The linear ship "Sevastopol" (1909-1915)

001. Descent of the ship of the line to the water from the stocks of the Baltic factory

005. Alexandria yacht with French President Poincare on board passes by battleships; in the background - with a built team

006. Emperor Nicholas II with a group of naval officers on a boat to the battleship during a visit and inspection of the newly built battleships

007. Emperor Nicholas II with a group of naval officers on a boat to the battleship during a visit and inspection of the newly built battleships

008. near the embankment of the Baltic plant

009. goes to Kronstadt

0010. goes to Kronstadt

11. goes to Kronstadt

12. goes to Kronstadt

13. goes to Kronstadt

14. goes to Kronstadt

15. Workers dock the battleship

01. General view of the squadron battleship

02. General view of the battleship

03. Line ship type

04. goes to sea, surrounded by tugs

05. View of the deck ship battleship; in the center - an artillery tower

06. Sea port workers loading coal aboard a battleship

07. Sailors of the battleship on deck

08. Sailors on the deck of a battleship watching the descent of a diver to inspect the underwater part. Xnumx

09. Sailors on the deck of a battleship listening to a gramophone

10. The officers and sailors of the crew on the deck of the battleship

11. A group of sailors at the artillery gun on the deck of a battleship

12. Sailors, lower ranks of the crew and brass band on the deck of a battleship

13. A group of sailors on the deck of the battleship Sevastopol after the diver’s ascent. Xnumx

14. Sailors of the battleship at work

15. Sailors and lower ranks of the crew of the ship on deck

16. Liner ship tube

17. Gunships of the battleship

18. Officer in a lounge chair on the deck of a battleship near the casemate gun

19. Battleships artillery towers

20. Liner ship tube

21. Artillery guns mounted on the battleship

22. Artillery guns mounted on the battleship

23. View of the part of the deck of the battleship

24. Boats at the gunship of the battleship

25. Artillery guns mounted on a battleship

26. View of the ship's bow spire

27. View of the deck and chimney of the battleship

28. View of the part of the deck of the battleship

29. Travel boats mounted on the deck of a battleship

30. A group of members of the battleship team at the casemate artillery towers

31. The officers at the battleship of the battleship

32. A group of officers on the stern artillery turret of the battleship

33. Officers on the bridge at the conning tower of the battleship

34. A group of officers on the deck of a towed ship of the line

35. The officer at the artillery tower of the battleship

36. General view of the squadron battleship

Comments

[fregina1]

Oh, the power of the former Empire! And they profiled the country and the army because of some fucking Trotsky and Lenin! Because of the European "brothers"!

[xan]

Quote: fregina1

And they profiled the country and the army because of some fucking Trotsky and Lenins!

Profiled because of an internal mess, infantilism and moronity.
Russia is not a country that can be fooled because of some, albeit talented, personalities.

[anip]

Quote: fregina1

Oh, the power of the former Empire! And they profiled the country and the army because of some fucking Trotsky and Lenin! Because of the European "brothers"!

Did the Soviet Union have insufficient power?

[Drummer]

A decent fleet was created only under Gorshkov, and the Soviet Navy did not receive strike aircraft carriers (modern dreadnoughts).

[Devildog85]

The country was spoiled due to the mass betrayal of the aristocratic elite, senior officers and the oligarchic elite - it was not Lenin who forced the emperor to leave, nor Trotsky was the head of the interim government

[nnz226]

The "master of the Russian land" profuked - moronic Nikolashka II!

[vrach]

Thanks for the photo. I love this topic.

[Crang]

And what was the first "Sevastopol" attributed to? Moreover, calling it "battleship squadron". Following this logic, the second "Sevastopol" should have been called "dreadnought". And so these are both battleships.

[Karabanov]

The photos are wonderful. To the author +.
Why is the first "Sevastopol" here, I don’t know (maybe as a predecessor), but ...

Quote: Krang

And what was the first "Sevastopol" attributed to? Moreover, calling it "battleship squadron".

And what should I call a squadron battleship?

