of glory had a greater range than the guns of Nassau? There are more 100 cabs initially, while Slavik has no more 84 after increasing the elevation angles of the guns. Only half-flooded on one side could he compete with the Germans in range.
                  Who told you that the protection in 196mm in the Slavik belt was better than the 305mm belt in Nassau?
                  Well, plus - 8 * 283 vs 4 * 305, it does not look very good. Somehow here we get strange 8 * 380 vs 12 * 356 - it's bad, but 4 * 305 vs 8 * 283 is cool.
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 3 August 2013 10: 50
                    0
                    Quote: alicante11
                    This is when they fought with Slavik without minefields?

                    In 1915. But then the automatic control units of the Slavika Group of Companies had not yet been modernized.
                    Quote: alicante11
                    Who told you that the guns of glory had a greater range than the guns of Nassau? There are more than 100 cabs initially, while Slavik has no more than 84 after raising the angles

                    "Nassau"
                    D = 283mm, M = 302kg, L = 102kbt.
                    "Glory"
                    before modernization:
                    D = 305mm, M = 332kg, L = 80kb with 1892 shells and L = 88kb with 1907 shells.
                    after modernization:
                    D = 305mm, M = 332kg, L = 104kgt.
                    after the second upgrade:
                    D = 305mm, M = 332kg, L = 116kgt.
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 3 August 2013 11: 23
                      0
                      In 1915. But then the automatic control units of the Slavika Group of Companies had not yet been modernized.


                      Specific date, please name.
                      Of the 1915 operations in which Slava participated, I mainly recall the breakthrough of the Germans into the Gulf of Riga. So, there was just a fight through minefields. Just "Slava" was rolling to increase the range of the main guns. But I don’t remember the linear battle of our "Mhjd" in the German LC.

                      D = 305mm, M = 332kg, L = 104kgt.
                      after the second upgrade:
                      D = 305mm, M = 332kg, L = 116kgt.


                      Can you link to such data on the artillery of Glory? I remember from Suliga that the twelve-inch guns of Borodino had a range of 74 cab. And I certainly don't remember upgrading "Glory" to 116 cab.
                    2. Crang
                      Crang 3 August 2013 11: 34
                      +1
                      Quote: alicante11
                      And can you link to such data on the artillery of Glory?

                      Unfortunately now I need to look for them for a long time.
                      Quote: alicante11
                      I remember from Suliga that the twelve-inch Borodin had a range of 74 cabs.

                      There was such a figure, but Suliga himself does not know. A rather vague figure is also often found: "70-80kbt". This is all due to the fact that in the process of firing and wear of the barrel, the range gradually decreases. New, serviceable 305mm guns "Borodintsev" (but I remembered the link: Vinogradov "Battleship Slava") at an elevation angle of +15 degrees fired at 80kbt with old Tsushima shells. In WW1, "Slava" underwent a series of upgrades during which the elevation angle of its main guns was increased first to 22,5 degrees, and then to 25 degrees. By the way, battleships of the "Andrey Pervozvanny" type and Black Sea battleships with the same 305mm / L40 cannons initially had an elevation angle of +35 degrees and a firing range of 135kbt (more than that of dreadnoughts).
                      As for the "Nassau", I understand that it was already a dreadnought, and the "Glory" belonged to the battleships, but from this "Nassau" did not receive any special superiority over the "Glory". The Germans did the right thing to attract the "Kenigov", each of which surpassed the "Slava" by a head. In addition to the König and Kronprinz Wilhelm, Slava had to fight Nass and Posen in WW1 and even earlier with Braunschweig and Alsace (both battleships with 283mm main guns).
                    3. alicante11
                      alicante11 3 August 2013 12: 30
                      0
                      Hmmm, I found it myself, however, there was such a modernization. True, on the way it turned out that during the first operation in the Gulf of Riga, "Slava" fought with only two German pre-dreadnoughts. And when "Nassau" and "Posen" joined, "Slavik" got 3 shells and left the battle without causing any damage to the Germans. Total, isn't it an indicator?
                    4. Crang
                      Crang 3 August 2013 12: 39
                      0
                      Quote: alicante11
                      "Slavik" got 3 shells

                      Well, first of all, "Slava" was in the minority, and not one-on-one - is that nothing? Secondly, I hear about three shells for the first time. The Dodreadnoughts scored one hit in the Glory. And dreadnoughts like "Nassau" also hit one (this was at different times). They did not cause any serious damage to him. Isn't this an indicator? Or what are we arguing about? That the German fleet was then more powerful than our Baltic? Certainly. Or that "Glory" was "on the teeth" "Nassau" - but not in life. In general, the Achilles' heel of German battleships is a weakened main battery, which often did not allow them to effectively resist enemy ships of a similar class.
                    5. alicante11
                      alicante11 3 August 2013 14: 03
                      0
                      The next day, the Germans returned to trawling again, this time “Glory” received three direct hits of 283-mm shells. The first struck the armor belt and exploded in a coal pit; the second struck the deck, falling into the feed pipe of the rear 6-inch gun turret on the port side and started a fire in its ammunition cellar, which had to be flooded. The third shell demolished several boats of the ship and exploded in the water near the side. Nevertheless, the ship did not suffer significant damage from these hits, and the Glory remained in place until the order to retreat.


                      This is not a terrible hit for No. 2? In fact, Borodino, it seems, because of such a fearless hit the bottom went.
          2. Crang
            Crang 3 August 2013 10: 56
            0
            Quote: alicante11
            Who told you that the protection in 196mm in the Slavik belt was better than the 305mm belt in Nassau?

            Belt "Glory" in the thickest place (about 50% of the ship's length) made of Krupp armor, thickness - 194mm / 0g + 40mm / 30g + 40mm / 0gPTP = 314mm in total Krupp armor. Taking into account the powerful horizontal defense, it turns out better.
            Quote: alicante11
            Well, plus - 8 * 283 vs 4 * 305, it does not look very good. Somehow here we get strange 8 * 380 vs 12 * 356 - it's bad, but 4 * 305 vs 8 * 283 is cool.

            I did not say that. I only indicated the positions on which "Slava" had superiority. I said:
            Quote: Krang
            Of course, if you set the task to fight to the death, then “Nassau” would most likely defeat “Glory”, but the question is at what cost.

            And you said:
            Quote: alicante11
            Yes, they even Nassau would be on one tooth

            This is your absurd statement, and I dispute. Not "one tooth".
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 11: 39
              0
              Belt "Glory" in the thickest place (about 50% of the ship's length) made of Krupp armor, thickness - 194mm / 0g + 40mm / 30g + 40mm / 0gPTP = 314mm in total Krupp armor. Taking into account the powerful horizontal defense, it turns out better.


              Yeah Why so? Let's then and Nassau count the bevel and the anti-terrorist operation. I don’t remember the thickness of the PTP, but the bevel is 35-60mm. So in the center there was only 365mm of armor at least.

              I did not say that. I only indicated the positions on which "Slava" had superiority. I said:


              Well, among the "superiorities" you mentioned artillery, well, here I am debuting this "superiority".

              This is your absurd statement, and I dispute. Not "one tooth".


              Oh well. 8GC vs 4's, more powerful booking, higher speed. Tear like a Tuzik heating pad.
            2. Crang
              Crang 3 August 2013 12: 00
              0
              Quote: alicante11
              Yeah Why so?

              But as?
              Quote: alicante11
              Let's then and Nassau count the bevel and the anti-terrorist operation.

              Let's. So it should be considered.
              Quote: alicante11
              I don’t remember the thickness of the PTP, but the bevel is 35-60 mm.

              Do you know why you don’t remember? Because its just did not have.
              Quote: alicante11
              Well, among the "superiorities" you mentioned artillery, well, here I am debuting this "superiority".

              I mentioned that Slava had more powerful 305mm guns with heavier shells and longer range. Plus a full-fledged SC of 6 paired 152mm gun mounts with a firing range of 87kbt. Plus a more optimal location of all artillery. This is what "Glory" had. If you are so offended that I did not mention "Nassau" (its merits are obvious), then well, no question. "Nassau" had twice as many main guns on board (8 versus 4) and a higher rate of fire. Are you satisfied?
              Quote: alicante11
              more powerful booking

              Not more powerful.
              Quote: alicante11
              higher speed

              On the 1,5 node.
              Quote: alicante11
              Tear like a Tuzik heating pad.

              It will be discussed. The difference in combat power at the level of measurement error in the combat training of crews. Even "Goeben" once so "Efstafia" "tore" - barely carried off his legs. Only "König" could break the "Glory" like Tuzik. Better yet, two "Koenigs" - which was in real life.
            3. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 12: 42
              -1
              But as?


              To be silent, to say the least. Although in general this is called a lie.

              Let's. So it should be considered.


              Well, consider it honestly. And then you bring for Glory all three barriers, but for Nassau only one. So it turns out that Slavik is better protected. And if you add a bevel, it turns out that it’s no better.

              So Nassau's booking is more powerful.

              Do you know why you don’t remember? Because she simply was not there.


              From the same, I knew that I would come across :).
              And there was a PTP - 30mm :). True, I did not take it into account, but for what reason do you know?

              I mentioned that Slava had more powerful 305mm guns with heavier shells and longer range.


              Yes, now with a greater range? Well, the 116 cab vs 113 for Nassau with a new shell is an awesome superiority.
              But Nassau has 2 times more shells in a salvo. So the Nassau salvo is heavier.

              Plus a full-fledged SK from 6 paired 152mm gun mounts with a firing range of 87kbt.


              And what about Nassau SK inferior? Also, let's not forget about the lower rate of fire of the six-inch towers due to imperfect drives.

              On the 1,5 node.


              And how much do you need?

              It will be discussed. The difference in combat power at the level of measurement error in the combat training of crews. Even "Goeben" once so "Efstafia" "tore" - barely carried off his legs. Only "König" could break the "Glory" like Tuzik. Better yet, two "Koenigs" - which was in real life.


              Phi, how rude.
              The difference in combat power is 2 times in the GK (they said about rate of fire, I didn’t pull the tongue, so 2 times are real). On armor too. Well, in general, why repeat something ...
              But Goeben - so, it can be, we will analyze the differences between Eustache and Glory and Goeben from Nassau, or do you yourself realize that stupidity was blurted out, as with PTP?
            4. Crang
              Crang 3 August 2013 14: 15
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              Well, consider it honestly. And then you bring for Glory all three barriers, but for Nassau only one. So it turns out that Slavik is better protected. And if you add a bevel, it turns out that it’s no better.

              "Glory"
              ГБП: 194мм/0г+40мм/30г+40мм/0г=314мм.
              PFS: 152mm.
              Side: 76mm.
              Decks: 24mm + 32mm + 40mm = 99mm.
              51mm + 32mm + 40mm = 123mm.
              51mm + 51mm + 40mm = 142mm.
              "Nassau"
              ГБП: 290мм/0г+80мм/30г+30мм/0г=480мм.
              PFS: 170mm.
              Side: 160mm.
              Decks: 45m + 55mm = 100mm.
              The German is better in vertical defense, ours is better in horizontal defense. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the interaction of the German 302kg projectile with the armor of our link and our 332kg projectile with theirs' armor. Judging by the numbers for "Slava" it will be better to keep at a distance of 90kbt + where the defeat is already on the deck. Our 305mm projectiles flying at a lower speed and therefore on a steeper trajectory in this respect have superiority and the ZSM "Slava" under German fire should be somewhere within those limits.
              Quote: alicante11
              versus 113 for Nassau with a new shell

              Then he did not have new shells so 102kbt and all.
            5. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 14: 32
              0
              Decks: 24mm + 32mm + 40mm = 99mm.


              Decks: 45m + 55mm = 100mm.


              99 is greater than 100. And this is our superiority of Glory in booking? Original ... Perhaps, of course, that is what I see in the explode of the reservation. However, sadness. VP was booked only on slices. And slices, as you know, have a slightly inclined configuration. So it will be much better to break through than the decks themselves.

              Armor-piercing among the Germans was quite on the level. Because the barrel length was 45 calibers, unlike the 40 calibres of Glory. Well, the number of hits of one hundred percent from the German will be more. So that

              Then he did not have new shells so 102kbt and all.


              And Slavik had 80 cab at that time. So what?
            6. Crang
              Crang 3 August 2013 15: 11
              0
              Quote: alicante11
              99 more than 100. And this is our superiority of Glory in booking?

              What are you not reading? Or intentionally do not notice? 99mm is only in one narrow zone. I'll reprint it again:
              Decks:
              24mm + 32mm + 40mm =99mm.
              51mm + 32mm + 40mm =123mm.
              51mm + 51mm + 40mm =142mm.
              In different places. Now it is clear? Yes - the superiority of "Slava" in horizontal booking.
              Quote: alicante11
              However, sadness. VP was booked only on slices.

              I know the whole scheme that you tell me. There almost everywhere more than 100mm. Moreover, the central part of the deck is covered with spardik.
              Quote: alicante11
              And Slavik had 80 cab at that time. So what?

              In the 17th "Slavik" had 116kbt. In the 16th - 104kbt. And in the 14th 88kbt. New 305mm shells mod. In 1907, they had a ballistic ARS-cap (Makarov tip) and even without increasing the angle, they gave an increase in range of 8kbt.
              Quote: alicante11
              Armor-piercing among the Germans was quite on the level.

              I won't say about Nassau, but the 283mm / L40 pre-dreadnought guns (the same Braunschweig) had armor penetration 1,4 times less than our old-style 305mm BB shells. This is not enough to penetrate the Slava's HVCh from typical combat distances. The only option when "Slava" would unambiguously merge "Nassau" is bad weather with fog, in which the opponents would detect each other from a distance of 20-30kbt. Here, yes - if "Slava" is not able to immediately break the contact, then he is fucked (but even then - be healthy to snap back). And if the weather is good and the detection range is equal to the horizon, you can fight very well.
            7. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 16: 36
              0
              In different places. Now it is clear? Yes - the superiority of "Slava" in horizontal booking.


              Understandable in "different places". I did not pay attention to such a perversion. I will remember. However, what difference does this make? At ranges at which the deck is hit, the hit rate is very low. And therefore there is no chance of causing serious damage to the enemy. And at the ranges of a decisive battle, Slava has no chance. As I said, he will run away in order to realize the possibility of hitting the deck at the same time. And then, if it doesn't last until dark, feed the fish.

              In the 17th "Slavik" had 116kbt. In the 16th - 104kbt. And in the 14th 88kbt. New 305mm shells mod. In 1907, they had a ballistic ARS-cap (Makarov tip) and even without increasing the angle, they gave an increase in range of 8kbt.


              In 15, Slavik had 80, and in Nassau you know for yourself. Then podshamanili. Well, the Germans podshamanil. In the 16th parity, and in the 17th too.

              I won't tell you about Nassau,


              So we speak for him, an orderly one, and not for Braunschweig.

              Here, yes - if "Slava" is not able to immediately break the contact, then he is fucked


              So he will break the contact, dear, if the speed on the 1,5 node is less?
            8. Crang
              Crang 3 August 2013 19: 52
              0
              Quote: alicante11
              I did not pay attention to such a perversion. I will remember.

              Why a perversion? The deck was booked differentially. As in most battleships in the world.
              Quote: alicante11
              At ranges where the deck is hit, the percentage of hits is very small.

              3-5%. It was at this range that battleships usually fought.
              Quote: alicante11
              And then, if you do not hold out until dark, feed the fish.

              Not a fact.
              Quote: alicante11
              In the 15th, Slavik had 80,

              88kbt for "Slava" and "Citizen" became immediately after the invention of new shells with ballistic tips. These shells were invented in 1907. What else is incomprehensible?
              Quote: alicante11
              So he will break the contact, dear, if the speed on the 1,5 node is less?

              Yes, stupidly sharply turn away. Yes, he himself may be lost. A strip of fog, a rain squall and all.
            9. alicante11
              alicante11 4 August 2013 03: 33
              -1
              Why a perversion? The deck was booked differentially. As in most battleships in the world.


              It’s just not protection of the deck, but additional protection of important parts of the hull, for example, cellars, roofs of casemates. Here a lot can be counted. Therefore, they are usually in the thickness of the deck and do not take into account. And, of course, one can pervert in the light of.

              3-5%. It was at this range that battleships usually fought.


              On 90 cab? In PMV? Learn the materiel.

              88kbt for "Slava" and "Citizen" became immediately after the invention of new shells with ballistic tips. These shells were invented in 1907. What else is incomprehensible?


              Yes 80 or 88 compared to 104 what difference does it make :).

              Yes, stupidly sharply turn away. Yes, he himself may be lost. A strip of fog, a rain squall and all.


              Well, yes, either to pay off the sun ahead of time or the sea will part before Nassau for the stern at Glory like Moses :).
            10. Crang
              Crang 4 August 2013 07: 31
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              It’s just not protection of the deck, but additional protection of important parts of the hull, for example, cellars, roofs of casemates. Here a lot can be counted. Therefore, they are usually in the thickness of the deck and do not take into account. And, of course, one can pervert in the light of.

              I did not take into account the local horizontal defense of "Glory" ie. was not perverted. I considered armored decks only.
              Quote: alicante11
              On 90 cab? In PMV? Learn the materiel.

              Maybe you need to learn? Ask at what distances the Battle of Jutland predominantly went and from what distances did British ships receive mortal damage? 80-110kbt. Our "Panteleimon" hit "Gebena" with one shell with 110kbt, then "Efstafiy" added two with 90kbt. "Slava" got into "Grosser Kurfurst" with ~ 80kbt. Interestingly, the appearance of radar and automated control systems in WW2 did not in any way affect the range of actual fire of battleships and the accuracy of hits. These devices made them all-weather, but the range and accuracy did not increase. The threshold was still at the border of 120kbt and 3-5% accuracy at best.
              Quote: alicante11
              Well, yes, either to pay off the sun ahead of time or the sea will part before Nassau for the stern at Glory like Moses :).

