Military Review

Battleships like "Sevastopol": success or failure? Part of 1

75

The first dreadnoughts of the Russian imperial fleet, the Baltic Sevastopoli, in the Russian-language press, received the most contradictory characteristics. But if in some publications the authors called them perhaps the best in the world, today it is widely believed that battleships of the Sevastopol type were a deafening failure of domestic design thought and industry. There is also an opinion that it was precisely design miscalculations that did not allow Sevastopol to be put out to sea, which is why they stood the whole war behind a central mine obstacle.


In this article I will try to understand how fair the listed estimates of this type of battleships are, and at the same time I will try to disassemble the most famous myths associated with the first Russian dreadnoughts.

Artillery

If there is something in which all (or almost all) domestic sources agree, it is in the high estimate of the artillery of the main caliber of battleships of the “Sevastopol” type. And not without reason - the power of a dozen twelve-inch guns is amazing. After all, if we look at the ships being laid in other countries at the same time as Sevastopol, we will see that ... Sevastopoli was laid in June 1909 of the year. At this time, recently laid-out (October 1908 - March 1909) Dreadnoughts of the Ostflesland type (total of eight 12-dm guns in the side salvo) were being built in Germany and they were preparing to lay down Kaiser-type battleships that were formally capable of firing 10 twelve inches on board . But because of the unfortunate location, the middle turrets could shoot on one side only in a very narrow sector, so that German dreadnoughts can write 10 twelve-inch guns into a side salvo only with a very big stretch. And this is despite the fact that the Kaiser series was laid from December 1909 to January 1911.

In France, Sevastopol does not have the same age as the “Courbet” dreadnought, the Third Republic pawned only in September 1910 of the year, but even he had only 10 guns in the side salvo.

In the US, in March 1909, two Florida-style dreadnoughts were laid, all with the same 10 twelve-inch implements (to be fair, the location of the towers of the American and French battleships allowed the full-fledged 10 to fire in the volley, unlike the German Kaiser ), but Wyomingi, which had a dozen 12-dm guns, were laid only in 1910 year (January-February).

And even the Lady of the Seas of England, a month after the laying of the domestic Sevastopol, begins the construction of two dreadnoughts of the Colossus type, all with the same ten 12-dm guns.

Only the Italians, almost simultaneously with Sevastopol, laid down their famous Dante Alighieri, which, like the Russian dreadnoughts, had four three-gun towers of twelve-inch guns capable of firing from all their 12 trunks aboard.

On the one hand, it would seem that ten guns or twelve are not too big a difference. But in fact, a dozen guns gave the ship a certain advantage. At that time, it was believed that effective shooting required firing at least four-gun salvoes, and where the battleship with 8 guns could give two four-gun salvoes, and the battleship with ten guns - two five-guns, Sevastopol type linkors could give three four gun salvo. There was such a practice as shooting a ledge - when the battleship fired a four-gun salvo and right there without waiting for it to fall - one more (adjusted for the range, say, in 500 meters). Accordingly, the main gunner was able to assess the fall of two of his volleys at once against the enemy ship - so it was easier for him to correct the sights of the guns. And here the difference between the eight and ten guns on the ship is not too significant - a ten-armored battleship could give instead of four-guns - five-guns volleys, which were easier to watch, but nothing more. Well, and domestic battleships had the opportunity to shoot a double ledge - three four-gun salvos, which made it easier to adjust the fire. It is clear that the advantages of the ship gives a quick adjustment.

Thus, a dozen guns of the domestic battleship, in addition to the increase in firepower relative to the 8-10-gun import dreadnoughts, also gave him the opportunity to quickly shoot at the enemy.

But that's not all. In addition to superiority in the number of barrels and potentially faster shooting, immaculate materiel speaks in favor of the artillery of the first Russian dreadnoughts, namely, the remarkable Obukh 305-mm / 52 guns (the figure after the bar is the length of the barrel in calibers) and the heavy 470,9 kg 1911 model projectiles

Virtually all sources chorus sing our hosanna to our twelve-inch studs - and deservedly so. It is possible that this domestic artillery system was at that time the most formidable twelve-inch weapon in the world.