[Crang]

If the dreadnought was called a battleship, then call the battleship a battleship. Both are battleships. Moreover, the first, unlike the second, is one of the best in the world at the time of commissioning. But the second "Sevastopol", like the rest of the ships of this series, turned out not only to be not very successful in themselves, but also long-term construction. Even then, the first signs of the impending collapse of battleships began in the development in which they went. At the time the Sevastopol was commissioned, Western countries had already commissioned battleships of the superdreadnought subclass with 343mm, 356mm and 381mm guns. Against which the second "Sevastopol" had even less chances than the first "Sevastopol" against the second.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

If the dreadnought was called a battleship, then call the squadron battleship a battleship. Both of them are battleships.

Dear Krang, do not give out your personal classification as generally accepted. There is an official classification, according to it - the EDB Sevastopol is precisely a squadron battleship, and the author has every right to call him that.

Quote: Krang

At the time of the commissioning of Sevastopol, Western countries had already commissioned battleships of the superdreadnought subclass with 343mm, 356mm and 381mm guns

I beg you ... France - the peers of the "Sevastopol" are the four "Courbet", which entered service in 1913-14 and which did not have too many chances against Sevastopol. And the three "Brittany" in general does not look like a champion, especially taking into account the range of the main battery less than 80 kbt ... Italy - the series "Conte di Cavurov" also does not surpass the "Sevastopol".
But we are talking about the 4 and 5 fleets of the world ...
And battleships of the New York type ... yes, 10 - 356 mm. But - steam engines, the speed (during actual operation) is the same as that of the EBR, a very narrow armor belt ... In general, that still a cigel-locomotive, you cannot call them successful

[Crang]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Dear Krang, do not give out your personal classification as generally accepted.

And this is not my personal classification. This is just elementary logic. Maybe you forbid me to call torpedoes of those times torpedoes? Self-propelled mine and all. Reinforced concrete.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

There is an official classification, according to it - the EDB Sevastopol is precisely a squadron battleship

The squadron battleship is private, and the battleship is common. The squadron battleship is a battleship.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I beg you ... France - the peers of the Sevastopol are the four Courbet, which entered service in 1913-14 and which had little chance against Sevastopol.

Why do you think so? Domestic battleships of the "Sevastopol" type, which were not very successful hybrids of a battleship and a battle cruiser, had very poor protection. Having a good outer "shell", they were almost devoid of inner armor. Their insides were so soft that in the event of a penetration of the outer belt, the fate of such a ship depended not on the number of hits, but on where the shell that pierced the armor ricocheted. It was dangerous for these dreadnoughts to enter into a duel even with the Russian battleships of previous projects. they were vulnerable even to 305mm shells of the 1907 model of the 305mm / L40 cannon (corresponding experiments were carried out in nature), and the battleships differed by far more than a more reliable and tenacious design of armor protection. That is why they were never released into Mondzund, forcing "Glory" with "Citizen" to fight against powerful German dreadnoughts. In general, the "Sevastopoli", despite the really powerful weapons, were inferior to almost all 305mm dreadnoughts built in the same years and were simply poured into the superdreadnoughts that had already begun to appear at that time. The weakness of their protection manifested itself in WW2 when, in fact, the "Marat" was destroyed as a warship by shells and bombs of very moderate calibers.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

And this is not my personal classification. This is just elementary logic. Maybe you forbid me to call torpedoes of those times torpedoes? Self-propelled mine and all. Reinforced concrete.

Dear Krang, I naturally cannot and will not forbid you to call self-propelled mines torpedoes. But it's not about that. I am not forbidding you anything, you forbid the author to call the torpedo a self-propelled mine, on the grounds that the naming "torpedo" is more common. I do not demand that you call a torpedo a self-propelled mine, but another person has every right to call a torpedo of the times of RYAV or DYAV a self-propelled mine. After all, they were really called that back then, there is no mistake.

Quote: Krang

Why do you think so? Domestic battleships of the "Sevastopol" type, which were not very successful hybrids of a battleship and a battle cruiser, had very poor protection. Having a good outer "shell", they were almost devoid of inner armor.