              Nothing to say? So admit that the overwhelming superiority of “Nassau” did not have and the situation could turn as you like. You are sitting there on the couch and comparing win / win. Calculating the odds. And when everything is real. When there is a real chance to die, they would start thinking like fascists. They would immediately attract "Koenig", so that he exactly destroyed "Slava" without any overlaps or accidents.
            11. alicante11
              alicante11 4 August 2013 10: 01
              +1
              The first shot in the battle of Jutland (from armored ships) belonged to the German battle cruiser Lutz from a distance of about 80 cabin. Visibility at the beginning of the battle was relatively good, but then it gradually deteriorated significantly. There was a gentle wind, the sea was calm.


              http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Jutland_Damage/01.htm

              Those. Jutland battle began with 80 cab. And not even with 90. If these are the main distances, then usually begins with more distant ones.
              From there, Queen Mary began to shoot from the 70-80 booth. Derflinger with 80, then the distance was reduced to 65 cab. It was at this distance that the main damage was received. Evan Thomas, of course, beat with 100 cab and more. True, it was not enough. Only single, completely random hits.

              Nothing to say? So admit that Nassau did not have an overwhelming superiority and the situation could turn as you please


              And what can I say something stupid. We compare the combat characteristics of ships. And therefore it is necessary to compare them in a position in which they can fully manifest themselves. And do not come up with the possibility that the ship can slip away. Because these conditions may not occur. For example, When attacking planes from Lex and Enterprise on the Japanese 3 Aviation Division, Juikaku hid in a rainy zone. And the blow fell on Sekak. So now, to say that Juikaku is cooler than Shakaku?

              In a normal battle, bash on bash Nassau will tear Glory like a Tuzik hot-water bottle. Because with the same training of the commandors, in average weather, he will achieve 2 times more hits from the Civil Code. In the conditions of the North Sea with its poor visibility, Glory does not shine at all. since the detection will be at a closer distance and Glory will not be able to realize its advantage in horizontal reservation at long distances. In the Baltic, if without mines, Glory generally krants. Especially nowhere to run away. Only shoot under cover of BB. On the one hand, when Slava has at least equal chances - this is in the open ocean with great excitement, since Nassau has a much lower board and worse seaworthiness. That's all. And all the perversions with the SK and torpedoes - this is from the evil one. In Jutland, both Germans and Angles used SK for battleships. But there was no sense in him at all. Since in the commodity quantity of hits from the UK at those distances it will be impossible to achieve. Plus extensive booking, which SK does not take.

              then you sit there on the couch and compare win / win. Calculating the odds. And when everything is real. When there is a real chance to die, they would start thinking like fascists. They would immediately attract "Koenig" so that he would definitely destroy "Glory" without any overlaps and accidents.


              Hmm, now Glory has fought against the fascists. Agreed :).
              However, okay, essentially, there is also something to object to. Yes, I compare Glory and Nassau in a single combat. But only because in real life everything was even worse. The Germans could put 4 Nassau against Glory. Against Caesar there are also 4 Ostfriesland, etc. etc. Those. in real life, the Germans in the Baltic smashed the Russian fleet as they wanted, and then when they wanted.
              And Koenig was attracted by the pot of Glory in 1917 not because Nassau was "feared". And because it was necessary to break her resistance FASTER. That's all. And so Nassau also perfectly achieved a hit in Glory, from which the battleship could well have died. However, the German battleships did not receive such damage. What is there to talk about?
            12. Crang
              Crang 5 August 2013 20: 26
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              And Koenig was attracted by the pot of Glory in 1917 not because Nassau was "feared". And because it was necessary to break her resistance FASTER.

              And then you say:
              Quote: alicante11
              In a normal battle, bash on bash Nassau will tear Glory like a Tuzik hot-water bottle.

              Much faster then.
              You carry some kind of beleberd. I can’t convince you. This is the end of the conversation with you.
  • Crang
    Crang 3 August 2013 14: 16
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    And what about Nassau SK inferior?

    Low-lying casemate installations "Nassau" were intended for mine defense and could not shoot far at the performance characteristics of the guns themselves (maximum 58kbt), the range of vision of their directors, small angles of fire and high flooding in fresh weather. In contrast to this, modern turret 152mm gun mounts SK (essentially universal) "Slava" were fully mechanized (except for loading), equipped with new drives with smooth speed control (Jenny clutches), new brakes, ventilation devices (including barrel blowing) ). They had large angles of fire, were located high, saw far away and could fire at 87kbt to the maximum. In other words, SC "Glory" could support the GC at long distances, but SC "Nassau" could not.
    Quote: alicante11
    And how much do you need?

    3-5 minimum 1,5uz is 2,7km / h - how do you like in the scale of the distances of sea battles?
    Quote: alicante11
    The difference in combat power is 2 times in the Civil Code (they themselves said about the rate of fire, I did not pull for the tongue

    What did I say? The artillery installations of the Slavy Group of Companies were modernized. We got the opportunity to charge at any angle of the VN, as well as a new ammo in the aft niche of the tower (for 20 shots), which brought the rate of fire of the first stage (10 full volleys) to 1zalp / 50s.
    Quote: alicante11
    Let us examine the differences between Eustathius and Glory

    "Efstafiy" is a typical project of a simplified and cheapened battleship with reduced dimensions, reduced speed (no more than 16-17uz) and simplified architecture. It is in many ways worse than "Glory", although newer than it.
    If “Slava” and “Nassau” collided in the clear sea, the battle would be difficult and long - the capabilities of artillery on both sides do not allow immediately knocking out an opponent with one or two hits. Crew training would play a huge role here. With a probability of 70%, “Nassau” would have won, but he himself would have won - Mom, do not worry. It would be repaired after a year. One of the "König" type dreadnoughts could simply break the "Slava", so the Germans "invited" them to Mondzund. Or were they fools?
  • alicante11
    alicante11 3 August 2013 14: 47
    +1
    By universal universal Glory I laughed, thanks.

    In other words, SC "Glory" could support the GC at long distances, but SC "Nassau" could not.


    Maybe he can, but who will give him ... Sadness, let's look at the reservation of Nassau and ask ourselves. And "fuli" to the point of this 152mm. Somehow I don’t remember that Slava used them on German battleships. I don't even remember the minesweepers, although I can forget this moment.

    3-5 minimum 1,5uz is 2,7km / h - how do you like in the scale of the distances of sea battles?


    M-yes, can you justify these 3-5 nodes? Just like that, for fun.

    What did I say? The artillery installations of the Slavy Group of Companies were modernized.


    What they said, they said it, I didn’t say it, so argue with me :).

    "Efstafiy" is a typical project of a simplified and cheapened battleship with reduced dimensions, reduced speed (no more than 16-17uz) and simplified architecture. It is in many ways worse than "Glory", although newer than it.


    Hmmm. Eustathius reduced? Don't you confuse with Rostislav for an hour? Generally, Eustathius was designed as an enlarged Potemkin. And it was modernized for a long time simultaneously with Andrew the First-Called and Pavlik in the Baltic. Will you find the performance characteristics yourself or will we insist that this is a "reduced" version?

    although newer than him.

    If “Slava” and “Nassau” collided in the clear sea, the battle would be difficult and long - the capabilities of artillery on both sides do not allow immediately knocking out an opponent with one or two hits. Crew training would play a huge role here. With a probability of 70%, “Nassau” would have won, but he himself would have won - Mom, do not worry. It would be repaired after a year. One of the "König" type dreadnoughts could simply break the "Slava", so the Germans "invited" them to Mondzund. Or were they fools?


    If Slava and Nassau collided in a "clean" sea (in fact, open), then any normal commander would cut in a full one and pray that the distance and time for its reduction would be enough until dark. I think that Slavik would have been saved, the difference in the course is really not great. But in the event of a battle - having received 2 times more shells (and his "universal" caliber is like peas against a wall to the Germans), with his weaker armor he would go to the bottom, feed the crew of fish. Well, no matter how much a German is repaired, it doesn't make much difference. The Germans had 4 such Nassau :).
  • Crang
    Crang 3 August 2013 15: 35
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    Maybe he can, but who will give him ... Sadness, let's look at the reservation of Nassau and ask ourselves. And "fuli" to the point of this 152mm.

    How is this "fuli sense"? In general, this is an old technique - along with powerful projectiles, bombard the enemy with a hail of medium-caliber projectiles, destroying all the optics and instruments, wiping out a part of the upper deck team with fragments and causing fires. This will reduce the fighting efficiency of the enemy ship by an order of magnitude. There is no need to go far for examples - in such a way the Japanese defeated us at Tsushima. There were cases of the use of such tactics in WW2. The American battleship Washington in the battle with the Kirishima seemingly received only one hit from a 356mm projectile. But numerous 127mm shells of Japanese station wagons tore the entire superstructure for him, destroyed all the radar, optics and made the ship almost completely "blind". The repair then lasted for almost a year. A similar execution was carried out with one Japanese battleship ("Hiei", I think) American heavy cruisers and destroyers in Guadalcanal - 85 hits with 203mm shells and several hundred of a smaller caliber. The result is a corpse.
    Quote: alicante11
    Somehow I do not remember that Glory used them in German battleships. I don’t even remember minesweepers, although I can forget this moment.

    I shot at the minesweepers. And "Citizen" too. I did not shoot at the German battleships because I did not get it then. But up to 87kbt the average caliber of "Glory" worked, and this is still 14km.
    Quote: alicante11
    What they said, they said it, I didn’t say it, so argue with me :).

    Didn't you broadcast about the twice lower rate of fire of the "Slava" guns and about the imperfection of the drives of its AU SK? You. Here's a rebuttal.
    Quote: alicante11
    Yeah Eustathius reduced?

    Sure. Like all Black Sea battleships of that period. The ship that was finished, hell knows when. 12480 tons of displacement against 14440 tons for "Slava" and 18590 tons for "AP". Engine power 10600hp. against 16300hp at "Slava" and 17630hp. at "AP". Length 118m versus 121,2m for "Slava" and 140,2m for "AP".
    Quote: alicante11
    But in the case of a battle - getting 2 times more shells

    Over long distances, this would depend on the training of the crews and on the lady of fortune.
    Quote: alicante11
    (and its "universal" caliber is like peas against a wall for a German)

    Don't - the examples are described above. Caliber 152mm by land standards is generally heavy artillery. This "pea" could have done so many things that "Slava" would only have to move closer and finish off the enemy with torpedoes.
    Quote: alicante11
    would go to the bottom, feed the crew of fish

    Neka. The power of 283mm shells is not enough for this. At first, “Nassau” would have had a long and painful time to turn “Glory” into scrap metal. Under favorable circumstances for the German. If unsuccessful, Nassau itself would have turned into scrap metal.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 3 August 2013 16: 49
    0
    How is this "fuli sense"? In general, this is an old technique - along with powerful projectiles, bombard the enemy with a hail of medium-caliber projectiles, destroying all the optics and instruments, wiping out a part of the upper deck team with fragments and causing fires.


    Do you know why you stopped using this "old technique" on dreadnoughts?

    I shot at the minesweepers. And "Citizen" too. I did not shoot at the German battleships because I did not get it then. But up to 87kbt the average caliber of "Glory" worked, and this is still 14km.


    Well, you see, I didn’t shoot. To the point of that to no purpose. Booking with dreadnoughts is somewhat different and getting at those distances for the IC is quite problematic.

    Of course. Like all the Black Sea battleships of that period. The ship that was built horseradish knows when.


    Oh my God. Well, besides reading directories, you also need to read something else. The reason for the size difference is not in saving, but in the fact that high speed was considered unnecessary at the World Cup. Hence the weak and light machines and a shorter ship and a shorter belt length, which is thicker than that of Glory.

    Didn't you broadcast about the twice lower rate of fire of the "Slava" guns and about the imperfection of the drives of its AU SK? You. Here's a rebuttal.


    Not me about GK. I’m talking about SC, but I just don’t see about the drives of the SC.

    Over long distances, this would depend on the training of the crews and on the lady of fortune.


    Usually compared with equal training crews. And they rely on good luck for war only ... not very smart people. And even for this lady, the Germans are 2 times more likely.

    Don't - the examples are described above. Caliber 152mm by land standards is generally heavy artillery. This "pea" could have done so many things that "Slava" would only have to move closer and finish off the enemy with torpedoes.


    So Nassu is at sea. And your example is a night battle in short clubs. That is why SK and taxied. And in a normal situation, long before it could be used normally, Glory will be at the bottom under SK fire.

    Neka. The power of 283mm shells is not enough for this. At first, “Nassau” would have had a long and painful time to turn “Glory” into scrap metal. Under favorable circumstances for the German. If unsuccessful, Nassau itself would have turned into scrap metal.


    Enough, this from Nassau flew into his cellar. That time it didn’t rush. The second time it would be like Queen Mary.
  • Crang
    Crang 3 August 2013 20: 00
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    Do you know why you stopped using this "old technique" on dreadnoughts?

    Who said they stopped? Do you once again rewrite what has already been written? Well:
    Quote: Krang
    There were cases of the use of such tactics in WW2. The American battleship Washington in the battle with the Kirishima seemingly received only one hit from a 356mm projectile. But numerous 127mm shells of Japanese station wagons tore the entire superstructure for him, destroyed all the radar, optics and made the ship almost completely "blind". The repair then lasted for almost a year. A similar execution was carried out with one Japanese battleship ("Hiei", I think) American heavy cruisers and destroyers in Guadalcanal - 85 hits with 203mm shells and several hundred of a smaller caliber. The result is a corpse.

    Quote: alicante11
    Not me about GK. I’m talking about SC, but I just don’t see about the drives of the SC.

    Well, I’ll rewrite once again what I already wrote. Here:
    Quote: Krang
    In contrast, the modern 152mm turret gun mounts SK (essentially universal) "Slava" were completely mechanized (except for loading), equipped new continuously variable speed drives (Jenny couplings), new brakes, ventilation devices (including barrel purging).

    Quote: alicante11
    . And in a normal situation, long before it could be used normally, Glory will be at the bottom under SK fire.

    Are you alright? His SC "Slava" could start to use from 87kbt - 16,1 km. It's almost the horizon.
    Quote: alicante11
    Enough, this from Nassau flew into his cellar. That time it didn’t rush.

    Nothing was lucky - it's just that Slava had a proper defense. But "Sevastopol" would have exploded. The Nassau is an example of a not very successful battleship.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 4 August 2013 03: 41
    0
    [quote] Who said they stopped? Do you once again rewrite what has already been written? Well here: [/ quote]

    And I already explained to you that these were specific battle conditions in which ships are very rare and it’s silly to count on them when comparing ships.
    You give me an example of the use of superSK Glory for battleships. Then I will agree.

    [quote] Well, I’ll rewrite once again what I already wrote. Here: [/ quote

    Yes, rewrite as you want. They still did not achieve full rate of fire.

    [quote] Are you all right? His SC "Slava" could start to use from 87kbt - 16,1 km. It's almost the horizon. [/ Quote]

    This is not normal for you. To get from the 6 inch to the 87 cab is only a varnish shot.

    [Quote] Nothing was lucky - it's just that Slava had a proper defense. But "Sevastopol" would have exploded. "Nassau" is an example of a not very successful battleship. [/ Quote]

    No, well, that's definitely not all right with you :).
    You listen to yourself. Protection is due, but the shell hit the cellar at a distance close to the limit. And what would happen at closer distances? What does Sevastopol have to do with it, though I don’t understand.
  • Crang
    Crang 5 August 2013 20: 15
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    You listen to yourself. Protection is due, but the shell hit the cellar at a distance close to the limit

    What nonsense? Well, why didn't Slava explode then?
    Quote: alicante11
    You give me an example of the use of superSK Glory for battleships. Then I will agree.

    Well, I'll give it to you. The last battle of "Bismarck". The fascist raider brought his SK into battle as soon as the range allowed it. And the only projectile that hit the Rodney in the entire battle was 150mm. I cannot cite this case as a successful use of the SC, but purely mathematically, the Bismarck SC shells inflicted more damage on the enemy than the main battery shells.
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 6 August 2013 10: 12
    0
    I’ll support you, colleague, by citing another example: American battleships in World War II. their average caliber (like the caliber of most of the battleships of that time) was universal, and helped, even very, to destroy enemy aircraft.
  • Crang
    Crang 3 August 2013 20: 32
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    Oh my God. Well, besides reading directories, you also need to read something else. The reason for the size difference is not in saving, but in the fact that high speed was considered unnecessary at the World Cup. Hence the weak and light machines and a shorter ship and a shorter belt length, which is thicker than that of Glory.