Battleships like "Sevastopol": success or failure? Part of 1


Although it is rather difficult to compare Russian guns with their foreign competitors.

The British first armed their dreadnoughts and battlecruisers with 305-mm / 45 Mark X guns. It was a good artillery system, firing a 386 kg projectile with an initial speed of 831 m / s, but still the British wanted more. And rightly so, because their main opponents, the Germans, created an artillery masterpiece, the 305-mm / 50 SK L / 50 cannon. She was considerably better than the English Mark 10 — shells of the 405 kg projectile were accelerated to speeds in 855 m / s. The British did not know the characteristics of the newest Krupp product, but they believed that they should certainly surpass any competitors. However, an attempt to create a fifty-caliber cannon was not particularly successful: the long-barreled artillery did not work in England. Formally, the new British 305-mm / 50 came close to its German counterpart - 386-389,8 kg shells accelerated to 865 m / s, but the gun was still considered unsuccessful. There was no special increase in armor penetration (although, in my opinion, English shells should be blamed), but the gun turned out to be heavier, the barrel vibrated fairly when fired, reducing the accuracy of shooting. But the longer the gun barrel, the greater the initial velocity of the projectile can be obtained, and the improvement of the English guns 305-mm / 45 has already reached the limit. And since the British long-barreled guns did not come out, the British went the other way, returning to the 45-caliber trunks, but increasing the caliber of the guns to 343-mm ... Surprisingly, the failure of the British to create a powerful and high-quality 305-mm artillery system largely predetermined their transition to a larger caliber than the 305-mm. There would be no happiness, but misfortune helped.

The Russian 305-mm / 52 artillery system was originally created according to the concept of “light projectile - high initial speed”. It was assumed that our gun would shoot 331,7-kg shells with an initial speed of 950 m / s. However, it soon became clear that such a concept was completely flawed: although at a short distance the light projectile accelerated to unthinkable speed would have superiority in armor penetration over heavier and slower English and German projectiles, but with the increase of the battlefield this superiority was quickly lost - the heavy projectile is slower lost speed than light, and given the fact that the heavy projectile also had great power ... They tried to correct the error by creating a heavy-duty 470,9-kg projectile, which was not equal in German however, everything has its price - with such projectiles, the Russian artillery system could only fire at an initial speed of 763 m / s.

Today, “on the Internet”, the low speed of the Russian projectile is often reproached for our twelve-inch and proves using armor penetration formulas (including the famous Marr formula) that the German SK L / 50 had more armor penetration than the Obukhov 305-mm / 52 . By the formulas, maybe it is. But the thing is ...

In the Battle of Jutland from 7 shells in Jutland, Xiongs of the Lion, Princess Royal and Tiger battleships penetrated the 229 battle cruisers. Of course, it can be assumed that not all of these 3 shells were 7-mm, but, for example, two shells that fell into the 305-mm Lion armor-belt were not pierced, and this could only be 229-mm German shells ( for "Lyon" fired at "Lutz" and "Koenig"). In this case, the distance between the British and British ships fluctuated within 305-65 KBT. At the same time, both the Germans and the British walked in the wake columns, having their opponents opposite, so it is hardly possible to sin on the fact that the shells hit at acute angles.

At the same time, the notorious shelling of “Chesma” in 1913, when elements of booking of “Sevastopol” type battleships were reproduced on the old battleship, showed that 229-mm armor penetrates even with a high-explosive projectile at an angle of 65 encounter at 65 kbt. and at meeting angles close to 90 hail, the 229-mm slab is punched even with 83 kbt! In this case, however, the explosion of the projectile occurs during the overcoming of the armor plate (which, in general, is natural for the high-explosive projectile), however, in the first case, a significant part of the mine was “brought” inside. What can I say about the armor-piercing projectile sample 1911 g? This repeatedly holey 254-mm armor (cutting) at a distance of 83 KBT!