Excuse me, is this how? :))) The 225 mm belt had behind it the 50 mm armored bulkhead What Sevastopol really had was poorly protected - these were barbets and towers, that is, that is.

Quote: Krang

It was dangerous for these dreadnoughts to enter a duel even with Russian battleships of previous projects. they were vulnerable even to 305mm shells of the sample of the 1907 year of the gun 305mm / L40 (corresponding experiments in kind were carried out)

This is not so - although the fire was fired from Obukhov's 12 "/ 40, but firing was simulated from the newest 12" / 52. Those. the armor penetration tables were compiled specifically for 12 "/ 52. But the 12" / 40 mod 1895 EBRs available on the Russian battleships could not have done anything at all - they could pierce 225 mm of armor only point-blank. Though dotsushima shells, even arr 1907.
At the same time, an interesting conclusion was made - from 12 "Russian shells of the latest cannons, ONLY a 350-mm armor belt reliably protects against XNUMX" Russian shells. In other words, only German dreadnoughts could consider themselves relatively safe.

Quote: Krang

That is why they were never released into Mondzund, forcing "Glory" with "Citizen" to fight against powerful German dreadnoughts.

You're wrong. They were not released to Monsund for one simple reason - the draft did not allow them to pass. Therefore, both Andrew and Paul were not sent to Monsund.
Of course, the question arises - would the dreadnoughts risk ditching the battle, EVEN IF their draft allowed them to enter Monsund, but there is a fact - they physically could not do this

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

In general, "Sevastopoli", despite the really powerful weapons, were inferior to almost all 305mm dreadnoughts built in the same years

Nope. the fact is that for the same Aglichans, for example, the 305-mm armored belt was very narrow and barely towered above the waterline (and for sederrednouts with 343-mm it went completely under water sometimes) so for the most part where Russian dreadnoughts had 225-mm armor, the British had 178-mm second belt.

Quote: Krang

The weakness of their protection manifested itself in WW2 when, in fact, "Marat" was destroyed as a warship by shells and bombs of very moderate calibers

Well, there was an air bomb dropped from a decent height - against such a dirty trick, Sevastopol did not have enough protection. After all, horizontal defense was strengthened only at the Paris Commune.

[Crang]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

What the Sevastopol really had was poorly protected were the barbets and towers, that is, that is.

And this is one of the most important places, by the way. And the thickness there in 70mm does not inspire confidence.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

But the 12 "/ 40 mod 1895 on the Russian EDRs could not have done anything with these battleships at all - they could only pierce 225 mm of armor point-blank.

They could penetrate 225mm armor from a distance of 26 cables. It is horizontal. Considering the very steep flight path of 305mm armored projectiles, they also became very dangerous for Sevastopol at distances under 100 cables. the strength of the decks, our first dreadnoughts also did not differ.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

At the same time, an interesting conclusion was made - from 12 "Russian shells of the latest cannons, ONLY a 350-mm armor belt reliably protects it.

Some dreadnoughts already had such a belt or close to it. And such a belt was .... at the first "Sevastopol" so-called. "battleship squadron" shown in the photo.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Of course, the question arises - would dare to throw dreadnought into battle

I’m sure they wouldn’t risk it. "Andrey", "Paul" then yes, but no dreadnoughts. And WW2 had the same attitude.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

And this is one of the most important places, by the way. And the thickness there in 70mm does not inspire confidence.

You probably still wanted to say 70 barbet + 125 mm of the second armored belt and casemates? At the armored belt level, almost all dreadnoughts were booked so-so. Although, of course, Sevastopol is still very small, of course.

Quote: Krang

They could penetrate 225mm armor from a distance of 26 cable. This is horizontal.

I agree. But who would let them on 26 KBT?

Quote: Krang

Considering the very steep flight path of 305mm armored projectiles, they also became very dangerous for Sevastopol at distances under 100 cables. the strength of the decks, our first dreadnoughts did not differ either.

It is also true, but it was extremely difficult to hit from such a distance - despite the fact that Sevastopol obviously had an advantage in sighting (due to a larger number of barrels) and in the mass of a 12 "projectile - and the EBR decks did not present a serious obstacle for them.