    This is a simplified ship - the development of the not very successful line / branch of the "Retvizan". The body is simple in shape. The entire SC in casemates. Weak machines. Booking ....
    "Glory"
    ГБП: 194мм/0г+40мм/30г+40мм/0г=314мм.
    PFS: 152mm.
    Extremities: 145mm.
    Decks:
    24mm + 32mm + 40mm = 99mm.
    51mm + 32mm + 40mm = 123mm.
    51mm + 51mm + 40mm = 142mm.
    "Eustathius"
    ГБП: 229мм/0г+48мм/30г=325мм.
    PFS: 152mm.
    Extremities: 76mm nose, 51mm feed.
    Decks:
    25mm + 38mm + 35mm = 98mm.
    25mm + 38mm + 48mm = 111mm.
    76mm.
    In general, it is pale against the background of "Glory". The absence of anti-tank weapons means low survivability when detonated by mines / torpedoes and when it hits below the belt. "Hotel" can easily fly into the engine room. Or a boiler room.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 4 August 2013 03: 51
    0
    http://keu-ocr.narod.ru/Evstafiy/pictures/10.jpg


    And here it says that there is a bulkhead.
    For the rest, I have already explained. The decrease in power is due to the features of the theater, which allowed to reduce the length of the ship, the length of the citadel and it is better to book it.
  • Crang
    Crang 4 August 2013 07: 33
    0
    Of course there is a bulkhead, but this is not an armor plate, but just a bulkhead.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 4 August 2013 10: 06
    0
    But, it means that this was enough to counter underwater explosions.
  • Crang
    Crang 5 August 2013 20: 29
    0
    Of course not.
  • Denis
    Denis 1 August 2013 18: 45
    +1
    Quote: nnz226
    The battleships of the "Gangut" type were so sickly armored that the headquarters did not dare to put them "in line"
    There are other opinions, the sad experience of the best sailors
    This quiet date is known, perhaps, mainly to specialists and amateurs of military history. September 5 marks 90 years of naval combat, in which for the first time in the history of modern wars, a submarine sank a warship. On this day, in 1914, a German U-21 submarine under the command of Lieutenant Otto Herzing destroyed the English armored cruiser Pathfinder ("Pathfinder").
    Despite the fact that the U-21 rocked hard due to the storm, the torpedo hit a small cruiser under the front pipe. The fore part of the ship exploded, engulfed in flames, the stern part rose out of the water, the affected ship tipped and sank to the bottom in 4 minutes, plunging its nose with a team of 259 people.
    Herzing's shot marked a new era in the development of naval war, in which surface ships (both military and commercial) ceased to feel invulnerable from strikes from under the water. First of all, the British Grand Fleet, which previously reigned supreme on the world's oceans.
    However, the real danger was assessed a few weeks later, when on September 22, 1914 another German submarine, U-9, under the command of Lieutenant Otto Veddigen, immediately launched three British armored cruisers - Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue, patrolling the waters of La -Mansha.
    After torpedoing the first ship, the British felt that it was blown up by a mine, stopped and began to save the crew. Thus, the other two motionless cruisers became easy prey for Veddigen's continued attack. As a result of this battle, or rather, slaughter, 1459 British sailors were killed
  • sanya0974
    sanya0974 1 August 2013 21: 21
    0
    Well, yes, the belt of fame (Borodino) is -194mm, and the skinny Sevastopol_225mm
    1. Crang
      Crang 2 August 2013 06: 31
      0
      Belt "Glory" in the thickest place (about 50% of the ship's length) made of Krupp armor, thickness - 194mm / 0g + 40mm / 30g + 40mm / 0gPTP = 314mm in total Krupp armor. Dreadnoughts of the "Sevostopol" type also have Krupp armor - 225mm / 0g + 50mm / 45g = 295mm.
      That is, the total thickness of the GBP armor of "Sev" is less than that of "Slava", although their belt is wider. This time. And two - which is no less important - Slava had everything in order with its internal local armor, but Sevastopol had a problem with that. Ask how thick they had the protection of decks and barbets? Much less than "Glory" (several times). That is why the Slava in Moonzund withstood the battle with the new generation of German draenotes, receiving 7 hits from the 305mm suitcases. But Sevastopol would have withstood such a thing - a big question. Therefore, they were afraid to release them. In addition, the "Sevastopol" had problems with the fastening of armor plates.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 21: 03
        0
        Quote: Krang
        But the "Sevastopol" would have survived


        But what about the speed characteristics and firing range? The armor is weak, but the GC was not bad.
        1. Crang
          Crang 2 August 2013 22: 47
          +2
          In the place where the battle took place, the sea was teeming with mines, rocks and shoals. To realize the advantage in speed “Sevastopoli” in Mondzund could not. There everyone crawled behind the minesweepers. As for the firing range, the battleship Slava was already superior to the German dreadnoughts in this respect. Actually, the whole scheme of the battle was built on this. The maximum firing range of 305mm guns of the "Slava" was 21,5 km (116kbt), which he increased by artificial bank in the initial phase of the battle to 24km (130kbt). Opposing "Glory" German dreadnoughts could fire their 305mm guns at 20,4km (110kbt). What ours did. Ours with the help of minelayers and destroyers mined the approaches. Then LK "Slava" moved away from the border of the minefield by 115kbt (just a little beyond the limit of the artillery fire of the German draenotes). The whole thing took place in complete chaos of the revolutionary-minded crews, ready to scatter at any moment (the crews from the coastal batteries had already scattered). The Germans launched an attack, but they could not get close to the Slava within the range of actual fire because of the minefields. As a result, the fascists on the "König" and "Crown Prince Wilhelm" (new generation dreadnoughts), as well as minesweepers, had to sweep the fairway under the fire of "Glory". As a result, "Slava" sunk one German minesweeper, damaged one minesweeper and shot down one German plane. After the Nazis did blast through the passage, the German dreadnoughts were able to get close to the "Slava" at a distance of 80-90kbt and pi * dec began. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the glory's nose gun mount broke down and against 20 305mm guns of the German dreadnoughts, only 2 305mm guns of the "Slava" remained. The result of a very fleeting battle - the exchange of hits 7 against 1 in favor of the Germans. "Slava" sat down with his nose due to the fact that some forgot to close the watertight bulkhead (and this is on the alert!). In addition, his optics and bridges were completely flooded with huge fountains of water from close hits of 405,5 kg of shells. And what is most sad, because of the increased precipitation, Slava could no longer pass back through the shallow water. For the revolutionary-alarmist-minded dudes who were sitting in "Slava" (it's hard to call it a crew), this turned out to be too much and they preferred to leave "Slava" and ran to take the winter one. "Glory" was finally blown up by torpedoes and explosive charges.
          This is how the history of the last ship of the famous Borodino line ended. By the way, despite 7 hits with 405,5kg suitcases (4 of which fell below the armor belt), none of the Slava crew members was killed (according to other sources, one was killed). Which once again confirms the simply tank level of protection of this Tsushima monster.
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 3 August 2013 04: 53
        0
        The "sowing" had no problems with the fixing of the plates. The dovetail was the best, albeit very difficult, type of armor plate attachment.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 21: 01
    +1
    Quote: nnz226
    Even when the Baltic Fleet went to defend the revolution in Moonsund, the old "Glory" had to be deployed against the battleships of the High Seas Fleet of Germany (since, even though she was normally armored)


    By the time of Moodzund, the Baltic Fleet, as an organized force ceased to exist, the sailors liked to arrange rallies, unarmed officers to shoot and rob, rather than defend their homeland.
  • washi
    washi 1 August 2013 15: 39
    -4
    Is Queen Elizabeth a battleship?
    I thought it was a cargo box.
    1. fon_Shpee
      fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 15: 45
      0
      there is one)
      this name is a few ships and ships wore.
    2. Santa Fe
      1 August 2013 16: 36
      +5
      Quote: Vasya
      Is Queen Elizabeth a battleship?

      series of 4 ships

      went through two world wars, one of the most effective and successful superdreadnaughts
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 2 August 2013 20: 03
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Vasya
        Is Queen Elizabeth a battleship?

        series of 4 ships

        went through two world wars, one of the most effective and successful superdreadnaughts

        When acting against coastal fortifications.
        How many trunks of the main caliber each of them shot in his life?
        And how many trunks did the 13th battery shoot at the Malakhov Kurgan?
        Whose trunks are more successful?
  • vyatom
    vyatom 1 August 2013 17: 04
    +1
    Leonid Sobolev's "Overhaul" very eloquently describes the situation with the Russian fleet on the eve of the First World War. And the most interesting thing is that the analogies with the present time are very clearly visible. This is for those who consider the production of shny tugs and corvettes as a "revival of the fleet".
    1. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 1 August 2013 19: 42
      -2
      Do you want him to glorify the tsarist regimes under Soviet rule? laughing
  • vjhbc
    vjhbc 1 August 2013 19: 41
    +2
    try to read the article several times and then think about it before writing the article not about the size of the penny but about the health of the body to which they belong
    Quote: fon_Shpee
    and the author is aware that Ishmael is a battle cruiser, and Fuso and Queen Elizabeth are battleships, and that it is inappropriate to compare their booking, to put it mildly?
    1. fon_Shpee
      fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 20: 08
      0
      Well then, you need to write about health, not genitals to consider.

      And then - above I already wrote a similar comment, I answered it. So kindly, if you read the beginning, read the end so as not to repeat
  • Massik
    Massik 1 August 2013 22: 32
    0
    So the armor of the battleship should be much more powerful than the armor of the cruiser, but it turned out the other way around ...
  • Apostle
    Apostle 2 August 2013 14: 43
    -1
    Why the USSR did not build a single battleship, everything is simple ... The USSR simply built the best submarines in the world over which Western designers who were called upon to destroy these battleships are still racking their brains, and coped with this task perfectly ... So why to build meaningless things (and very expensive ones), if it is possible to build a much more effective means of struggle and suppression?
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 21: 07
      0
      Quote: Apostle
      So why build meaningless things (and very expensive ones) if you can build a much more effective means of struggle and suppression?


      Yeah - that's why the Soviet Union laid the series of the Sovetsky Soyuz aircraft, which could compete in performance with the largest aircraft in the history of the fleet - Yamato. And even during the Second World War, the USSR did not stop working on the construction of its battleships.
  • Ulan
    Ulan 2 August 2013 18: 40
    +2
    I also wanted to note that "Izmail" was a completely modern and very strong battle cruiser, not inferior, and in some way superior to modern battle cruisers, including Japanese, English and German.
    But the author is right that battleships of the "Petropavlovsk" type cannot be considered successful.
    Except for some points. For example, the housing design developed by Bubnov.
    The 305-mm main-caliber guns were quite perfect, although for that time it was clearly not enough caliber.
    The booking system on the unfinished Black Sea battleship Nikolai the First was very successful and original. There the armor plates were joined by a dovetail joint, which turned the armor belt into a solid shell.
    But in general, "Petropavlovsk" was called by contemporaries "the project of the frightened." This is exactly what the author writes about: the desire to cover as much of the side as possible with armor, to have the highest possible speed, etc.
    As a result, the armored belt smeared all over the side turned out to be too thin for the battleship, and the cruising range was insufficient even for the Baltic.
    However, looking at the Izmail project, I think that Russian shipbuilders would have coped with childhood illnesses and created modern battleships.
    There seemed to be a book "The Last Giants of the Empire" (I think it was called that) which told about the promising projects of Russian battleships, already with 406-mm, main caliber guns.
    Later, just such weapons were created for the "Soviet Union".
    Well, corruption in the Russian Empire ... so our shipbuilders had no relation to it, they did their job and their school subsequently in Soviet times allowed the creation of the masterpieces of military shipbuilding about which the author speaks.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 2 August 2013 21: 08
      -1
      Quote: Ulan
      Well, corruption in the Russian Empire ... so our shipbuilders had no relation to it, they did their job and their school subsequently in Soviet times allowed the creation of the masterpieces of military shipbuilding about which the author speaks.


      You know, in RI the level of corruption was no higher than in France. And significantly lower than now in the Russian Federation.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 3 August 2013 05: 08
        +1
        No, our grand dukes cannot be compared. Although, they are trying very hard, I must say :).
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 3 August 2013 12: 26
        +1
        I don’t think lower. Then, only high-ranking officials and grand dukes stole heavily. The rest took trifles.
        And today, a lousy district official often has a mansion abroad.
        My opinion is that there has never been such a level of corruption as today in our country.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 3 August 2013 20: 28
          +1
          Quote: Ulan
          And today, a lousy district official often has a mansion abroad. My opinion is that there has never been such a level of corruption as in our country today.


          Well, at the expense of the first - it depends on which region :)
  • yehat
    yehat 24 August 2018 14: 31
    0
    it's not about type. Ishmael was created for the shallow waters of the Gulf of Finland.
    armor is sediment. And because of the limitations of the armor draft, not much was laid down in the project,
    at the same time, artillery weapons were even redundant at that time. Izmail’s guns, even by WW2 standards, were modern and relevant.
    in fact, the concept of such a ship is very doubtful.
    along the way, miscalculations were made — flail armor had a poor fastening system and, if hit, even if it didn’t break through, it crashed in and diverged, which was not good either.
  • ben gun
    ben gun 1 August 2013 09: 09
    10
    Great article! Thank you Oleg! I doubt very much that this couple and their accomplices will drive away somewhere. Of course, subject to the preservation and continuation of the current course.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 1 August 2013 10: 23
      10
      Quote: Oleg Kaptsov
      The USSR Navy never hesitated to use foreign technology when it came to trophy ships.

      German submarines of the XVIII series, submarines of the XXIII series own the last victory of the German fleet in the Second World War. On May 7, 1945, at the entrance to the Firth of Forth Bay, U-2336 sank two ships in one gulp - the Norwegian Sneland I and the British Avondale Park. In the division of the German fleet, U-2353 became a share of the USSR, where it received the designation N- 31. had a strong impact on our 613 series.
  • kotdavin4i
    kotdavin4i 1 August 2013 09: 09
    +6
    Well, now after Serdyuk - there is still not enough second Tsushima!
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 1 August 2013 11: 05
      +4
      Quote: kotdavin4i
      Well, now after Serdyuk - there is still not enough second Tsushima!

      God forbid, this will be the third world ...
    2. Volkhov
      Volkhov 1 August 2013 14: 36
      +2
      Quote: kotdavin4i
      Well, now after Serdyuk - there is still not enough second Tsushima!

      Tsushima was recently, but Serdyukov was not there - there are other great commanders.
  • Slavogor
    Slavogor 1 August 2013 09: 12
    10 th
    Great comparison, thanks for the article. It’s not surprising, after all, the enemies of Russia in power are in power: Putin, that Medvedev is almost the same thing. Putin is a little better because the West has pinned him to the wall and does not allow him to realize what he acquired for soy (work) as president.
    1. Humen
      Humen 1 August 2013 09: 13
      10
      Why then does he raise an army and seek to raise industry? Something does not fit.
      1. sapsan14
        sapsan14 1 August 2013 10: 20
        25
        Good afternoon!
        He does not raise industry and the army. Rather, it prevents them from rapidly collapsing. Rapid destruction can wake people up. And here, something is being built, something is being done ... Everyone is happy.
        But in fact, at the moment, everything rests on individuals who are not indifferent to the fate of Russia (no matter how pathos it sounds). And unfortunately, among them there is neither the President of the Russian Federation, nor the Prime Minister, nor the majority of officials ...
        Again, ordinary Vanya draws on himself, who simply, without pretense, does his job: in the army, in the enterprise, on the ground ...
        That's Vanya
        raises the army and seeks to raise industry
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 1 August 2013 10: 30
          25
          Quote: sapsan14
          Again, ordinary Vanya draws on himself, who simply, without pretense, does his job: in the army, in the enterprise, on the ground ...


          To whom they will soon introduce a card system for tariffs, 70 kW for a snout have already decided on electricity, and more than that, at a double tariff, of course, those who have fur coats in the huts will not notice this, and Vanya will groan and will continue to pull the barge with the lord
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Santa Fe
            1 August 2013 11: 07
            17
            Quote: Vadivak
            Vanya groans and will continue to pull the barge with the master
          3. Starina_hank
            Starina_hank 1 August 2013 16: 56
            +5
            Vanya didn’t have much time to groan, women didn’t give birth, doctors treat him worse for money than under the Soviet regime, feed him that dogs and cats don’t eat! Vani and Mani will soon end, and they don’t need the current government. The authorities of this taxpayer are needed, and whoever will pay taxes, an Uzbek or a Chinese woman, deep down to the bulb, just to pay.
        2. alicante11
          alicante11 1 August 2013 13: 58
          +2
          Well, let's compare the state of the army in 90 now. I do not support GDP in domestic politics, but the strengthening of the army and a breakthrough in foreign policy is a face.
          1. Santa Fe
            1 August 2013 16: 32
            0
            Quote: alicante11
            Well, let's compare the state of the army in 90 now.

            1990 was much stronger

            There were no scientific companies, but the boats regularly fired and went to the Sargasso Sea. The Mir station flew, the REC operated in Lourdes (Cuba) and the base (PMTO) in Cam Ranh, for 10 years the fleet was replenished with the Peter the Great TARKROM and the Chabanenko BPK, 5 nuclear submarines, in 1993 the Severodvinsk was laid down (project "Ash" - not accepted into service until now), in 1996 laid the head "Borey (Yuri Dolgoruky)
            1. Rider
              Rider 1 August 2013 17: 22
              +5
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              1990 was much stronger


              Not certainly in that way.

              what you said can be attributed to Naal 90s (somewhere up to 93).
              when they were still mastering the Soviet backlog, then the Young Democrats seized power, declaring that Russia had no enemies.
              It is not for nothing that those times and the Moraeans and flyers are called the EASY era.
              when neither ships nor planes left the bases.
              the anecdote of those times -
              "The cadet pilot comes from the school to the combat unit, he is sent to receive personal weapons - and so this is what a MIG-29 you are, he says holding a PM in his hands."