Obviously, if there were Russian obuvki on the Kaiser ships firing 470,9-kg with Russian shells - from 7 shells that hit 229-mm armor belts of “Admiral Fisher’s cats”, the armor would be pierced not by 3, but much more, maybe, all 7 shells. The fact is that armor penetration depends not only on the mass / caliber / initial velocity of the projectile, which take into account the formulas, but also on the quality and form of this projectile itself. Perhaps, if we were to make Russian and German cannons fire with similar shells, the armor penetration capability of the German artillery system would be higher, but taking into account the remarkable qualities of the Russian projectile, it turned out that the main battle distances of battleships of the First World War (70-90 kb) Russian gun showed better performance than the German.

Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to declare that the power of the artillery of the main caliber of the first Russian dreadnoughts was considerably superior to any 305-mm battleship of any country in the world.

“Allow me! - a meticulous reader can say here. “And why are you, dear author, completely forgot about the 343-mm British guns of the British super-dreadnoughts, who plowed the seas, when the Russian Sevastopoli was still in completion ?!” I did not forget, dear reader, they will be discussed below.

As for the mine artillery, the 16 of hundred-twenty-millimeter Russian cannons provided ample protection from enemy destroyers. The only complaint was that the guns were too low above the water. But it should be borne in mind that the flood of anti-mine caliber guns was the Achilles heel of many of the then battleships. The British decided the issue radically, transferring the guns to the superstructures, but this reduced their security, and even had to sacrifice caliber, limiting themselves to 76-102-mm guns. The value of such a decision is still dubious - according to the views of the time, destroyers are attacking ships already damaged in an artillery battle, and all the power of anti-mine artillery loses meaning if it is disabled by that time.

But besides the quality of artillery, the fire control system (FCS) became an extremely important element of the ship’s combat power. The scope of the article does not allow me to properly address this topic, I will only say that the OMS in Russia were taken very seriously. By the 1910 g, the Russian fleet had a very sophisticated Heusler system of the 1910 model, but still it was impossible to call it a full-fledged OMS. The development of a new MSA was entrusted to Erickson (in no case should this be considered a foreign development - the SLA was handled by the Russian division of the company and the Russian specialists). But alas, as of 1912, the Erikson's OMS was still not ready, the fear of being left out of the OMS led to a parallel order to the English developer, Pollen. He, alas, didn’t have enough time either - as a result, the “Sevastopol’ ”OMS was a“ hodgepodge ”from the Heusler system of the 1910 sample, into which the individual devices of Erikson and Pollan were integrated. I wrote in sufficient detail about the battleship OMS here: http://alternathistory.org.ua/sistemy-upravleniya-korabelnoi-artilleriei-v-nachale-pmv-ili-voprosov-bolshe-chem-otvetov. Now I will confine myself to stating that the British had the best SLA in the world, and ours were approximately at the level of the Germans. True, with one exception.

In German “Derflinger” there was a place to be 7 (in words - seven) range finders. And they all measured the distance to the enemy, and the average value fell into the automatic machine for calculating the sight. At the domestic "Sevastopol" initially there were only two range finders (there were also so-called Krylov range finders, but they were nothing more than improved micrometers from Lyuzhol-Myakishev and did not provide high-quality measurements at large distances).

On the one hand, it would seem that these range finders provided the Germans with a quick reference in Jutland, but was that so? The same "Derflinger" shot only from the 6 of the volley, and even then, in general, by chance (in theory, the sixth volley was supposed to give a flight, the main gunner of the "Derflinger" Haze tried to take the British into the fork, however, to his surprise, a covering occurred). "Goeben", in general, also did not show brilliant results. But it is necessary to take into account that the Germans still shot better than the British, perhaps some merit of the German rangefinders is in this. My opinion is this: in spite of some lagging behind the British and (possibly) from the Germans, the domestic SLA installed at Sevastopol was, nevertheless, quite competitive and did not give the “sworn friends” any decisive advantages. During exercises, battleships of the “Sevastopol” type were shot at targets at a distance of 70-90 kbt on average over 6,8 minutes (the best result was 4,9 minutes), which was a very good result.