Quote: Krang

Some dreadnoughts already had such a belt or close to it. And such a belt was .... at the first "Sevastopol" so-called. "battleship squadron" shown in the photo.

Such ... yes not so :)))
Dear Krang, the fact is that the height of the armored belts of the EDB and the first dreadnought / superdreadnoughts with few exceptions did not exceed 2 m. Only German dreadnoughts differed for the better. Of course, these 2 meters of the same British were well protected by 305-mm armor - but the problem was that a shell could get into these same 2 meters only by chance.
I somehow undertook to count hits in the armored belt during the time of the REV - according to the data available to me (incomplete, of course, and not for all ships), out of the total number of hits in the thick armored belt, no more than 3% of shells fell. You yourself can see the same Puzyrevsky (damage to ships in Jutland) - there I did not count the analysts, but there is also a huge number of hits precisely in the upper armored belts, not in the lower / thick ones ...
Well, I can also say that according to the results of the WWII battles, the 229-mm armor of "Admiral Fischer's cats" did not hold 280-305-mm German shells so badly, although there were cases of penetration, of course.

Quote: Krang

I’m sure they wouldn’t risk it. "Andrew", "Paul" then yes, but no dreadnoughts

I believe that you are right. Although ... grandfather Essen could take a chance, he seemed to have the right to use the 2 dreadnought without permission

[Crang]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I agree. But who would let them on 26 KBT?

Bad weather, fog, etc. In addition, at "Sevastopol", not the entire side was booked with 225mm armor. Only in the center. In the region of the extremities, the thickness of the GBP was reduced to 125mm. The upper belt in the center was 125mm thick and at the front end was 75mm. Such armor-piercing 305mm shells, model 1907, penetrated our battleships. already, respectively, from a distance of 52 cables and ~ 80 cables, so that it was possible to fight, and at a distance of over 100 cables, blanks weighing 331,7 kg would fall into the deck of the Sevastopol, which was also the weak point of battleships of this type.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

It is also true, but it was extremely difficult to hit from such a distance - despite the fact that Sevastopol obviously had an advantage in zeroing (due to the larger number of barrels) and in the mass of a 12 "projectile

However, practice shows that battleships fell from such a distance ("Glory" to "Kronprinz Wilhelm" with 80kbt, "Efstafiy" to "Goeben" with 90kbt, "Panteleimon" to "Goeben" from 110kbt.), But the Black Sea dreadnoughts with a similar a complex of weapons, despite a number of coverings, never managed to get into any German ship. Maybe this is due to the inexperience of the team, maybe due to the fact that the first dreadnoughts were equipped with a simplified MSA in comparison with the battleships of the Borodino and Andrey Pervozvanny series, maybe just an accident, but the fact is obvious.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Dear Krang, the fact is that the height of the armored belts of the EDB and the first dreadnought / superdreadnoughts with rare exceptions did not exceed 2 m.

So what? This is normal practice. Above is often the same PFS. The GBP protected their most vulnerable spots. The shells hit above the GBP apparently could not cause them serious harm, as the practice of shelling Slava showed. By the way, at "König" and "Kronprinz-Wilhelm" with which "Slava" had to fight, the thickness of the GBP was just 350mm.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I somehow undertook to count hits in the armored belt during the time of the REV - according to my data (incomplete, of course, and not for all ships), out of the total number of hits in the thick armored belt, no more than 3% of shells fell.

And these 3% would have done so much trouble if the armor of our battleships were not powerful enough. They have demonstrated unheard of survivability and unsinkability (Borodino series). Hitting the waterline area is generally very dangerous. They lead at least to a loss of speed, as a result of which the ship lags behind, there is one and all the cranks. All our battleships whose extremities were not armored or weakly armored (Oslyabya, Navarin, Sisoy Veliky, Ushakov) died in battle in various disastrous conditions. But to these disastrous conditions they were led to hitting the waterline area of ​​only one or two shells.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

Bad weather, fog, etc.

And yet, no. After all, there is always military guard, and this, after all, must be purposefully climbed into the fray for both sides.