              Well, the 1st Chechen is superimposed.
              judging by the funds allocated to it, it was not ours, but the American army, who fought with spirits.
            2. alicante11
              alicante11 2 August 2013 09: 41
              +3
              SWEET_SIXTEEN (1)

              Yes, you sho? Is it the first Chechen? In the 90-ies, the army was in principle not combat-ready. I hope that even you understand that in order to maintain the combat effectiveness of aviation, flights and firing are needed, for which diesel fuel and infantry are needed with targets, to maintain the combat effectiveness of tanks and infantry, exercises are needed for which diesel fuel and petrol and infantry are also needed, well etc. That's why it wasn’t just then - it’s 100 percent. The Soviet groundwork simply persisted and gradually became obsolete.

              There were no scientific companies, but the boats regularly fired and sailed into the Sargasso Sea.


              And what are scientific companies guilty of before you? There are no results of their work yet, have you already written them off? Yes, you sharazhki remember how the craftsmen worked there. Maybe we will come to this after scientific mouth :).
              At the expense of hiking submarines. Submarine combat alertness continued, so the Strategic Missile Forces need. And the surface fleet rusted in raids.

              The station "Mir" flew,


              The coolest military machine in the world :).

              operated REC in Lourdes (Cuba) and base (PMTO) in Kamrani


              The RECs were closed in vain, and what kind of money needed to be spent on the maintenance of the PMTO in Kamrani, if the ships are at the bases, I’m not on the chicken. It was easier to fix the contract and preserve.

              over 10 years, the fleet was replenished with the Peter the Great TARKROM and the Chabanenko BPK, 5 nuclear submarines, in 1993 the Severodvinsk was laid down (the Yasen project has not yet been commissioned), in 1996 the head Borey (Yuri Dolgoruky)


              Can you remind me, please, what years were the bookmarks and the main construction time of the ships you mentioned? For some reason it seems to me that these are the affairs of bygone "soviet" days. And how many boats have already been laid down for Borey alone?

              No need to wash Ebonya, you can’t wash a black dog to white. The GDP has enough real stockpiles to hang on your stupidities.
        3. Humen
          Humen 1 August 2013 14: 24
          +1
          If he had not lifted, then nothing would have been built. Under Yeltsin, everyone was falling apart and did not build anything, and somehow no one was afraid. And then suddenly they were afraid? Why's that?
        4. Rider
          Rider 1 August 2013 14: 32
          -2
          Quote: sapsan14
          He does not raise industry and the army. Rather, it prevents them from rapidly collapsing.


          here is your untruth.
          does not allow them to collapse rapidly, this is in Ukraine, where planes are not built, but removed from conservation, repaired and put into operation.
          also in tanks, 10 Strongholds were purchased, the rest is upgraded to Bulatov.

          undoubtedly, a lot of dubious actions have been done (the same stooltkin), but the situation cannot be equated with "maintaining the status quo"

          the same "maintaining the pace of collapse" cannot explain the commissioning of ships and new regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces
        5. Mestny
          Mestny 1 August 2013 17: 33
          +1
          I burn with impatience - who are these individuals who are not indifferent? Surnames!
          Really ... really ... for example Nemtsov?
      2. alone
        alone 1 August 2013 10: 26
        0
        what do you want? so that he quickly ruins everything?)))
    2. biglow
      biglow 1 August 2013 11: 37
      +7
      Quote: Slavogor
      Great comparison, thanks for the article. It’s not surprising, after all, the enemies of Russia in power are in power: Putin, that Medvedev is almost the same thing. Putin is a little better because the West has pinned him to the wall and does not allow him to realize what he acquired for soy (work) as president.

      Putin does not need to be driven, he does what he can and even more. Although he could surrender Russia like a hunchback and live in the west in luxury and honor ...
      1. biglow
        biglow 1 August 2013 12: 39
        +2
        Quote: biglow
        Quote: Slavogor
        Great comparison, thanks for the article. It’s not surprising, after all, the enemies of Russia in power are in power: Putin, that Medvedev is almost the same thing. Putin is a little better because the West has pinned him to the wall and does not allow him to realize what he acquired for soy (work) as president.

        Putin does not need to be driven, he does what he can and even more. Although he could surrender Russia like a hunchback and live in the west in luxury and honor ...

        where are the minusers? what don't you like?
      2. Starina_hank
        Starina_hank 1 August 2013 17: 03
        -3
        Well, it’s not yet evening, they will announce an honorary person of peace and so on ....
      3. Crang
        Crang 2 August 2013 20: 49
        +2
        Of course he does what he can. That soon the Russian people will all die out, and the rest will become slaves among the Kazakhs and Arabs. And then the fleet will not be needed. Defend the borders of the homeland? The enemy has already captured her insides.
    3. arnulla
      arnulla 1 August 2013 15: 55
      +4
      Quote: Slavogor
      Great comparison, thanks for the article. It’s not surprising, after all, the enemies of Russia in power are in power: Putin, that Medvedev is almost the same thing. Putin is a little better because the West has pinned him to the wall and does not allow him to realize what he acquired for soy (work) as president.

      An article about pre-revolutionary ships, and your "Putin" is scratching))) Maybe try not to scratch, maybe it will feel better?)))
  • ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 1 August 2013 09: 15
    40
    Yes, the Communists bought machines and technologies, and as soon as the liberals came to our factory, they sold all unique machines to China together with titanium and copper .....
    Joseph Vissarionovich where are you, how long can you wait ???????
    1. arnulla
      arnulla 1 August 2013 20: 11
      +3
      Quote: ziqzaq
      Yes, the Communists bought machines and technologies, and as soon as the liberals came to our factory, they sold all unique machines to China together with titanium and copper .....
      Joseph Vissarionovich where are you, how long can you wait ???????

      It’s clear, of course, that conditional Stalin wouldn’t hurt. But, hand on heart, admit to yourself this is unrealistic. And it’s impossible, the times are different. As in our country, so in the world. Therefore, somehow without Stalin we must learn Although, when you see some faces or hear some speeches, I confess that I want Stalin. So that all this fraternity will go to build the second stage of the BAM ...
  • xoma58
    xoma58 1 August 2013 09: 16
    16
    Correct article, plus to the author. And these vile criminal faces at the end of the article are very appropriate, indeed deja vu.
  • scorpido
    scorpido 1 August 2013 09: 18
    +9
    Gorgeous, especially the ending !!!
  • altman
    altman 1 August 2013 09: 22
    +1
    well ... we usually step on the same rake .. if history moves in a spiral, we must wait for a strong dictator, oh .. ruler .. reprisals .. and the revival of Russia
  • smsk
    smsk 1 August 2013 09: 25
    +4
    Yes, indeed, deja vu, but this time Serdyukovs will not be so easily let go, they are kept in reserve. When needed, they will certainly be asked.
    1. vadimN
      vadimN 1 August 2013 11: 04
      +6
      Quote: smsk
      When needed, they will certainly be asked.


      This is the trouble with Russia - they ask "when it is needed", and not when he was fined ... Everywhere there are games bypassing the interests of the country and people.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 1 August 2013 11: 25
        +8
        Quote: vadimN
        This is the trouble with Russia - they ask "when needed"


        Definitely. Demand must be constant and not selective.
        1. mamba
          mamba 1 August 2013 12: 40
          +5
          Quote: Vadivak
          Demand must be constant and not selective.

          Quite right. So that "effective managers" are not covered from above by the Kremlin godfathers. So that the showdown with them begins not from the moment when they become objectionable, but after the very first fact of theft or incompetence.
  • valokordin
    valokordin 1 August 2013 09: 33
    10
    Quote: Humen
    why then does he raise an army and seek to raise industry? Something does not fit.

    And you saw what industry oh raised, and you saw 25 million new jobs, i.e. 4 million a year, and you saw the falling rockets planted by ministers. Vladimir Vladimirovich does everything for the oligarchs and allocates money for the army to protect their interests. And the allocated money is deposited in the pockets of the bourgeoisie of the military-industrial complex. No development is to blame The crisis, Only he and Medvedev are not.
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 1 August 2013 09: 50
      +3
      for example, for industry in the Russian Federation:
      http://www.sdelanounas.ru/
      ive from yet. many sides, figures. "Putin: an agent of influence or a comprador? Part 1."
      http://malchish.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=296&Itemid=35
      1. vadimN
        vadimN 1 August 2013 11: 53
        +6
        Great site "Made by us"! http://www.sdelanounas.ru/

        It seems to be the fact that we can do something ... However, you start to read carefully and see:

        "OJSC" Petrozavodskmash "(part of the machine-building division of Rosatom - Atomenergomash) has launched a robotic welding center Pema (Finland) for automatic submerged arc welding. "

        .. and so on in almost every post telling about Russia's "successes" in industry. In fact, this is only the use of other people's technologies and equipment. But a country can be economically and politically sovereign only if it itself is able to develop and develop technologies and build equipment for this. In the meantime, we can only be "proud" of the wonderful "Russian" cars "Nissan" (St. Petersburg), "Ford" (St. Petersburg), VW (Kaluga) ...
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 1 August 2013 13: 05
          +4
          Quote: vadimN
          "OJSC Petrozavodskmash (part of the machine-building division of Rosatom - Atomenergomash) has put into operation a robotic welding center Pema (Finland) for automatic submerged-arc welding."

          I think that it’s better that they launch the Finnish machine in order to build nuclear power plants, than they will grind crowbars on our machines of the 56th year. And when did we overtake the planet in terms of high-tech industrial machines?
          1. anip
            anip 2 August 2013 07: 38
            0
            Quote: Vladimirets
            And when did we overtake the planet in terms of high-tech industrial machines?

            In fact, the USSR also sold machine tools with CNC in the highly developed countries of the West (in Germany, for sure). Exports of industrial equipment in the share of exports of the USSR amounted to 18-20%.
        2. Rider
          Rider 1 August 2013 14: 46
          +4
          Quote: vadimN
          However, you start to read carefully and see:


          and really if you start read carefully , then you will find out that ALMOST ALL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING of the 30s was built on German and American machines.

          as I understand it, in your opinion, this is bad.
          Of course it was necessary to wait until the mid-50s and rivet the T-34 on domestic machines.
          (I wonder what Hitler would say to this?)
          1. anip
            anip 2 August 2013 07: 40
            0
            Quote: Rider
            and indeed, if you start to read carefully, you will find out that ALMOST ALL ENGINEERING of the 30s was built on German and American machines.

            And what is bad? It was necessary to raise the country - the war was scrambling, and everyone understood that. Then they did their own on the purchased machines, now, everywhere, spit everywhere.
        3. arnulla
          arnulla 1 August 2013 16: 05
          +2
          AND? What did you want to say something? What is shameful to upgrade enterprises with foreign equipment? And if at the moment there is no equivalent Russian? Wait until they develop it? Or is it about to start launching such welding centers in production?))) All over the world, some do one thing, others specialize in another, others deliver something else. If you don’t have your own modern machines, wait until they appear. Take the best that is at the moment.
          1. Starina_hank
            Starina_hank 1 August 2013 17: 10
            0
            Best of all, we specialize in oil and gas pipe! Everything else can not be expected at present. Yes, I forgot, under the strict guidance of Toli Churbais into the nanofuture, nanoscale!
    2. vadimN
      vadimN 1 August 2013 11: 10
      17
      Only the industry is being raised, designed to pump out resources and transport them abroad ..., roughly speaking - a "pipe".
      Russia, headed by Putin, successfully fulfills the role of a resource supplier intended for it by the world oligarchy.
      And Putin is the guarantor!
      But not the constitution, but the stability of this "pipe".
      But not to the people, but to the "financial international".
      For the sake of the stability of the pipe, stability is maintained in the country, because everyone understands that an explosion of popular indignation will lead to a new round of isolation of the country, chaos and a new revolution. Bilderberg's "minds" understand this very well, and therefore they allow Russia to get stronger and ostentatiously "develop" in order to avoid a social explosion.
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 1 August 2013 09: 35
    10
    Great article (albeit with small inaccuracies, in the form of an incorrect comparison, wrote above Fon_Shpee)! By the way, I’m ashamed to admit ... I didn’t know that everything was so bad with shipbuilding in Tsarist Russia ..
    The comparison in the epilogue is strikingly similar ((
    1. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 1 August 2013 17: 27
      0
      Yes, the author wrote nonsense! Everything was cleverly distorted, a complete half-truth with false conclusions. In shipbuilding, a system of open tenders for ship designs in which domestic and foreign companies participated was created and after consideration of the projects, time was given to eliminate comments and make changes taking into account the wishes of the customer. After the approval of the project, the order was sent to the plants on a competitive basis, taking into account the price and terms of construction. The construction of the ship was watched by a ship engineer, who usually became a ship mechanic. This applies to foreign factories! And nobody even thought of giving kickbacks to him; the honor was much more expensive!
  • Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 1 August 2013 09: 48
    +2
    comments are unnecessary. Bravo, kaptsov! stormy, non-stop applause, turning into a standing ovation!
  • vlbelugin
    vlbelugin 1 August 2013 10: 04
    +6
    The article is a big plus. There is nothing to add. Russia "could" only under Soviet rule.
    In 1992, Russia quickly rushed back to the year 1917. Everything that was in tsarist Russia was "restored". First of all, corruption.
    Speaking of corruption. Yesterday I redid my job responsibilities. A clause was being added about my responsibility, a programmer, for corruption. Another round of the "fight" against corruption. Nonsense however. Interestingly, the high-ranking bureaucrats also redo their duties?
  • abuyanovus
    abuyanovus 1 August 2013 10: 06
    12
    It cannot be said that everything in the Russian Empire was so depressing with the fleet. All the more so with the backwardness of its industry. What is listed directly refers to the period of the reign of Nicholas II, when some of his relatives were completely uncontrollable and untouchable to the point that they thrust their little hands into the military or into the Russian budget as a whole without fear. It is a fact. But before that, even under his father, the picture was somewhat different, and the ships were built by themselves despite the "weak industry", by the way, not bad ships for their time, the Crimean war taught a lot ... and a lot of other things. It's just that when the supreme ruler is a rag who can't even avenge his father's death, then the country, pardon the expression, is in the ass. And any approximate trash goes wild beyond measure. This is also a fact repeatedly proven by history. Thanks for the interesting article.
    1. Santa Fe
      1 August 2013 10: 37
      +4
      Quote: abuyanovus
      We can’t say that everything in the Russian Empire was so depressing with the fleet. Especially with the backwardness of its industry. What is listed relates directly to the reign of Nicholas II

      The article indicates the boundary of the XIX-beginning of XX centuries.

      The problems began already in the middle of the XIX century - Russia desperately did not want to modernize, preferring to flog slaves at the stable. The result was three consecutively lost wars - Crimean (1853-1856), Russo-Japanese and World War I
      1. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 1 August 2013 11: 13
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The problems began already by the middle of the XNUMXth century - Russia was desperate not to modernize, preferring to flog slaves at the stable

        I agree with this.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The result was three consecutively lost wars - Crimean (1853-1856), Russo-Japanese and World War I

        And here there is an inaccuracy - between the Crimean and the Russian Olympic Games there is also the Russian-Turkish one, in which the Republic of Ingushetia, at the very least, won.
        1. Santa Fe
          1 August 2013 11: 21
          +1
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          there is still the Russian-Turkish, in which RI, at the very least, but won.

          Naturally, the Ottoman Empire was suffocating from its own mess, backwardness and corruption
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 1 August 2013 12: 27
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Naturally, the Ottoman Empire was suffocating from its own mess, backwardness and corruption

            Not without this, but as an weapon, it often surpassed RI.
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 1 August 2013 14: 21
        +2
        What nonsense? In what way did the Russian fleets lose to the allied ones, as in coma in number? Unless we didn’t have French freaks towed like "Lev" and "Tonnant", and what a shit with them. They are not that effective. They didn’t poke their attention to Sevastopol, they limited themselves to Kinburn. And the fact that the allies at the World Cup had as many as three steam battleships, only one of which was able to walk normally and steer under steam is a trick. It's just that if you are attacked by two of the most powerful fighters in your yard, who are individually stronger than you, and even a couple of deadheads join, you will be no matter what kind of "kungfu" or nunchucks you have in your hands.
        Calculate how many total armadillos and armored cruisers Russia had in the Black Sea Fleet and in the BF and compare with foreigners. We will not be the last.
        Yes, there were also serious problems with the KRL, because the "culture" produced by MKU was lame and very much "dabbled" with the scales, although the same Mikasa was "outweighed" by the Angles by 600 tons. Compare if "Goddess" with "Askold", by the way, "Varyag", as a disabled person from childhood, would be better not mentioned. And the best example is "Novik-2" with 36-37 knots on the German ISU, and "Novik" on the domestic ISU - 32-34.
        And so, up to Nika # 2, over the hill they were building exactly what KRL, for example, "Adm. Kornilov" or "Bully", although our "Riders" were no worse than the last one, and "Rynda" were not bad next to "Kornilov". However, the construction of "Caesar" and "Retvizan" over the hill is rather an exception to the rule. All other houses were under construction. Well, the ISU for some ships - for example, for the Poltava or Navarin. Since the technology was bought. They thought they would learn.
        Well, the epic with Russian dreadnoughts is, of course, the pitchforks are full. It seems that Tsushima hooked everyone in the Russian Navy. If, after the Glory was surrendered, before 1908, on the stocks only 2 of the underdirected hanged with constant upgrades. If it weren’t for this hang, even with such deadlines, the buildings could have a couple of episodes instead of one with error correction.
        1. Starina_hank
          Starina_hank 1 August 2013 18: 32
          0
          So after the Glory, the question arose: to build obsolete ships or build new projects which are not there yet!
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 2 August 2013 09: 43
            0
            And what, it was decided during the 3 years? Well dumb-s-e :).
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 1 August 2013 10: 14
    +2
    inaccuracies or inappropriate comparisons are at the beginning of the article, and I agree, certain analogies can be traced, wild theft, then and now
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 1 August 2013 10: 15
    17
    Oleg, how not ashamed! You deliberately mislead people! In your opinion, it seems that almost the entire fleet of Russia is of foreign production. You forgot to indicate that almost the entire armored fleet was built in Russia, and due to the fact that the naval ambitions of the Admiralty exceeded the capabilities of industry (in the number of shipyards), some ships were built abroad, but their share is incomparably smaller than what they built themselves. Also, you did not indicate that after the Russo-Japanese war the number of ships built at foreign shipyards decreased. Battleships of the type Sevastopol and Empress Maria, cruisers of the type Borodino and Svetlana were built exclusively at Russian shipyards, destroyers were built partially at foreign shipyards due to the fact that domestic shipyards could not cope, submarines were almost all built in Russia, out of 55 only 7 were of foreign manufacture. For a short period from 1907 to 1917 Russia has completely renewed its fleet. The USSR has never reached such a pace.
    PS: the USSR ocean fleet described by you was built AFTER Stalin.
    1. Santa Fe
      1 August 2013 10: 55
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      In your opinion, it seems that almost the entire fleet of Russia is of foreign production.