True, “on the Internet” I came across criticism of Russian SLA on the basis of the firing of “Empress Catherine the Great” on the Black Sea, but there it should be borne in mind that both “Geben” and “Breslau” did not conduct a proper fight, but tried with all their might to escape , by maneuver, knocking down the tip-off to our battleship, and the light cruiser also set up a smoke curtain. All of this would have had an impact on the effectiveness of the shooting of German ships, but they had absolutely no business whatsoever before - they only thought about running without looking back. In this case, the shooting distance was usually much more than 90 kb, and most importantly - on the Black Sea dreadnoughts there was ONLY a Heusler system arr. 1910, Erickson and Pollan’s devices were not installed on these battleships. Therefore, to compare the Black Sea "Mary" and the Baltic "Sevastopoli" on the quality of the LMS is in any case incorrect.

Reservation

If most of the sources respond to the artillery weapons of battleships of the “Sevastopol” type to a superlative degree, then the reservation of our dreadnoughts is traditionally weak and completely inadequate. The foreign press of those times generally compared the Russian battleships with the British Lyon-type battlecruisers who had 229-mm armor. We will try to compare and we.

Here is an English Fisher kitty reservation scheme:



And here is the Russian "Gangut":



Since many of us are too busy with a magnifying glass in our hands to look for the thickness of armor on not too clearly traced schemes, I will have the courage to comment on the above. I take the battleship Gangut scheme in the middle, paint a tower on it (do not shoot at the artist and don’t rush with empty bottles, draw as he can) and put down the thickness of the armor. After that, a red felt-tip pen depicts the most obvious flight paths of the enemy shells:



And now a little analysis. The trajectory (1) - getting into the tower, there is an armor for Gangut 203 mm, for Lyon - 229 mm. Englishman has an advantage. Trajectory (2) - hitting barbet above the upper deck. Gangut has 152 mm there, Lion has all the same 229 mm. Obviously, here the English battle cruiser leads by a wide margin. Trajectory (3) - a shell pierces the deck and crashes into the barbet under the deck. The "Gangut" enemy projectile will have to overcome first the upper armored deck (37,5 mm) and then 150 mm barbet. Even if you just add up the total thickness of the armor, you get 187,5 mm, but you need to understand that the shell beats the deck at a very unfavorable angle. The Englishman's upper deck is not armored at all, but the barbet under the deck is thinned to 203 mm. We diagnose approximate equality of protection.

Trajectory (4) - projectile enters the ship. Gangut is protected from it by 125 mm upper armor belt, 37,5 mm armor reassembly and 76 mm barbet, and all in all - 238,5 mm armor, the Lion in this place is not armored at all, so the projectile will meet all the same barbet 203 mm - advantage for the Russian battleship.

The trajectory (5) - the strike of the enemy projectile will be assumed by the very high main 225 mm armor "Gangut", behind it - 50 mm armor reassembly and then - all the same barbet, but alas, I did not know if he had a reservation at this level. I believe that at least an inch, yes I had. However, even if not, 225 mm + 50 mm = 275 mm, while the English battle cruiser is much worse.

Both the Russian and the Englishman's main armor belts are almost equal - 225 mm and 229 mm. But battleships of the “Sevastopol” type had an 5-m armored belt, while the British battleship was only 3,4 m. Therefore, where the Russian battleship has 225 mm armor, the British battleship had only six-inch armor. A mighty 203-mm barbet behind it was thinned to some three inches. Total - British 228 mm armor against mm 275 + unknown armor barbet Russian.

But this is still half the trouble, and the trouble is that this calculation is true only for the middle tower of the battlecruiser. Indeed, besides the thickness of the main armor belt, its height and length are important. Using the example of “Trajectories (4)”, we have already seen what the insufficient height of the main armored “Lion” led to, but now it’s time to remember that if the Russian Dreadnought’s 225 mm Russian dreadnought covered all its Barbet's 4, then the English 229 mm were protected only by machine and boiler rooms , yes, the middle tower, since it was packed between them ... The bow and stern towers "Lion" covered not six, but only five-inch armor - that is, the total thickness of the armor protecting the cellar did not exceed 203 mm, but in a small area aft tower (where the five-inch belt replaced four inch) and at all 178 mm!