Quote: Krang

In addition, at the "Sevastopol", not the entire board was booked with 225mm armor. Only in the center. In the area of ​​the extremities, the thickness of the GBP was reduced to 125mm.

Dear Krang, after all, dreadnoughts of other countries also booked extremities so-so. And the length and area of ​​the GBP are on the diagram

Quote: Krang

The upper belt at the center was 125mm thick and at the front end 75mm. Such armor is armor-piercing 305mm shells arr. 1907g. our battleships were punched already, respectively, from the 52 cable and ~ 80 cable distances. So it was possible to fight

You can fight, but how do you win? After all, the projectile, having pierced the 125-mm plate, had practically no chance to inflict critical damage - there simply was nothing to damage except barbets, and their 75-mm armor could not be overpowered.

Quote: Krang

However, practice shows that battleships fell from such a distance ("Glory" to "Kronprinz Wilhelm" from 80kbt, "Efstafiy" to "Goeben" from 90kbt, "Panteleimon" to "Goeben" from 110kbt.

As far as I remember, Slava didn’t get into Kronprinz. At the same time, in the battles with the German dreadnought, Slava received an EMNIP with a dozen hits, no less (for all battles) and in return - one unconfirmed? In the battle of the Bosphorus, the distance between Efstafiy and Goeben varied from up to 90 to 73 kbt and from 73 to 110 kbt, and at what time the shell hit, the commander Efstafia does not indicate. Maybe with 90, or maybe with 75.

During the battle, the fall of our shells was observed, both migratory and non-flying, as well as under the bow and stern of Goeben. "This gives us the right to assume that there were hits on Goeben, which is evidenced by a number of observers.

http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/BKM/Zlat/10.htm
But Panteleimon - yes, he did.

Quote: Krang

Maybe this is due to the inexperience of the team, maybe due to the fact that the first dreadnoughts were equipped with a simplified MSA in comparison with the battleships of the Borodino and Andrey Pervozvanny series

On Borodino there was an old geysler, on Andrew and the Black Sea dreadnought - the new 1910 geysler. Rangefinders on dreadnoughts were better. Why are you writing about simplified LMS?
Empress Catherine began to fight with Goeben at a distance of 125 KBT. Why be surprised? Breslau did not come closer than 95 kbt, and covered himself with a smoke curtain.

Quote: Krang

So what? This is normal practice.

Yes, this is abnormal practice. That is why they refused it - the Germans began to make the height of the armored belt in 3,5 meters, the Americans quickly reached 5 meters. The British (already in the battleships of WWII) reached as far as 7 m.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

And this 3% would have done so much trouble if the armor of our battleships were not powerful enough. They have demonstrated unheard of survivability and unsinkability (Borodino series).

Their "unheard of" survivability is mainly due to the fact that Japanese shells could not penetrate even 76-mm armor. At the same time, ships often perished / suffered critical damage without penetrating the main armor belt

[Crang]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Their "unheard of" survivability is mainly a consequence of the fact that Japanese shells even 76-mm armor could not penetrate

Why is such a conclusion? Japanese armor-piercing shells were not worse than ours in general. And they actively used them in Tsushima. And they pierced the armor.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

Why is such a conclusion? Japanese armor-piercing shells were not worse than ours in general. And they actively used them in Tsushima. And they pierced the armor.

The fact is that according to the results of the shelling recorded on the ships that survived the battles (battleships 1TE after the battle at Shantung), EBR Eagle after tsushima, etc. it turned out that in the overwhelming majority of cases, when hitting the armor, Japanese shells did not penetrate even 75 mm. Others can be counted on the fingers of one hand - the possible armor penetration of the Borodino, for example.

[Crang]

High-explosive shells did not penetrate. It is understandable. But armor-piercing pierced. And a few armor plates with a thickness of 152 mm, and on either side was pierced.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

But armor-piercing pierced. And several armor plates with a thickness of 152mm were pierced from both sides.