      I specifically specified:

      The situation in which half of the domestic fleet was built at foreign shipyards clearly indicated the tough problems in the Russian Empire
      Quote: Nayhas
      destroyers were built in part at foreign shipyards due to the fact that domestic shipyards could not cope

      )))
      Quote: Nayhas
      Battleships such as Sevastopol and Empress Maria

      Everything has been said about them
      Quote: Nayhas
      For a short period from 1907 to 1917. Russia has completely renewed its fleet. The USSR has never reached such a pace.

      Read about the domestic shipbuilding of 1950-60's. be surprised
      Quote: Nayhas
      PS: the USSR ocean fleet described by you was built AFTER Stalin.

      Did I mention the name of Stalin anywhere?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 1 August 2013 11: 34
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I specifically specified:

        The situation in which half of the domestic fleet was built at foreign shipyards clearly indicated the tough problems in the Russian Empire

        For what period of its existence? At the end of the 19th century, but after 1905, everything changed in the Russian Empire and the construction of the fleet is one of the signs of this. This did not require "mass executions" and the organization of "sharashek", i.e. there were no repressive measures.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Read about the domestic shipbuilding of 1950-60's. be surprised

        I read that the pace was high, but the technical level has changed dramatically.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Did I mention the name of Stalin anywhere?

        Not mentioned, but the meaning of your article "Why the USSR did not build a single battleship" as a response to the demotivator Russia was building battleships without the Gulag and collectivization. And the GULAG and collectivization are inextricably linked with Stalin. The fleet that "threw the whole world into awe" was built after the Stalin era.
    2. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 1 August 2013 11: 18
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      the USSR ocean fleet described by you was built AFTER Stalin.

      And Joseph Vissarionovich had more pressing problems - the country was in ruins after the war, the civil industry left miserable sloppies, the economy in a deep jo ... uh-uh ... pit, enemies in Europe, enemies in Asia, enemies in Transcaucasia + another 100500 problems. But even so, the fleet was actively developing.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 1 August 2013 11: 47
        +4
        Under Stalin, the navy was in a deep ass both before the war and after. This is relative to other military branches of course. Here again, it should be understood that there is development. The evolution of tank building in the USSR is a good example of development, the USSR set the trend as they say now, but there were no breakthroughs with regards to the fleet, only the use of foreign experience and captured brains.
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 1 August 2013 17: 21
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          Under Stalin, the navy was in a deep ass both before the war and after. This is relative to other military branches of course.

          That's it, the keyword is relative.
          Quote: Nayhas
          The evolution of tank building in the USSR is a good example of development, the USSR set the trend as they say now

          belay Come on? Riveting British and American designs, recognized as unpromising in their homeland, until the 1940s - did this "set the trend"?
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 1 August 2013 18: 45
            +2
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            British and American designs, recognized as unpromising in their homeland, until the 1940s - did this "set the trend"?

            In world tank building, one can clearly see how, after familiarizing themselves with the design of the T-34 and KV, countries such as Germany and the USA began to make tanks looking around at them. In German tanks, starting from T-1 to T-4, identity is clearly visible, subsequent tanks differed from them. In the USA, the frank M-2, M-3 and M-4 also did not have a logical continuation, and the subsequent M-26 had a design similar to Soviet tanks. Subsequently, considerable attention was paid to Soviet tank construction. What can not be said about the Navy. This is relative to the period until 1953.
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 1 August 2013 20: 04
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              In world tank building, one can clearly see how, after familiarizing themselves with the design of the T-34 and KV, countries such as Germany and the USA began to make tanks looking around at them.

              The only thing that the "western" school of tank building spied on us was strengthening the protection due to the rational inclination of the armor plates. It's all.
              Quote: Nayhas
              What can not be said about the Navy. This is relative to the period until 1953.

              And what could the Soviet shipbuilding school give? Never mind. She did not remain after the revolution. We had to study again. And nothing learned. The Italians, the Germans.
              And the tasks of the USSR Navy before the WWII were purely coastal — the defense of bases, mine positions, covering the NE from the sea, and based on these tasks the fleet of the Country of Soviets was built. Of course, there were plans for a large ocean fleet, but there were no free resources. So to speak, desires did not coincide with opportunities. And living within our means meant knowingly for some time to abandon the ocean fleet, tanks and steam locomotives were more needed.
              1. Kars
                Kars 1 August 2013 20: 42
                +1
                Quote: Rakti-Kali
                the western "school of tank building has spied on us - strengthening the protection due to the rational inclination of the armor plates. That's all

                Really? I always thought that the French tanks were the first to receive inclined anti-snow reservation
                1. Rakti-kali
                  Rakti-kali 2 August 2013 09: 59
                  -1
                  Quote: Kars
                  Really? I always thought that the French tanks were the first to receive inclined anti-snow reservation

                  I still remember for Mgebrov’s armored car. This is the first.
                  And secondly, the FSM-36 and the angles were not very rational, and only 100 of them were spent. In general, it is much more interesting in that it is one of the first tanks with a diesel engine, which reached the series (albeit small one).
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 2 August 2013 11: 47
                    +1
                    Quote: Rakti-Kali
                    I still remember for Mgebrov’s armored car

                    Was it a projectile reservation?
                    Quote: Rakti-Kali
                    And secondly, the FSM-36 and the angles were not very rational, and they only spent 100

                    Well, green grapes. S-35 does not suit you? Or AN-39?
                    1. Rakti-kali
                      Rakti-kali 2 August 2013 13: 18
                      -1
                      Quote: Kars
                      Was it a projectile reservation?

                      The angles of his armor were not optimal? And in general, where did I write about the anti-ballistic gear? Or did your imagination run wild?
                      Quote: Kars
                      Well, green grapes. S-35 does not suit you? Or AN-39?

                      Yes ... really "green grapes" - do not use it anymore, otherwise remember about D1 or B1. Although I am ready to hear your evidence about the optimal angles of inclination of the armor protection of the tanks you mentioned.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 2 August 2013 14: 01
                        +1
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        And in general, where did I write about the anti-ballistic gear?

                        Then what are you writing about?
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Yes ... really "grapes are green" - do not use any more

                        Yes, you are a specialist in armored vehicles.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Your evidence of the optimal angles of inclination of the armor protection of the tanks you mentioned.

                        Define the optimal angle of inclination.
                      2. Rakti-kali
                        Rakti-kali 2 August 2013 14: 52
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Then what are you writing about?

                        Are you having difficulty reading or thinking today? What words do you not understand - "rational", "angle", "slope", "armor protection"? Believe me lexical dictionaries and dictionaries of terms are freely available on the Internet.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Yes, you are a specialist in armored vehicles.

                        Thanks for the compliment.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Define the optimal angle of inclination.

                        Do you want srach.a? Do not wait. And engage in self-education.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 2 August 2013 15: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Don't you understand - "rational", "angle", "tilt", "armor protection"?

                        Yes, it’s not clear what does it have to do with spying on the Soviet armored school?
                        The tilt angle has been known for a very long time.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Thanks for the compliment.

                        And you do not understand sarcasm.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Do you want srach.a? Do not wait. And engage in self-education.

                        So you can’t bring it clearly. I’m especially interested in what angle is optimal for tilting the armor

                        Therefore, I repeat once again the French were the first to place anti-shell armor at an angle. They also found themselves in the lead in the use of cast armor.
  • Starina_hank
    Starina_hank 1 August 2013 18: 36
    0
    However, not only the fleet developed!
  • alicante11
    alicante11 1 August 2013 14: 32
    0
    You forgot to indicate that almost the entire armored fleet was built in Russia, and due to the fact that the naval ambitions of the Admiralty exceeded the capabilities of industry (in the number of shipyards), some ships were built abroad, but their share is incomparably less than what they built themselves.


    These were not ambitions, but the "guard" "kill macaques." "Caesar" and "Retvizan" were built according to the program "For the needs of the Far East" from 1895, which was created on top of the program from 1882 due to the threat from the growing Japan. It is clear that, since there were no plans for this program, there was nowhere to build. So they decided to give part of the orders "over the hill", and part of it was postponed in time - the 82nd program was a 20-year program, but it was built at its own shipyards. If my memory serves me right, then Peresvet, Oslyabya, Borodino, Suvorov and Oryol were built according to the 82nd program. And on the 95th Victory, Alexander-3 and Glory. It would be better if all orders for the 95th program were sent abroad. Then they would have time to concentrate sufficient forces on the Far East. And so - they economized, and apart from Victory, no one in the theater of operations had time to the start of the swing, and Slava, and in general, did not have time to go to war.

    PS: the USSR ocean fleet described by you was built AFTER Stalin.


    Well - war. They were preparing for her, darling. Unlike the king-father, who preferred to play boats.
  • anip
    anip 2 August 2013 07: 42
    0
    Quote: Nayhas
    PS: the USSR ocean fleet described by you was built AFTER Stalin.

    The article does not say about Stalin, but about the USSR.
  • alone
    alone 1 August 2013 10: 30
    +2
    According to the author, it turns out that in Russia and in the USSR they did not make warships? it is not clear, but who built a powerful fleet tada? people in the shipyards in three shifts worked to fulfill the state order on time. ugly ugly, ugly!
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 1 August 2013 17: 31
      +2
      Quote: lonely
      in Russia and the USSR did not make warships? it is not clear, but who built a powerful fleet tada?

      A powerful fleet was built after the war, and there weren’t so many ships — in the Far East and North there were only destroyers with submarines, in the Baltic, 2k ancient and 2kr with 22 destroyers — there the ships were practically inactive, besides the Tallinn Flight and participating in the defense of Leningrad
      At the World Cup, 1 ancient lux and 5 light cr with two dozen destroyers, well, the Germans didn’t have that, but there was strong aviation
  • pinecone
    pinecone 1 August 2013 10: 32
    +6
    In the Russian Empire in the late XIX - early XX centuries: domestic industry was in deep decline and stagnation.

    This statement is fundamentally wrong, since the very concept of "decline" implies a decline in the level of what has been achieved earlier. It is known that at the beginning of the last century, Russian industry was not in a "deep decline", but entered a period of growth in all sectors, including the defense industry, as evidenced by, in particular, the construction of new battleships in the shortest possible time at the shipyards of St. Petersburg and Nikolaev.
    Note. Squadron battleships of the Borodino series were built in Russia.
    1. Kars
      Kars 1 August 2013 10: 45
      +4
      Quote: pinecone
      in particular, the construction of new battleships in the shortest possible time at the shipyards of St. Petersburg and Nikolaev.

      In England, the Dreadnought was built in a year (with tricks of course) And then they were built in numerous series.
      Quote: pinecone
      achieved earlier. It is known that at the beginning of the last century, Russian industry was not in a "deep decline", but entered a period of growth in all sectors, including

      You are probably right - decline, when it used to be good. But in the Russian Empire it was not very good, so any improvement can be considered growth. But this will not cancel backwardness, as the shell shortage of the First World War, low density of railway networks proved ( even in the European part) a small amount of rolling stock (and the First World War was a railway blitzkrieg)
      And for the new battleships, guns and vehicles were brought from abroad.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 1 August 2013 13: 10
        -1
        Quote: Kars
        And then they were built in numerous series.

        And how many series is this?
        1. Kars
          Kars 1 August 2013 16: 16
          +2
          Quote: Vladimirets
          And how many series is this?

          http://ship.bsu.by/ship/100261
      2. AntonR7
        AntonR7 1 August 2013 15: 12
        +3
        Yes, stop screaming about your shell hunger !!! Who tell me there were no problems in the PM ?! All of them had, with whom, but were. Because no one expected a war that the world has never known in history, all countries planned to complete it by the new year, but miscalculated, we had no backwardness, maybe the organization was lame, but I repeat, everyone had their own problems.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 1 August 2013 15: 28
          0
          That's just all the other countries overcame this shell hunger, but RI did not. In WWI, Russia fired less shells than any of the VD, even less than Autria.
          1. fon_Shpee
            fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 15: 41
            +2
            she didn’t overcome so much that then the whole civil war was fought by shells and bullets created by the economy that developed on the rails of the war.
            1. Karlsonn
              Karlsonn 1 August 2013 17: 01
              -1
              Quote: fon_Shpee
              so overcame that then the whole civil war was fought by shells and bullets,


              1915 year PERMITTED AMMUNITION for howitzer batteries - 10 shells per day, 10 shells on 8 howitzers.
              About Civil here is not the topic - the spoon is the road to dinner!
              We are discussing the readiness of industry for the 1914 war of the year.
              So you can say:
              - The political disunity of Kievan Rus is not an argument, since the Red Army in 1945 taxied the Horde in minus.
              1. fon_Shpee
                fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 19: 18
                0
                since such a booze has gone ...
                but for the 16th and 17th years you will not give data? preferably with figures on the monthly release of shells.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 2 August 2013 09: 46
                  0
                  Is it enough for you that our artillery fired 50 million shells, fewer than even the Austrians - 70mln, not to mention the British, Germans and Francs?
                  1. alicante11
                    alicante11 2 August 2013 11: 23
                    0
                    Judging by the minus - enough, but abydna, damn it :).
            2. alicante11
              alicante11 2 August 2013 09: 45
              0
              In-in. Now look at how many troops fought in the Civil War and how many in the World War. And plus, they just mastered the supplies of the allies, who dumped everything for the 17th year.
              1. fon_Shpee
                fon_Shpee 2 August 2013 15: 01
                -1
                three posts in a row - are you commenting on yourself?)
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 2 August 2013 15: 26
                  0
                  three posts in a row - are you commenting on yourself?)


                  No, just different commentators on the same post at one time. This type of arrangement of answers gets me too. But ... I’m not talking to myself :)
              2. AntonR7
                AntonR7 3 August 2013 12: 47
                0
                By the way, the White allies supplied the tsar’s armament confiscated from the Russian decomposed armies on the Romanian front. That's what excess was in the tsarist army, production was settled errors of the 1st year of the war corrected.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 3 August 2013 14: 06
                  0
                  Yeah, and in the North, the weapons set by the Allies were enough for both white and red, and they also destroyed the impudent people during the retreat. Maybe something was delivered from the confiscated one. But the size, for example, of the Volunteer Army, and even Kolchak’s troops, cannot be compared to the armies of the WWI. So they lacked everything.
          2. Starina_hank
            Starina_hank 1 August 2013 18: 42
            +2
            The shell hunger may certainly have been, but the shells for three-inches were enough for both civilian and, by the way, domestic!
          3. AntonR7
            AntonR7 3 August 2013 12: 50
            +1
            This is not true, by 1917 all problems with weapons were overcome and a spring offensive was planned precisely because the revolutionaries and conspirators were in a hurry to abandon the monarchy because they knew that if successful, the tsarist regime would be popular and the chance to abandon it would be gone.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 3 August 2013 14: 08
              -1
              http://www.proza.ru/avtor/plot204&book=11#11


              We learn materiel and do not say nonsense.
              1. AntonR7
                AntonR7 4 August 2013 17: 11
                +2
                Exactly learn how to mate. part, and since 8 years I have been studying history.
        2. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 1 August 2013 16: 51
          -4
          Quote: AntonR7
          Yes, stop screaming about your shell hunger !!! Who tell me there were no problems in the PM ?!


          That is why the Russian soldiers wanted to arm with halberds ??! wassat
      3. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 1 August 2013 21: 30
        0
        Quote: Kars
        shell hunger of the first world

        At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, not everything was all right until the economy was put on a military track, and who knew that the consumption would be astronomical. And they helped the USSR in volume even more ...

        England in the early years of the war was not able to fully satisfy the needs of even its small army
        But the high level of development of British industry allowed in the subsequent period of the war to deploy military production in the country to enormous proportions, which made it possible not only to satisfy the needs of its army, but also partially the needs of the allied armies.
        The war required the rapid switch of civilian enterprises to the mass production of military products. But in England, as in all the warring countries, it took from 1 to 1.5 years to deploy special military production in civilian factories to full production capacity - a period that did not meet the demands of the war
    2. revnagan
      revnagan 1 August 2013 12: 28
      -3
      Quote: pinecone
      Squadron battleships of the Borodino series were built in Russia.