About cases of penetration of our armor plates 152-mm thickness I do not know

[Crang]

Well, what about .. And "Borodino" sunk? The last straw for the battered ship was just the penetration of the 152mm armor of the feed pipe (barbet) of the 5th or 6th 152mm gun mount. At which just at that moment ammunition was supplied. The fire from the explosion seems to have spread into the cellar.

[Crang]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And yet, no. After all, there is always military guard, and this, after all, must be purposefully climbed into the fray for both sides.

Combat guard at that time was not mandatory. And why protect the battleship? Which in itself is specifically designed to combat all types surface targets? This is exactly what happened in the first battle at Cape Sarych. "Efstafiy" and "Goeben" detected each other from a distance of only 38 cables, and here all the power and effectiveness of the medium and anti-mine caliber "Efstafia" at short distances affected.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

You can fight, but how do you win? After all, the projectile, having pierced the 125-mm plate, had practically no chance to inflict critical damage - there simply was nothing to damage except barbets, and their 75-mm armor could not be overpowered.

Well, there are also a bunch of hatches, hatches, ventilation shafts, etc. I'm not saying that "Glory" or "Andrew the First-Called" could have overcome "Sevastopol", but there was a certain risk for him when he met the battleships.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

On Borodino there was an old geysler, on Andrew and the Black Sea dreadnought - the new 1910 geysler. Rangefinders on dreadnoughts were better. Why are you writing about simplified LMS?

Rangefinders DM-6 - yes better. But the system itself was simplified in terms of data transfer and target designation, which affected the speed of its operation. And this directly and indirectly affected the accuracy.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Yes, this is abnormal practice. That is why they refused it - the Germans began to make the height of the armored belt at 3,5 meters, the Americans quickly reached 5 meters. The British (already in the battleships of WWII) reached as much as 7 m

This is the post-Washington battleship 2MV.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

Combat guard at that time was not mandatory.

Well, why? It was still quite mandatory and was rigorously displayed, except that there were very good reasons against this.

Quote: Krang

And why protect the battleship? Which in itself is specifically designed to deal with all types of surface targets?

Dear Crang, just imagine the situation. The admiral is standing on the bridge of the "Glory", for example, he is leading the battleships of the Baltic Fleet in the thick fog, nothing can be seen for 3 miles. And suddenly he sees, right in front of him, a "stick over T" from the five "Deutschlands", say ...
Combat guard is designed to give the admiral the news of the situation of enemy forces and give time to rebuild into battle formation.

Quote: Krang

This is exactly what happened in the first battle at Cape Sarych. "Efstafiy" and "Goeben" found each other from a distance of only 38 cables

You are mistaken, the first "gebena" saw just the same cruiser "Almaz", after which "Efstafiy" began to deploy the fleet into a battle line.

Quote: Krang

"Efstafiy" and "Goeben" detected each other from a distance of only 38 cables, and here all the power and effectiveness of the medium and anti-mine caliber "Efstafia" at short distances affected.

Still, no. No matter how pleasant it was for me to read about 3 - 12 "and 11 - smaller caliber, but ... In fact, the" Goeben "was hit by a single shell 12" (data from the combat log of Geben). "Efstafiy" received 5 hits from 280-mm shells (or 4 all the same)

Quote: Krang

Rangefinders DM-6 - but better. But the system itself was simplified in terms of data transfer and target designation

I'm trying to understand why you think so. And you know, I even uploaded to myself the most detailed "Description of artillery control devices. With fire, model 1910 of the factory NK Geisler and K" printed in 1912 in St. Petersburg. And it turns out that the later geisler is much more perfect than the one that stood on the Borodino people.

Quote: Krang

This is the post-Washington battleship 2MV.

Why not? In Germany, Friedrich der Grosse walked from 3,5 meters, in the USA - EMNIP "Oklahoma".

[Crang]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Still, no. No matter how pleasant it was for me to read about 3 - 12 "and 11 - smaller caliber, but ... In fact, the" Goeben "was hit by a single shell 12" (data from the combat log of Geben). "Efstafiy" received 5 hits from 280-mm shells (or 4 all the same)

No, not one. This is corrupted data from the enemy side. Ours is also not ideal - I heard data about 14 hits, but according to the most authoritative sources of hits in "Goeben" it was 4: 1 -305mm, 1 - 203mm and 2 - 152mm. "Goeben", in turn, responded with four hits of 283mm shells on the Russian flagship.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I’m trying to understand why you think so.