      Yeah, and the armor plates were fastened with wooden "caps", which "helped" us a lot under Tsushima ...
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 1 August 2013 15: 29
        +2
        This is a "meme". The sheets were fastened with "chaps" on Orel during the completion of the construction. Because of this, he sank against the wall, when they were badly hammered and water began to penetrate through the holes. There was no "bonnet" under Tsushima.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 August 2013 15: 35
        +2
        And if you recall that in Tsushima the armor of Russian EDBs with a thickness of more than 76 mm did not practically penetrate at all ... (at least there is no reliable data on this, although it is clear that they can’t get from Suvorov, Alexander the Third and Borodino) But even and in their cases, most likely the main armor belt remained unbroken
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 2 August 2013 09: 48
          +1
          This is true, the armor did not break through. The only case apparently on Borodino is in the 6-inch cellar. From which he died so quickly.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 August 2013 10: 18
            +1
            The only recorded case of armor breakdown thicker than the 76-mm is in the yellow sea, where the 229-mm armor plate (in my opinion, Victory, but maybe Peresvet) was broken. And they found a piece of armor driven into the body of the armor and the bow of a Japanese shell. Most likely it was like that - a Japanese shell buried itself in armor, did not penetrate it and fully exploded. As a result, the armor weakened by the impact of the projectile could not stand it, burst and fell into the hull, and the nose of the projectile - in the place with it in the form of a fragment. Those. a hole in the armor was formed, but it’s probably impossible to assume that the Japanese shell pierced the armor.
            And about Borodino ... There, you are right, everything is incomprehensible. From neighboring ships, a six-inch tower hit the AREA, and after a few seconds there was a strong explosion (apparently, it exploded in the cellar of 152-mm shells, making a hole under the armored belt, where the water rushed). Where the Japanese shell went, and whether it was generally associated with the explosion of the tower, is not known for certain, but yes, theoretically, this case can be considered as an armor penetration.
        2. Crang
          Crang 2 August 2013 14: 28
          0
          It made its way and very much even. Everything was made through up to 152mm. No more, but 152mm was punched. How was Borodino sunk? They pierced him with 152mm armor of a 152mm gun mount (stern). Unfortunately, at that moment, shells with charges were raised there, which was the last straw for the battered ship. In addition, 152mm Mikasa armor was found a lot of holes after the battle.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 2 August 2013 14: 43
            0
            Crang

            And you personally were in Borodino in that cellar :)?
            No, I also think that there was a break, but that’s what was real there, unfortunately, no one will tell.
            And the Japanese had armor pierced. And repeatedly. Only ours with our BB shells thrashed, and the Japanese threw land mines.
            1. Crang
              Crang 2 August 2013 16: 56
              0
              The Japanese at long distances fired exclusively with the OFS, and at distances <25kbt they loaded them into the left BB gun, and into the right OFS. So they fired a lot of armor-piercing shells at our ships.
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 3 August 2013 04: 56
                0
                So their BB was more high-explosive than our high-explosive :).
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 August 2013 18: 27
            +2
            Quote: Krang
            It made its way and very much.

            Can I have examples? Who, when?
            Quote: Krang
            How was Borodino sunk?

            they drowned Borodino like that - observers saw a tower hit the 6-dm AREA and after some time a strong explosion and the death of the ship. Everything. What was the impact of getting to the explosion, and was there anything at all - this riddle is great
            Quote: Krang
            In addition, 152mm Mikasa armor was found after the battle.

            I wrote about the armor of RUSSIAN EDB :)))
      3. Crang
        Crang 2 August 2013 12: 33
        0
        They were fastened with bolts and rivets.
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 1 August 2013 10: 52
    10
    Fewer Dreadnought - more tanks.

    Or does someone think that the resources of our Motherland (including human, scientific, industrial ...) are infinite?

    If we had 10 new dreadnoughts and 10000 fewer tanks during the war, we would not have won.
    1. Rider
      Rider 1 August 2013 14: 57
      +4
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      If we had 10 new dreadnoughts and 10000 fewer tanks during the war, we would not have won.


      a very sensible thought.
      especially when you consider that the contribution of the USSR Navy to the war (well, except for the submarine and katernikov) is extremely (let's say) not proportional.

      that does not beg the courage and fortitude of Soviet sailors.
    2. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 1 August 2013 18: 45
      0
      The leader was a reasonable man!
    3. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 2 August 2013 16: 51
      0
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      Having 10 new dreadnoughts during the war

      Especially when you consider that swim and they especially had nowhere
  • lx
    lx 1 August 2013 10: 53
    +5
    Quote: Vadivak

    Have you tried to write anything other than criticisms? Only the one who doesn’t make a mistake is not mistaken

    Everyone does his own thing. In this case, this could have been mistaken for a small mistake if Oleg had not been such a prolific author and regularly cheated in his articles (somewhere more, somewhere less) I certainly saw only a small part of the huge: ) Oleg’s creative heritage, but I haven’t come across a single article wherever he lies. However, as I understand it, this is normal and even good for this site, because the charge of minusers in my direction is now increasing. By the way, I don’t particularly comment on Oleg’s articles (if only in the mood), because from one of our conversations with him I realized that he was completely impenetrable and he was not ashamed of his impudent lies.
    1. vlbelugin
      vlbelugin 1 August 2013 11: 21
      -6
      You are right - "minus".
      1. vlbelugin
        vlbelugin 1 August 2013 22: 27
        0
        tx
        ...but I haven’t come across a single article wherever he lies. However, as I understand it, this site is normal and even good...
        Go on gentlemen.
        Well, I do not like when I and my respected community are accused of love of lies.
  • Djozz
    Djozz 1 August 2013 11: 01
    +3
    The dashing of all this Romanovskaya M.R.A.Z.I. it was worth the rivers of blood of the people, and when today liberal "historians", priests and near-church hunters mold the angelic image of the Romanov family, I want to spit at least in their faces!
    1. Djozz
      Djozz 1 August 2013 12: 12
      0
      Original, backing tracks for the truth! Go ahead counterarguments, not a jackal from the quiet.
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 1 August 2013 13: 43
        +1
        If you want an example, we have them. In the days of the Napoleonic invasion of the 12th, the Grand Duke Constantine sold 300 horses to the Russian army at a price higher than the market price, out of 300 horses 200 had to be shot, they got sick with glanders. There are many more examples of the "disinterestedness" of the family.
    2. AntonR7
      AntonR7 1 August 2013 15: 18
      0
      Scum is one who tramples on Russian culture, of which the royal family is a part. Not all Romanovs are bad and not everything in the past is negative.
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 1 August 2013 16: 51
        -1
        It is desirable to call these "scum"
      2. Karlsonn
        Karlsonn 1 August 2013 17: 07
        -2
        Quote: AntonR7
        Scum the one who tramples on Russian culture, of which the royal family is a part


        What a bold statement belay


        Quote: AntonR7
        Not all Romanovs are bad


        Yeah, the deeds of Nicholas the Bloody overlap with the deeds of Peter the Great!

        Quote: AntonR7
        and not everything in the past is negative.


        And not about that.
        1. Djozz
          Djozz 1 August 2013 17: 27
          +1
          Thank you for a worthy answer.
        2. Landwarrior
          Landwarrior 1 August 2013 23: 19
          0
          Quote: Karlsonn
          Yeah, the deeds of Nicholas the Bloody overlap with the deeds of Peter the Great!

          Pyotr Lekseich, too, by the way .... Consider a third of the population of Russia, Mother multiplied by zero winked Sorry to climb hi
        3. AntonR7
          AntonR7 3 August 2013 12: 44
          +1
          The revolutionaries called it bloody in order to denigrate it in the eyes of the people, any ruler, including modern ones, suppress the rebellions. Suppressing distemper in the bud is normal.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 3 August 2013 14: 09
            -1
            Is there not much blood on him? Some of those who died on the fronts of mediocre war lost will be enough for 365 nights of "bloody boys in the eyes."
            1. AntonR7
              AntonR7 14 August 2013 18: 34
              0
              We lost the war not because of the tsar, but because of = a revolution which brought chaos and confusion into everyday life.
        4. Setrac
          Setrac 3 August 2013 14: 08
          +1
          Quote: Karlsonn
          Yeah, the deeds of Nicholas the Bloody overlap with the deeds of Peter the Great!

          Peter the Great is a promoted personality, the Romanovs praised themselves as loved ones, their dynasty. Contemporaries called Peter the Great the Antichrist, I note that neither Hitler nor Napoleon were honored with this, and two hundred years of enhanced PR did not help Peter the Great. They called the war with the previous dynasty a popular uprising.
      3. Setrac
        Setrac 3 August 2013 13: 57
        -1
        Quote: AntonR7
        Not all Romanovs are bad and not everything in the past is negative.

        What good did you find in the Romanovs?
        1. AntonR7
          AntonR7 14 August 2013 18: 35
          0
          And you read all 300 years of history, not only have we grown in vast territories and the authority of Russia has risen to an unprecedented height.
  • rennim
    rennim 1 August 2013 11: 04
    +3
    Become objectively liked. The conclusion remains the same. The state should pursue a tough policy. As experience has shown only tough measures (up to nationalization) and adequate punishment of corrupt officials can stop this orgy from plundering our means of defense.
  • FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 1 August 2013 11: 15
    +2
    I looked for a photo of this Eliza Balletta. Not that I would prejudice, but her appearance is clearly not French, but, as it were more correct to say ... well, just do it yourself judge if she looks like a Frenchwoman or someone else:
    1. Argon
      Argon 1 August 2013 12: 30
      +4
      You will be even more surprised when you try to read Napoleon's correspondence, about the French republic and the state in general. Also, the actions of France in World War II become understandable, and the current position of this state (with fits of pediatrics) is explained. The only light that could consolidate a PART of the nation there was De Gaulle, but - "France needs heroes when blood is shed, under the roar of cannons, and under the roar of fanfare, their place is quickly taken ... by lovers" -
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 1 August 2013 12: 45
        +4
        "Eroi" their mother, "liberated" Paris on American bayonets. Keitel was dumbfounded when he saw the French delegation at the signing of the surrender "Oh, what are they doing here!" And about the "lamp" of De Gaulle, ask the Algerians if you manage to escape after the phrase "About the lamp of De Gaulle ..."
    2. Djozz
      Djozz 1 August 2013 12: 38
      0
      Balletta, apparently a pseudonym. They hit in the face, not in the passport, I hope the hint is clear.
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 1 August 2013 11: 22
    18
    As I understand it, almost no one here (and especially the author of the article) is familiar with economics, planning, history or geopolitics.

    In England, the dreadnought was built in a year? Good. And who will tell Mine, why did the dreadnought surrender to us?

    No, I understand everything. Mosh there, the prestige of the country. Beautiful ships in the end. All this is so.

    But we didn’t have overseas colonies, for the defense of which and forcing docility we need dreadnoughts.

    At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, Russia experienced a significant economic boom and industrial boom.

    More ... The number of smelted cast iron and steel is not infinite. And they are needed, among other things, for the construction of a trans-Siberian railway. The construction of one dreadnought is minus hundreds of kilometers of railway tracks.
    The number of engineering plants is also not infinite. And they are needed for the production of steam locomotives, rails, agricultural units, machine tools and mechanisms ... The construction of one dreadnought is minus hundreds of steam locomotives, machine tools.
    The number of scientists and engineers is also not infinite, but they are needed for the design and creation of new factories, tracks, ships. The construction of one dreadnought is minus new machines, plants, mechanisms that would not be designed by engineers engaged in the production of dreadnought.

    The same applies to the 30s. I’m silent about the 20th. Hopefully no need to explain why?

    To build one dreadnought, you need to attract hundreds, if not thousands of engineers. Who would then design tanks and planes, plants and mines, machine tools and power plants? Or did we have engineers like dirt? No. There were a limited number of them.
    To build one dreadnought, you need to attract hundreds of engineering plants. Where would our tanks, locomotives, tractors, machine tools, mining equipment be made - the basis of industry?
    To build one dreadnought, tens, if not hundreds (INCLUDING WASTE) of thousands of tons of steel, non-ferrous and rare-earth metals, millions of kilowatt / hours of electricity must be attracted. Were they not needed in other industries? That industry, without which we could not defeat Germany ...

    To consider the construction of dreadnought without reference to the economic, industrial capabilities of the country and the real challenges facing the state is to study a spherical horse in a vacuum.

    The question remains about the 50-70s.
    And again. Why the dreadnought? After the war, the country lies in ruins. Resources are needed: human, material, engineering, food, energy for the restoration of the country. Then to design, to create a retaliation weapon: an atomic bomb, missiles, submarines ... And tell me, who built the dreadnoughts after the war? These majestic ships became just nah ... not needed.

    I hope I explained in an accessible way why Russia and the USSR did not build dreadnoughts? ...
    1. Motors1991
      Motors1991 1 August 2013 16: 37
      +2
      You forgot to add that Russia and the USSR were primarily great continental states and the fleet played a secondary role for them, this is for England, an island state, a powerful fleet was a vital necessity, it could, having a network of bases around the world, very quickly concentrate its battleships anywhere in the World Ocean. The Russian fleet was divided into parts, with the greater and better part of it being in the closed waters of the Baltic and Black Seas, where he could not solve any strategic tasks, especially in the Baltic, therefore the emphasis was placed on smaller ships , destroyers, submarines, minesweepers, boats. In both wars, they just bore the brunt of the fighting. In the 60s, the Soviet Union was finally able to create an ocean fleet, but what it cost him, the state simply exploded, better than steam locomotives and roads were built, there would be more benefit.
  • Alexey
    Alexey 1 August 2013 11: 34
    +6
    I agree with many theses of the author, although not with all. No extremes needed. The USSR was great, yes. But! Imperial Russia also had achievements and Novik is not the only exception, I would even say - this is not an exception.
    Again red against white. Understand, finally, that our geopolitical "partners" managed to destroy the Russian Empire from the inside precisely due to this division of society. The USSR was also destroyed in a similar way. Stop, finally, finding fault with one period of the history of the Motherland and praising another. Treat all OUR history with respect. Understand patriots of different colors, the principle is recalculated against you - divide and conquer. Stop contrasting different stages of OUR history. Let's act on the principle - unite and hello
    1. revnagan
      revnagan 1 August 2013 12: 37
      +4
      Quote: Alex
      Let's act on the principle - unite and hello

      Let's unite the interests of the engineer Ivanov and the oligarch Abramovich. Let's unite Serdyukov and an ordinary pensioner. You can unite me and Poroshenko (this is our, the Ukrainian oligarch). It would be nice to unite our capital, etc ... Wouldn't it be great? " You cannot harness a horse and a quivering doe in one harness. "Either THEY, filling their pockets at the expense of the state and us, its citizens, or WE, working for the STATE and for the benefit of ALL CITIZENS. There is no third, understand. You cannot be a little" white " , but a little "red".
      1. Alexey
        Alexey 1 August 2013 12: 42
        -1
        write nonsense, dear. Reread my post carefully. I didn’t write about that at all. And the oligarch is a foreign agent of influence, and not at all red or white. The oligarch, in fact, is the enemy of the people. How can you not understand my words so much?
        I don’t propose to be a little red or white. I just want you to not have these ideological cliches (imposed from the outside).
  • kirpich
    kirpich 1 August 2013 11: 35
    +3
    Tell me, why did the Soviet Union need battleships? As an investment of excellent steel in nowhere? This is what monsters such as Bismarck, Tirpitz, and others like them could do during the Second World War? The answer is NOTHING! They tried to go to sea, immediately got hit in the face so that it didn't seem a little. As a result, thousands of tons of excellent Krupp steel were excluded from the war. And, after all, tanks and guns and weapons could be made from it. The saying is clearly right - " All military leaders are preparing for the last war "
    Therefore, it seems to me that the Soviet Union was not so wrong that it "froze" the construction of battleships, but used those that are. The main steel fought on land.
    1. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 1 August 2013 11: 53
      +5
      That's it. How would the Dreadnoughts fight near Stalingrad? or on Kursk? or near Moscow?

      Where, in what theaters of war would we use the Dreadnought?

      And each dreadnought is a diversion of colossal resources from industry and the economy.
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 1 August 2013 18: 52
        0
        Therefore, the strongest Russian fleet consisted of rooks with wheels and acted everywhere - in Constantinople, Egypt, on the Volga, even in the 16th century they called Dunkirk to Britain to storm.
        In its modern form, it is an immersion amphibian with missiles, in the ultramodern - a multi-medium plate with beam weapons.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 1 August 2013 11: 37
    -2
    IT'S AT ALL RADIATION !!!!! What is the decline after Tsushima in Russia and there was no fleet at all. In seven years, a new modern fleet has been created. Who in general is satisfied. Battleships of the Gangut type were generally considered the most successful in the world. I don’t believe the memoirs of Commander Novik von Graf. Yes, and by the way Noviki is completely our development. Two wars went through Novik and Zabiyaka at Golovko in the Northern Fleet read what he writes about them. In the most difficult weather conditions, they remained operational. But Sovdep’s squadron destroyers in jo *** e weren’t working in such conditions. Golovko describes the case when such a destroyer had a nose with such a red-skinned quality during a storm. to order ships abroad then there was such a practice with many states. Cruiser Maxim Gorky Kirov Italian projects so you know. Warsaw women built in Poland this is so for general development. Cruisers of type Red Crimea HAVE PASSED ANY WAR BAD WAS APPEARABLE THAT FORTY OVER YEARS WERE BUILT. The empire built beautiful battleships and quite a lot. The Empress and Sevastopol were built according to a specially cut-down project for the Black Sea. But the USSR did not have the brains or the ability to build at least one battleship. Funny industry did not produce cranes with the necessary lifting capacity. I do not like such things, I will say gently to mine, you are not quite competent, or to the brain castes the red-bellied I hate them, this is today's swamp.
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 11: 39
    +5
    [quote = Kars] [quote = pinecone] in particular, the construction of new battleships in the shortest possible time at the shipyards of St. Petersburg and Nikolaev. [/ quote]
    In England, the Dreadnought was built in a year (with tricks of course) And then they were built in numerous series.
    [quote = pinecone] [/ quote]

    Name at least one other country that was able to build a dreadnought in a year.
    It was not for nothing that the British Empire was called the "Mistress of the Seas" - in general, everything was aimed at creating, maintaining and developing a powerful fleet capable of fighting alone against two other strongest fleets.