The "Borodintsy" rangefinders were on the sides of the conning tower and were connected with the sighting devices of the central aiming (VTsN) (magnification 3-4x). On "Slava" they also installed a third, additional rangefinder at a special post between the pipes. As soon as the range was measured, it was pressed by pressing the so-called button. The "rangefinder key" was instantly introduced into the OMS, which by that time was already working out the target's bearing. All this made it possible to open fire in the shortest possible time, almost immediately after measuring the distance, which favorably influenced the accuracy. On the dreadnoughts, things were a little different. Yes - there were already 6-meter rangefinders DM-6 and an automatic machine for generating a smoothed (current) distance. However, rangefinders were not integrated into the LMS as on Borodintsy, and due to their rather large size, they were located in separate rangefinder posts on the roofs of the bow and stern superstructures. Data from them were transmitted to the conning tower by voice over the phone, which is not buzzing. There was also no feedback system with a control dial.

[Crang]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Well, I can also say that according to the results of the WWII battles, the 229-mm armor of "Admiral Fischer's cats" did not hold 280-305-mm German shells so badly, although there were cases of penetration, of course.

What happened to some of these "cats" I think you know? And I think you know what happened to Marat (despite all the upgrades). There are no miracles. That's about the same thing would have happened with the “Sevastopol”, they risked going against the same “Kenig” or even more superdreadnoughts. In general, these are ships that were 2-4 years late, probably.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

then with some of these "cats" I think you know?

Of course. I dare to assure you that booking a board has nothing to do with it.
Apparently, the death of 3 LCR is associated with:
1) Bad defense of the cellars of English ships
2) The disgusting quality of gunpowder, which sought to explode during a fire.
But the general defense ... the Lyon received 16 cans of hits in the battle with Dogger, but was not going to sink. In jutland, 12 hits broke off for him, but again - apart from the threat of a tower explosion, nothing bad happened to him. Queen Mary fought until her death, grabbing 15-20 hits, and also nothing fatal - only when the shells caused fires in the towers and explosions of the ammunition did it explode.
And the same Derflinger, having received 17 hits in Jutland, was beaten in the trash. In general, when the British hit the towers (or near them) they exploded (the Germans, taught by bitter experience dogger banks provided constructive protection), and if not, then they were not so fatally inferior to the Germans.

Quote: Krang

And I think you know what happened to Marat (despite all the upgrades).

The fact of the matter is that Marat practically did not modernize. Unlike the Paris Commune.

[Bosk]

And you can also compare with "Congo" 8-356, "Pennsylvania" 12-356, "Texas" 10-356, "Orion" well, and you can also find if you strain your memory ... the fact is that "talk" about not the effectiveness of 305 mm guns in the not distant future began even before the laying down of the Russian battleships, and from time to time a sad thought appears that they allegedly hurried ... they say it was necessary later but more powerful, though somehow it is forgotten that after the Russian-Japanese fleet was practically "goal" even at the level of old ships.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Bosk

And you can also compare with "Congo" 8-356, "Pennsylvania" 12-356, "Texas" 10-356, "Orion"

You can, of course, but Kongo was better armored than Sevastopol, I mentioned about Texas, Pennsylvania is not the same age as Sevastopol, but Orion ... taking into account the real quality of the English shells and the imperfection of the armor protection, I would not call it a successful ship. And I can’t say that Sevastopol has no chance against it

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

And what was the first "Sevastopol" attributed to? Moreover, calling it "battleship squadron". Following this logic, the second "Sevastopol" should have been called "dreadnought". And so these are both battleships.

If you want to practice Grammarnazism, it's your business, only you are wrong. The first "Sevastopol" is precisely a squadron battleship, not a battleship, since the term "battleship" was revived in Russia only in 1907, and by that time the squadron battleship "Sevastopol" had been lying at the bottom for three years. From the moment of laying and until the very death of "Sevastopol" was listed in the RIF as a squadron battleship and nothing else. But the dreadnought "Sevastopol" went to the RIF as a battleship. So the author of the article is absolutely right.