    (If we compare the figures of its land army, we can say that it is backward from our army. But "to each according to his needs" - England has walls made of the seas, so the fleet was highly developed, due to its island location, and the land army was very weak. And if you take Russia - we always have the main skirmishes - on land, therefore, the main forces were aimed at putting several million (well, if necessary) under arms and fighting on land, and the fleet was assigned an auxiliary role (implementation for everyone is not without jambs, of course)
  • kirpich
    kirpich 1 August 2013 11: 41
    +3
    Quote: Фкенщь13
    and, as it were more correct to say ... well, just do it yourself judge if she looks like a Frenchwoman or someone else:


    As there A.P. Chekhov said - "There is no such thing that would not be suitable for a Jew for a surname"
  • Bakht
    Bakht 1 August 2013 11: 43
    10
    The general impression of the article is NO.

    Of course, the author pulled a lot of facts. BUT...

    1. Why did Russia build little at the beginning of the century? Because after Tsushima there was nothing to build. As a result of the Russo-Japanese war, a commission worked, which made recommendations. And at the same time the "dreadnought revolution" began. It was just silly to repeat Petropavlovski and Orly. Therefore, Andrew the First-Called and then Sevastopoli were laid down as transitional ships. The debate in the Duma on the fleet should be read by Academician Krylov.

    2. Of course, comparing Sevastopol and Qeen is simply stupid. Honestly, Russia built a self-propelled weakly armored artillery barge. And the caliber is too small for the battleship. But ... Again, I refer everyone to Krylov's report (he is also the author of the Sevastopol project). Initially, the task of Sevastopol was to defend the mine position. That is, high speed and caliber were not required. Large caliber replaced coastal batteries.

    3. The author does not quite correctly write about the procurement of ships. The same Congo is a converted English battle cruiser. By the way, the Japanese did it even better than the British. Battlecruisers should not be confused with battleships. At the end Admiral Fischer was carried away without brakes and he laid down his famous "white elephants". Admiral Beatty, having become commander, categorically abandoned these ships and practically withdrew all battle cruisers from the Home Fleet.
    Back to the procurement. Before Russian-Japanese and before the very first world war, all Russian shipyards were busy. But the Navy needed to be built. Purchasing ships abroad is normal practice. Where would Noviki be built if the shipyards were loaded with battleships? Here you need a balance. Destroyers are built faster. The Japanese, before the war, actively bought foreign ships and placed orders abroad. Time was running out.

    4. Building ships is not the same as riveting land weapons. Why is modern Russia weakly building submarine missile carriers? Of course, the collapse of industry, kickbacks. But there is a very, very mundane reason that sailors know about. Ships are built for specific weapons. Due to disruption of the supply of weapons to the Mace, the construction of the Boreans lost their meaning. Or you need to rebuild the ship itself under a new rocket. That is, the delay in commissioning submarine missile carriers is directly related to the lack of weapons for them.

    5. The Union, of course, could build an ocean fleet. Here the author is right. One 5th OPESK what it was worth! But the ocean fleet needs bases. The fleet requires money. And in the presence of kickbacks to build his business is quite expensive. It is better to buy the ancient Mistral and get a kickback, than to load your shipyards with work and give workers a salary.

    So the impression is really none. The same method can be applied to any industry. So the problem is at the heart of the existing system.
  • Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 1 August 2013 11: 47
    +6
    Article - MINUS. Start writing about ships that were built abroad, so do not forget about those that were built with us. Bld.Kr. Rurik, Thunderbolt, Russia, against which in Britain a whole series of ships was laid. All armadillos, starting in 1890, were built only in Russia. The exception is Retvizan and Tsesarevich, built according to Russian requirements, they became the prototypes of future ships for the USA and France themselves. Cruisers such as Aurora - in Russia. Cruiser Oleg, Pearls, Emerald. Abroad, only that was built on which there simply was no longer room for domestic shipyards. The entire World Cup of Ingushetia was built in Nikolaev.
    So the author - drink valerian, and if you write, write objectively.
    1. Delta
      Delta 1 August 2013 12: 39
      0
      he has problems with objectivity. He would have phrases of colors. The rest is side
    2. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 1 August 2013 18: 24
      -2
      Quote: Trapper7
      Do not forget about those that were built with us. Bld.Kr. Rurik

      Is this the one who died in Tsushima? Yes, it was built with us. Another miracle happened - with good autonomy and speed it was not very well armored, the weapons had decent but weak protection, speed ... speed is also not so hot. Typical Raider. For linear squadron combat is unsuitable.
      The second "Rurik" was built already at the WB, Vickers shipyard, Barrow-in-Furness (1905-1909gg).

      Quote: Trapper7
      The exception is Retvizan and Tsesarevich, built according to Russian requirements, they became the prototypes of future ships for the USA and France themselves.

      Lies. They were not any prototypes of "future ships for the United States and France themselves" - the Tsarevich had a French battleship as a prototype for the hull and mechanisms. Moreover, the Borodino type was built, though according to his own design, but on the basis of the preliminary design of the Tsarevich, provided by the French shipbuilder Ambal Lagan, the director of the Forges et Chantier de la Mediterrane company, he also developed the detailed drawings of the Tsarevich.
      So there is already a question - who became whose prototype.
      The "Retvizan" was greatly influenced by "Peresvet" (prototypes "Centurion" and "Rinaun"), as well as "Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky" (a prototype of the "Majestic" project), whose drawings were transferred to the shipyard "William Crump and Sons" (USA).
      Quote: Trapper7
      Aurora type cruisers - in Russia

      Well, if it comes to that, it's like "Diana". In addition, the project "Diana" was made with an eye to the British project "Astrea". And the cruisers turned out to be meaningless. No armor, no weapons, no speed, no range, but very "thick" in displacement.
      Quote: Trapper7
      So the author - drink valerian, and if you write, write objectively.

      In a stranger’s eye and a sliver it’s visible ... a log in his own that is stealth, however ...
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 2 August 2013 10: 39
        0
        Quote: Rakti-Kali
        Is this the one who died in Tsushima? Yes, it was built with us. Another miracle happened - with good autonomy and speed it was not very well armored, the weapons had decent but weak protection, speed ... speed is also not so hot. Typical Raider. For linear squadron combat is unsuitable.

        Yes! That is why it was built !!! And it was after this that Britain urgently laid down a whole bunch of its armored cruisers. And the fact that it was used in a squadron battle is not a question for the builders.

        "Senseless" Diana honestly fought two wars, withstood sea battles with the enemy and torpedo hits. And nothing. Fine. Although the ships did not turn out to be the most successful, that's for sure.
      2. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 2 August 2013 11: 11
        0
        Quote: Rakti-Kali
        Lies. They were not any prototypes of "future ships for the United States and France themselves" - the Tsarevich had a French battleship as a prototype for the hull and mechanisms. Moreover, the Borodino type was built, though according to his own design, but on the basis of the preliminary design of the Tsarevich, provided by the French shipbuilder Ambal Lagan, the director of the Forges et Chantier de la Mediterrane company, he also developed the detailed drawings of the Tsarevich.
        So there is already a question - who became whose prototype.


        Having built the Tsesarevich, the French finally realized the defectiveness of all their previous battleships: an increase in the displacement of the Russian ship by some 1,5-2 thousand tons made it possible to provide much better armor protection and gave a number of other advantages. Conclusions were made: in 1901-1903, the laying of immediately six large squadron battleships of the Republik type took place
        http://www.battleships.spb.ru/0793/history.html

        As a result of the combination of advanced American technology and the organization of labor and a well-thought-out Russian project, “Retvisan” arose, which many historians consider the best battleship of Russia of those times. Kramp's firm managed to completely avoid overload - an amazing fact for that time! The only thing the builders let us down was speed: during the tests it was not possible to reach the design 18 units even with the machines being fully boosted and exceeding their capacity compared to the project, although the “shortage” was only one hundredth of the unit.

        A successful export project attracted the attention of the owners themselves. Armadillos of the Maine type differed little from the Russian prototype.
        http://www.battleships.spb.ru/0593/history.html

        I would not say a word if the article were at least a little adequate and contained even a shadow of analysis. And so this is an agitation designed for emotions. Based on the meaning of the article, nothing was built in our country, and this is a blatant lie. The fact that they built with an eye on England and adopted foreign experience is nothing wrong with that. Everyone always does that. Moreover, Britain was considered an ace in shipbuilding.
        And I do not like it when the history of MY country - Russia, is mixed with mud. And if this suits you, I can only sympathize.
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 2 August 2013 12: 57
          0
          Quote: Trapper7
          Having built the Tsesarevich, the French finally realized the defectiveness of all their previous battleships: an increase in the displacement of the Russian ship by some 1,5-2 thousand tons made it possible to provide much better armor protection and gave a number of other advantages.

          This is not true - EBR "Joregiberry" project "Charles Martel" (prototype "Tsarevich") had even thicker armor. The fundamental difference can be considered the presence of a longitudinal armored bulkhead, which was part of the complex of constructive measures to ensure the survivability of the ship, but thanks not to the MTC, but to the French naval engineer Bertin for it.
          Quote: Trapper7
          Conclusions were made: in 1901-1903, the laying of immediately six large squadron battleships of the Republik type took place

          These are not conclusions about the "Tsarevich", but the conservatism of the French school of shipbuilding, they laid down a series of "Dantons" after the launch of the "Dreadnought".
          Quote: Trapper7
          I would not say a word if the article were at least a little adequate and contained even a shadow of analysis. And so this is an agitation designed for emotions. Based on the meaning of the article, nothing was built in our country, and this is a blatant lie. The fact that they built with an eye on England and adopted foreign experience is nothing wrong with that. Everyone always does that. Moreover, Britain was considered an ace in shipbuilding.

          The article is the answer to the cries of "we fucked up the polymers, but under the tsar-father we were wow ..." There were problems in shipbuilding both before the revolution and after and remained after the collapse of the Union. Just objectively, tsarist Russia had a weak industry (yes, growing, yes, developing), backward technologically and scientifically (this is with a huge number of bright minds), and the USSR was left without any at all after the civil war, and was forced to build it anew.
          Quote: Trapper7
          And I do not like it when the history of MY country - Russia, is mixed with mud. And if this suits you, I can only sympathize.

          History is mixed with mud, first of all, by those who shout about the good tsar-father and the mighty RIF, about the highly developed and advanced industry and sciences of the RI. These people substitute history for myths, and one step from myths to farce.
          1. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx 2 August 2013 14: 05
            0
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            This is not true - EBR "Joregiberry" project "Charles Martel" (prototype "Tsarevich") had even thicker armor


            You probably saw this "Zhoregiberri" in the pictures? Damn, Duc etozh is not an armadillo, this is some kind of misunderstanding with its scattered artillery as many as THREE main calibers)))), our Poltava is much more powerful.
            About the thickness of the armor - quality is important here. It is one thing - iron armor, thicker, and another thing - Krupp armor, more durable even with a lesser thickness. And then, the experience of battles in the RYaV showed that the shells of that time at long distances were not able to penetrate almost any armor. And the "smearing" of the armor to the maximum area was more competent. This is what we see in the same Sevastopol, with their 5-meter armor belt, in contrast to the British, who had a thicker belt more than half in the water as a result of ship overloads. We have already written about it here.

            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            The article is the answer to the cries of "fucked up all the polymers, but under the tsar-father we were hoo ..."

            Yes? Maybe. Personally, I got the impression that "until the 17th we were stupid and downtrodden, then changed our minds, and now we are degraded again." And I don't like that message. Although the present period cannot be called bright either.

            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            History is mixed with mud, first of all, by those who shout about the good tsar-father and the mighty RIF, about the highly developed and advanced industry and sciences of the RI. These people substitute history for myths, and one step from myths to farce.

            Well, nobody seems to be talking about a highly developed industry. They say that it developed actively, yes. And the growth rate was not an example today))))
            And with the mud, our story is mixed up by everyone who takes only black out of it, masterfully silent about white, which we observe with the author.
            With respect!
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 2 August 2013 15: 17
              -1
              Quote: Trapper7
              You probably saw this "Zhoregiberri" in the pictures? Damn, Duc etozh is not an armadillo, this is some kind of misunderstanding with its scattered artillery as many as THREE main calibers)))), our Poltava is much more powerful.

              If you carefully read what I am writing, you might have noticed that I wrote "a prototype for the hull and vehicles" without even thinking about artillery.
              Quote: Trapper7
              About the thickness of the armor - quality is important here. One thing is iron armor, thicker, and another thing is Krupp, more durable even with a smaller thickness.

              Steel-nickel armor is by no means iron.
              Quote: Trapper7
              Yes? Maybe. Personally, I got the impression that "until the 17th we were stupid and downtrodden, then changed our minds, and now we are degraded again." And I don't like that message. Although the present period cannot be called bright either.

              No. Rather - "not everything was so beautiful in the" Danish "kingdom. And the failure to build battleships in the USSR was caused precisely not by the stupidity of the "bloody dictator Stalin", but by quite objective reasons, no less objective than the need to build part of large NKs abroad before the revolution.
              And, yes, now, compared with the dawn of the USSR, the shipbuilding of the Russian Federation really degraded. But the good news is that although it is slowly, it is being reborn, even if not aircraft carriers and TARKRs, but we are already doing frigates and corvettes, and we are not completing them as in the 90s.
              Quote: Trapper7
              Well, nobody seems to be talking about a highly developed industry. They say that it developed actively, yes. And the growth rate was not an example today))))

              Well yes. It’s only if you had 100 rubles and 1000 became a huge increase, but you remain poor, but it was a million, and a million and a thousand is ridiculous growth, but he remained rich as he was.
              Quote: Trapper7
              And with the mud, our story is mixed up by everyone who removes only black from it, masterfully silent about white

              In this I undoubtedly agree with you.
              Quote: Trapper7
              which we observe from the author.

              But this is not - rather a somewhat excessive emotionality of estimates and some underestimation.
              Quote: Trapper7
              With respect!

              Mutually! hi
  • Djozz
    Djozz 1 August 2013 11: 51
    +4
    The leadership of the USSR did the right thing by refusing to build battleships. The main reason for this decision was the emergence of "battleship killers" AVIATION! Example: the attack on Taranto, carried out exclusively by British aircraft carrier forces on November 11, 1940. The lessons of Taranto were the first signal of the growing role of aviation at sea. Undoubtedly, this example, studied at the Japanese headquarters, had a major influence on the decision to strike the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 11: 52
    +3
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: fon_Shpee
    "Izmail" - battle cruiser

    Quinn wouldn’t refuse to shoot at him.


    Yes, she can shoot a gunboat too - do you want her parameters to be brought to super-levels?
    I advise you to better look at the specific tasks facing the battleships (ours and others).

    The fast battleship "you probably mean" Hood "appeared after the First World War, after the British cardboard battlecruisers took off in the battle of Jutland. Initially, it was even more" cardboard ", but with even larger guns. laid down a series of 4 ships, only one reached the exit from the harbor, and it had a staggering cost (almost twice as much as any previous one). And the next high-speed battleship appeared only with the exit of "Dunkirk" in the 30s.
    1. Kars
      Kars 1 August 2013 12: 01
      +2
      Quote: fon_Shpee
      Fast battleship "you probably mean" Hood "

      I mean, then, after the PMV
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 11: 56
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: fon_Shpee
    Ishmael is a battle cruiser, while Fuso and Queen Elizabeth are battleships, and that comparing their booking is, to put it mildly, inappropriate?

    Was there a paragraph in the British Maritime Charter?
    p. 1 "Request an unknown vessel for its classification"
    p. 2 "If it is a Russian battle cruiser, the battleships Queen Elizabeth will not open fire from their 381 mm guns."


    "Ishmael" - this is the best that RI had at that time
    But the battleships like Queen Elizabeth or Fuso, we really did not have


    Again - I advise you to look at the tasks facing the battleships and battlecruisers, and before the Russians in particular. Marvel
    1. Kars
      Kars 1 August 2013 12: 04
      +2
      Quote: fon_Shpee
      Again - I advise you to look at the tasks facing the battleships and battlecruisers, and before the Russians in particular.

      Perhaps this is why they took part in linear battles (one) in the same line with battleships and against battleships.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 1 August 2013 12: 42
        +1
        Why battle cruisers fought against the battleships - this is already the excesses of the British thinking. But ... strictly speaking, in line with the battleships, battlecruisers did not stand. Even in Jutland. They always acted as independent squadrons. And from the battleships they ran very fast.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 1 August 2013 12: 03
    -9
    Nikolai, of course, is Gorbochev, a limp creature. We will not touch the liberals themselves will die, but take the Sovdepovsky series of ZHZL. we open engineers and designers further Grabin Vasily Gavrilovich in a family of 12 children father peasant all received first Gemnasic then university education all the comments are unnecessary. It’s not for us that the liberals fucked up brains, you komunyaki fucked up with them, by the way the real liberals tell us that Russia was always backward, but the enlightened geyropa is yes. So your goals are red-bellied and liberals. In 1914, order 227 wasn’t spoken simply by the Lord. Officers ask everyone to fulfill their duty and if you are so independent of the Russian Empire, remember that the Germans didn’t let the Germans go further than the Carpathians, but remind me where the Fritzes appeared on the Volga in 1942. The empire has always fought and won not by numbers but by skill, but starting from 1917 they won so they don’t have to mutter their red-bellied prayer for backward Russia, the Bolshevik swamp of modernity will not pass.
    1. Djozz
      Djozz 1 August 2013 12: 20
      +3
      And to remind you where the "noble" officers ended up, and who ended up in 1945. in Berlin! And the defeat of the armies of Samsonov and Rannekampf is a war "not by number, but by skill"
    2. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 1 August 2013 20: 00
      +1
      Oh sweet man too many emotions!
    3. ded10041948
      ded10041948 2 August 2013 11: 24
      +1
      Sprinkle less saliva, poison half the site!
  • kirpich
    kirpich 1 August 2013 12: 20
    +4
    Quote: kapitan281271
    The Empress and Sevastopol were built according to a specially cut-down project for the Black Sea. But the USSR did not have the brains or the ability to build at least one battleship. Funny industry did not produce cranes with the necessary lifting capacity. I do not like such things, I will say gently to mine, you are not quite competent, or to the brain castes the red-bellied I hate them, this is today's swamp.


    Eeee .... Dear, in Moscow there is a good hospital named after Alekseev (formerly KASCHENKO), there are very good specialists there, I guarantee they will help you
  • Delta
    Delta 1 August 2013 12: 33
    +1
    with Kaptsov everything is as usual, everything "does not count", if he does not like it, but in this

    "The well-known story with the purchase of TOSHIBA machines for the precise machining of propellers of Soviet submarines is nothing more than a curiosity. In the end, they bought a machine, not a finished destroyer or submarine."

    he surpassed himself. Acquire technologies for construction - at Kaptsov it is put much lower in importance than a single ship. wassat
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 1 August 2013 12: 37
    +1
    Of course they didn't - the era of battleships ended after the First World War (how many Bismar and Tirpitz showed them), but I think our Shark can be called an underwater battleship;) "
  • Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 1 August 2013 12: 39
    +1
    The purpose of the article is not clear. Raise Russia during the time of the USSR, dropping Russia under the autocracy? What for? And then, and this is our story with you. It could be explained why the USSR did not build battleships less emotionally. And the fact that Russia bought ships, and the USSR - technology is ambiguous and biased. Russia bought the Tsesarevich, but then built the Borodino series on its basis. In Russia were built: the armored cruiser "Rurik" heroically perished in Rusko-Japanese (mentioned at the beginning of the article "Rurik" was built after the RYA), battleships of the "Petropavlovsk", "Peresvet" type, as well as "Prince Potemkin Tavrichesky" and the cruiser "Aurora " :) etc. etc. Why not remember at all that Peter the Great did not buy ships or technologies at all, but scientists, engineers, and military leaders. And I won't argue about the ocean-going fleet of the USSR - this is a matter of pride and admiration. However, at the same time, one recalls the view of the Golden Horn with the nose constantly sticking out to the middle of the bay of either "Minsk" or "Novorossiysk", which were in turn being repaired in Dalzavod due to the fact that they forgot to equip the base. And, unfortunately, this can also be continued.
  • rigoletto2001
    rigoletto2001 1 August 2013 12: 44
    -2
    friends, teach history, knowledge is a force that will allow you to think independently. RI had a lot of problems, no one denies it, but the author clearly presented the picture one-sidedly, how beneficial it is to feel like you are reading a textbook from the time of Stalin. And it’s not quite correct to compare with the USSR this country there was one big VPK-tank in it was more than in the whole world combined .... etc. The Gulag wasn’t reminiscent of the Republic of Ingushetia, no one destroyed its own people (but they called Nikolai the bloody and Stalin the father of the peoples), PM never the Russian army was not captured (recall 1941-42) ... well, the bad battleships ..... "Marat" and "October Revolution" went through the whole war and complaints from Stalin and the Navy did not cause ....
    I’ll recall an interesting fact about the USSR — hunger in the country, but in mass production of TB-1 and then TB-3 ... was it necessary, was it necessary .... the Soviet military race ended with the end of the USSR, the country in which I was born and I love it very much, the country whose collapse was greatly facilitated by her elite (all sorts of Yeltsins) - and this is to the question of corruption and goat-stealing .... teach history friends, maybe you will make completely different conclusions ... but it will be your own thoughts .. ...
    1. Djozz
      Djozz 1 August 2013 13: 52
      +2
      But the tragedy of the armies of Samsonov and Rannenkamp in East Prussia in the 1st World War does not tell you anything!
      1. Starina_hank
        Starina_hank 1 August 2013 19: 28
        0
        For one beaten they give two not beaten! The first pancake is lumpy! Borodino remember how it ended?
        1. Crang
          Crang 1 August 2013 19: 56
          +1
          Borodino was the world's best battleship. Who ditched the kind of uncle that is depicted in the photo in the article.
    2. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 1 August 2013 15: 00
      +4
      Quote: rigoletto2001
      -eta country was one big VPK-tanks in it was more than the whole world combined ....

      Only because the country is not small and it was required to ensure its sovereignty. You sneeze on this in Moldova on one border, be healthy say on the other.
      Quote: rigoletto2001
      .Gulag recall in RI nebylo

      There was a wonderful serfdom where not only convicts worked (by the way the government fed, put on clothes, put on clothes and gave life somewhere, but ordinary citizens who still had to not only shoe / feed themselves but also their family.
      Quote: rigoletto2001
      Nicholas called the bloody

      Yes, even call a savior. But for ten years he could not or did not want to prepare the country for war. Either he did not see corruption, or did not want to send a couple of his relatives to the chopping block with confiscation. Did not foresee? then it was even larger which had to be removed after the Russo-Japanese one.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 2 August 2013 16: 57
        0
        Quote: ShadowCat
        Either he did not see corruption, or did not want to send a couple of his relatives to the chopping block with confiscation

        Incidentally, this issue is relevant now.
        But in the days of Stalin I can’t remember such chaos with a cut, on the contrary, they gave the task, try not to fulfill it ...
        1. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa 2 August 2013 17: 17
          0
          The principle was "Each problem has a name and surname"
        2. Shadowcat
          Shadowcat 3 August 2013 14: 35
          0
          Quote: Pilat2009
          on the contrary, they gave the task, try not to do it ...

          That's bullshit. If not performed, the reason was clarified. (although yes, there were excesses) For example, the plant could not cope with the plan for the supply of aircraft engines, they found out the reason - there is no dynamo. found out the supplier and already figured out why.

          Quote: Pilat2009
          But in the days of Stalin, such a mess with a cut I can’t remember

          Sawed, sawed ... over there Yagoda, Yezhov sawed well, Khrushchev and many others.
          It’s just that the matter is that somehow the Liberals and the others didn’t come forward. He and Beria press who needs eggs. Plus weak communication around the country and the world. In those days, what happened? newspaper and radio. Now in Vladik they are sneezing from Krasnodar to him a text message with a healthy send.
          It's simple.
    3. Landwarrior
      Landwarrior 1 August 2013 23: 24
      +2
      Quote: rigoletto2001
      I will remind the Gulag in the Republic of Ingushetia that nobody was destroying their own people

      There was no gulag, but the military courts were hi
      Quote: rigoletto2001
      I’ll remind you of an interesting fact about the USSR — in the country, hunger is in the mass production of TB-1 and then TB-3 ...

      And what bothers you, I don’t understand? The USSR is too big a country to do without strategic aviation request
  • kirpich
    kirpich 1 August 2013 12: 59
    0
    Quote: Bakht
    They always acted as independent squadrons. And from the battleships they ran very fast.


    He asked, and he answered. (Always would) wink
  • Bakht
    Bakht 1 August 2013 13: 03
    0
    Quote: kirpich
    They always acted as independent squadrons. And from the battleships they ran very fast.

    He asked, and he answered. (Always would) wink

    Strictly speaking, there was no question :-) I already know where and why they ran :-)
  • daem00n
    daem00n 1 August 2013 13: 20
    +1
    Quote: xoma58
    Correct article, plus to the author. And these vile criminal faces at the end of the article are very appropriate, indeed deja vu.

    Absolutely agree! The author is a fat plus.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 1 August 2013 13: 28
    -5
    The shark and the ocean fleet were built when the empire was revived because Russia can either be great or not at all. Yes, in 1945, they ended up in Berlin in a different way. If you noticed, I spoke about the price. And the price is the life of people PEOPLE you understand and I have a question where the price of human life was higher if its life can be estimated at all. The tragedy of Samsonov’s army was such a fact, but what are the consequences and the way out of the situation. the Germans cost Bialystok’s protrusion 16 km from Moscow. I’m just tired of hearing about the backwardness of Russia that we are just a collection of worthless biomass my ancestors are slaughtered limp creatures. Only my ancestors created the largest country more than once and more than two pulled the world out of Jo *** s created our unique civilization, and with the advent of Bolshevitsk scum, we only lose territory to Sevastopol and go abroad. I read many authors and everywhere the same, by 1914, with the help of different people, Russia created one of the most advanced fleets in the world. Kamunyaks will not write about 1913. All my life they have been comparing how many more televisions they are in comparison with 1913 and they are now in power both in the Kremlin and in the swamp.
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 13: 28
    +3
    Quote: tverskoi77
    Comparing ships of different types with different purposes and missions, and still not a very weak difference in design ... To put it mildly, "ridiculous"

    You not only read the text, you also read it. The author does not compare the classes of ships and their performance characteristics, he compares tsarist Russia with other countries, its level of development. And at the same time with the USSR.
    A powerful fleet appeared with us only during the USSR, after the Second World War.


    The author calls two types of technology, says, why is one worse than the other - and this is not a comparison?

    Well, if you are talking about a deep philosophical meaning, then the author did not need to go deeply into the technical components, and it is desirable to rush less "historical" conclusions - they came out frankly bad for him.

    Well, looking also what the phrase "powerful fleet" means in your terms. The fleet of the Russian Empire has always been among the top five leading maritime powers since its foundation. Well, if you think about our fleet being the strongest and bending over everyone - then that's another question.
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 13: 35
    +2
    Quote: Bakht
    Well no. I do not think so. It is a miracle. The miscalculation was in German plans. Well, Jutland himself will have to consider it. Shame I call another. Even under Tsushima, Russian ships kept order until the last. And the Germans under fire in Jutland broke the system. Roughly speaking, they fled.


    In the battle of Jutland, they used the most complicated maneuver - "all of a sudden." In fact, not a single fleet in the world has ever repeated such a maneuver in combat operations. So "rude flight" and "broke the line" - this is rudely said. Rather, they left the battle site in an organized manner)
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 1 August 2013 13: 58
      +2
      Yes Yes. I know. Even thrice applied. But for the third time, the flagship itself, instead of right to board, turned left to board. The system mixed up and only after coming out of the fire, the Germans were able to restore the system.

      In general, Jutland is a vivid illustration of the inadequacy of pre-war plans. So the Germans may have won the battle, but lost the naval (surface) war. And all attempts to build the High Seas Fleet turned out to be inappropriate spending.
      1. Gato
        Gato 2 August 2013 12: 15
        0
        Quote: Bakht
        In general, Jutland is a vivid illustration of the inadequacy of pre-war plans.

        In general, any war is a vivid illustration of the inadequacy of pre-war plans. At least the plans of one of the parties.
    2. Djozz
      Djozz 1 August 2013 14: 10
      +2
      Having rolled out the British squadron. And the disgrace of the British in the Battle of Coronel Island on November 1, 1914, when Admiral Spee's squadron defeated Admiral Cradock's squadron. Bottom line; loss by the British of 2 large ships "Monmouth" and "Good Hope", 1654 sailors were killed, causing damage to the Germans in the form of 2 wounded sailors!
      1. Starina_hank
        Starina_hank 1 August 2013 20: 06
        0
        The destruction of the Spee squadron was an adequate response from the British.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 2 August 2013 19: 13
        0
        Quote: Djozz
        Roll out the English squadron

        The balance of power is approximately the same as during Tsushima
    3. vkrav
      vkrav 1 August 2013 17: 03
      0
      "Winning victory by timely retreat from the battlefield is recognized by most military doctrines" (C) :)
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 13: 47
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: fon_Shpee
    Fast battleship "you probably mean" Hood "

    I mean, then, after the PMV


    as I said above - they appeared by the mid 30s. I don’t see any point in comparing ships with a development difference of 20 years (and even in the era of technological progress and increased appropriations)
    1. Kars
      Kars 1 August 2013 16: 20
      +1
      Quote: fon_Shpee
      as I said above - they appeared by the mid 30s

      Really?
      Quote: fon_Shpee
      Avnivate ships with a design difference of 20 le

      Did I compare?
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 1 August 2013 13: 47
    +1
    "To speed up the construction of battleships, the architectural type and the most important design decisions were made mainly on the basis of the experience and the model of four battleships of the Sevastopol type laid down in St. Petersburg in 1909 - the Cyclapedia of the Black Sea fleet.
    Excuse me, the truth must be described to the psychiatrist about the battleship Sevastopol when he wrote. At first, I didn’t even understand why you were sending me to the doctor, then I read your scribble and understood I apologize. I overwhelmed my emotions.
    PS Sorry I do not know how to like
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 13: 48
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: fon_Shpee
    Again - I advise you to look at the tasks facing the battleships and battlecruisers, and before the Russians in particular.

    Perhaps this is why they took part in linear battles (one) in the same line with battleships and against battleships.


    Bakht answered your question perfectly, for which he is grateful.
    1. Kars
      Kars 1 August 2013 16: 21
      +1
      Quote: fon_Shpee
      Bakht answered your question perfectly, for which he is grateful.

      He answered and answered, but the fact remains that in Yutland they were in line with the battleships. Like the German battle cruisers.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 1 August 2013 16: 33
        0
        They were not in line. Both German and English battlecruisers acted independently.

        Invincible died while walking in a separate column. When it got hot, Scheer ordered Hipper to "attack the British battleships." Also as a separate combat unit.
        1. Kars
          Kars 1 August 2013 22: 33
          +1
          Quote: Bakht
          They were not in line. Both German and English battlecruisers acted independently.

          Still say not fought with battleships.

          you read the sick people. When the German LKR lured the English LKR to the main forces of the High Seas Fleet, what kind of rebuilding did they do? And the fact that they were separate squadrons did not belong to the subject. Battleships added nothing to the LKR connections.
          1. Bakht
            Bakht 1 August 2013 23: 26
            0
            So let's get it in order.

            Jutland battle.

            1. Running south. Line cruisers versus line cruisers. No battleships. The 5th squadron of high-speed battleships (those same queens) was 10 miles north.

            2. Discovery of the High Seas Fleet. Running north. The battlecruisers are pointing the German fleet at the HOMEFLEET. Not the Hipper Reconnaissance Squadron, but the entire High Seas Fleet.

            3. Meeting of the Fleets. Jellico leads 4 columns of 5 battleships. Turn left and build a battle line. There are no battlecruisers in its construction. Beatty is trying to disposition to take the place at the head of the column of battleships, performing an intelligence function. That is, he does not get into the line of battle.

            4. Admiral Hood appears on the scene with his Ibling. That is also a separate squadron. He is not in the ranks of Jellico. And runs into Hipper and Scheer. After several volleys, Invincible explodes and Admiral Hood in heaven.

            5. The second time Scheer stumbles upon HOMEFLEET. Hipper and his battlecruisers are also out of the battle line. Comes in a separate column. Scheer, in order to escape, gives a murderous command "battlecruisers to approach the enemy and ram."

            In all 5 episodes, where and when did the battle cruisers line up with battleships? They participated in the battle. As well as light cruisers and destroyers and armored cruisers. But Gellico did not put them in the line of battle. Like Scheer. They had to conduct reconnaissance.

            And after Jutland, Beatty becomes the commander and flatly abandons the battle cruisers. Although the Admiralty is laying down a series of Korejjes. These are the very "white bishops" of Fischer. "Heavy hammers on eggshells" is what the sailors called them. Of these, only Hood entered service. The rest later became aircraft carriers.
            1. Kars
              Kars 2 August 2013 23: 23
              +1
              Quote: Bakht
              So let's get it in order.

              Bring some more circulation. Or do you think only you read Patients?
              Quote: Bakht
              In all 5 episodes, where and when did the battle cruisers line up with battleships?


              in all. Even in the run to the South when Evan-Thomas came up. Or you just need a wake column with a distance of 5 cable.
  • fon_Shpee
    fon_Shpee 1 August 2013 13: 52
    0
    Quote: Nick_1972
    The purpose of the article is not clear. Raise Russia during the time of the USSR, dropping Russia under the autocracy? What for? And then, and this is our story with you. It could be explained why the USSR did not build battleships less emotionally. And the fact that Russia bought ships, and the USSR - technology is ambiguous and biased. Russia bought the Tsesarevich, but then built the Borodino series on its basis. In Russia were built: the armored cruiser "Rurik" heroically perished in Rusko-Japanese (mentioned at the beginning of the article "Rurik" was built after the RYA), battleships of the "Petropavlovsk", "Peresvet" type, as well as "Prince Potemkin Tavrichesky" and the cruiser "Aurora " :) etc. etc. Why not remember at all that Peter the Great did not buy ships or technologies at all, but scientists, engineers, and military leaders. And I won't argue about the ocean-going fleet of the USSR - this is a matter of pride and admiration. However, at the same time, one recalls the view of the Golden Horn with the nose constantly sticking out to the middle of the bay of either "Minsk" or "Novorossiysk", which were in turn being repaired in Dalzavod due to the fact that they forgot to equip the base. And, unfortunately, this can also be continued.


    I will add that you can still remember the purchase of Soviet ships - the same Tashkent and Lutz, etc.