[Crang]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

but not a battleship, since the term "battleship" was revived in Russia only in 1907,

He has not been reborn. He hasn't gone anywhere. He has always been. Line fleet. The term "ship of the line" was used along with "ship of the line" as loosely as in the case of the "dreadnought".

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Krang

The term "ship of the line" was used along with "ship of the line" as loosely as in the case of the "dreadnought".

Can you imagine any official document of those times (a letter, whatever) signed by some thread of a naval rank with the use of the term "battleship" in relation to the battleships of the Russian imperial (dated before 1907)? :))
You see, I can quite agree that in everyday life, in common parlance, battleships could be called battleships. But according to the official classification of the EBR "Sevastopol" was precisely a squadron battleship. And to reproach the author for the fact that he uses the official terminology is at least strange.

[Crang]

An official document may not be able to, if only because it's just laziness. But if you would call any battleship a battleship at that time, you would be well understood. Even in the book of Novikov-Priboy there is a mention of a conversation specifically about battleships (the author had in mind 2TOE battleships).

[linen]

Yes, I can imagine. Although the orders of Rozhdestvensky on the 2nd Pacific Squadron. The phrase * battleship * is very common. This is all very arbitrary.

[Bosk]

Guys, why are you swearing ?, you never know what happens from not knowing, for example, the same Bolsheviks after the civil one, and maybe even during it without any discussions, all squadron battleships "christened" battleships because they were guided by simple logic - squadron battleship is a LINEAR battle ship, and a battleship is also a LINEAR battle ship, at least I read this once in the "Marine Collection" ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

YES we don’t seem to swear :))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: lin

At least the orders of Rozhdestvensky on the 2-th Pacific squadron.

I quickly ran through most of the 2TOE circulars. Everywhere or armadillo, or squadron battleship. Would you like to indicate the circular number?

[Drummer]

I have never met this. "Battleship" - a term of the times of the sailing fleet, in the years of the RYAV was an obvious anachronism.

[Cristall]

the battleship and the dreadnought (battleship) are different ships, although of the same branch.
It’s erroneous (and this is not about Sevastopol at the bottom of the Port Arthur’s Inner Raid) the battleship flickers ...
In general, this is already a dreadnought battleship. After 1905 (the descent of the Drendnaught) the world was swept by the "dreadnought" race
Thank you for the photo, I'm waiting for a review of the Black Sea Imperial Series ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

The photo is just a masterpiece. A huge number of very little known. Thank you so much!

[SIT]

Thanks to the author for the selection of photos. There are living people on them and therefore the ships, too, seem to come to life, and not just pictures of appearance. Pieces of that time ... After a couple of years, the revolution and the Civil War will scatter these people and many will die, but in the photo they still do not know this and do not even imagine what awaits them very soon.

[ImPerts]

In the last picture, just the squadron battleship. Just illogical and raises questions. The post itself about the battleship and suddenly ...

[Askold]

Thanks to the author, pleased with the series. Surprised photo number 10, where so many bespectacles? A style, a steelworker, - a machine team, firemen? As already written here, it is really a cut of time while the guns are silent and you can warm yourself in a sun lounger in the sun ....

[Russian Uzbek]

why "squadron battleship" ??? battleship! this is already a post-dreadnought and it is still called an "armadillo" ...
and what is the last fota for the ship?

[ICT]

[quote = Russian Uzbek] and what is on the last photo for the ship? [/ quote]
exactly[quote = Russian Uzbek] at the "battleship" "Sevastopol"

[Bosk]

"Line-of-battle ship" - if you take it by "action", then both sailing battleships and squadron battleships and drendnoughts, with the exception of coastal defense battleships, are suitable for this concept. There seems to be a catch in that the word "Battleship" is the same age as "Drendnaught" ...

[mithridate]

great selection of photos

[VasVasGrom]

Pleased photo4 with a seaplane