Trajectory (6) - Russian ship is protected by 225 mm main armor belt and 50 mm bevel, British - 229 mm armor belt and 25,4 mm bevel. The advantage again in the Russian battleship. True, the Englishman has 1,5-2,5 armored inch ammunition in the ammunition cellar, so it can be said that the protection of the cellars on this trajectory in Gangut with Lion is approximate equality, but the machine and boiler rooms in Gangut are protected somewhat better.

In general, the following conclusion suggests itself. The Russian battleship is weaker than the reservation of towers and barbet above the upper deck, and everything below is armored as or even significantly better than the English ship. I would venture to say that the Russian ship has significantly better protection than the British battleship. Yes, the towers are less armored, but how fatal is it? As a rule, a direct hit by an enemy shell caused the tower to remain silent, regardless of whether the armor was pierced or not. Here, for example, the case of the “Princess Royal” in Jutland - German (and, according to Puzyrevsky, 305-mm), the projectile falls into the 229-mm armor plate of the tower and ... does not break through it. But the slab is pressed inward, and the tower is jammed.

By the way, what's interesting is when I wrote that only three out of seven German shells pierced the 229-mm armor of the British ships, I wrote only about hitting armor. And if we count this tower, it turns out that only three of eight armor penetration? In fact, there was a ninth hit - in the 229-mm armor of the fourth tower of the Tiger battlecruiser. The shell still pierced the armor, and ... nothing happened. The effort expended in overcoming the armor plate was mutilated by the projectile — its unexploded remains, devoid of “head” and a detonator, were found after the battle ... In this case, the armor was pierced, but what was the use of that? Not so badly defended 229-mm armor, as some think ... But generally speaking, there were cases when the German 305-mm shells held even 150-mm armor. In this case, the defeat of the tower, with or without armor penetration, in some cases caused a fire, which, if penetrated into the cellars, could threaten to detonate the ammunition. But not always. For example, in the battle at Dogger Banks, a British shell struck the barbet of the Zeidlita aft tower - there was a fire, both the stern towers were out of order, but there was no explosion. In Jutland, Derflinger and Seidlits lost 3 turrets of the main caliber, including armor penetration - but the battlecruisers did not explode. The fact is that the main role in the detonation of the cellars was played not by the thickness of the tower armor, but by setting up the sub-battalions and supplying ammunition to the guns - the Germans, after the “Seidlitz” experiment at Dogger Bank, provided for constructive protection against the penetration of fire into the cellars. Yes, and the British there were cases where the penetration of armor towers was not accompanied by a disaster.

In other words, weak booking of towers and barbets above the upper deck, of course, does not paint the ship, but does not condemn it to death. But below the upper deck, Sevastopol-type battleships were much better protected than English battlecruisers.

"So what? - the reader will ask me. “Just think, you have found with whom to compare - with the English battle cruiser, a recognized loser in terms of protection, because three such ships flew into the air in Jutland ...”

So, not so. If we reject the stamps imposed on us by widely replicated points of view, we are surprised to find that the same “Lion” got hit by the German main caliber in the Dogger Bank 15, but was not going to drown or explode. Yes, and 12 hits in Jutland did not become a tragedy for him. “Princess Royal” “did not notice” eight hits in Jutland, and “Queen Mary”, the only dead battlecruiser of this type, received 15-20 hits of the praised German shells. And the cause of the ship’s death was the hit in the area of ​​the nose towers (and, apparently, struck the barbet of tower “B”), which caused the explosion of ammunition that tore the ship into two parts in the area of ​​the foremast ... Explosion in the tower “Q” , in essence, was already a miserycord, “a blow of mercy” that finished off the ship. In other words, the battle cruiser of the British was killed by a strike in the place of his apparent weakness, where his cellar was covered from the force of 203 mm of aggregate armor. But if “Sevastopol” with its 275 mm (or even with a plus) the total cellar protection would have been in its place, would it have exploded? Oh, something serious doubts gnaw at me ...

A word to the famous Tirpitz, who seems to be the last person in this world who is interested in praising the English battlecruisers:

"The advantage in the battle of Derflinger is characterized by the fact that he could penetrate the thickest armor of the British cruiser from a distance of 11700 meters, and the British cruiser needed to go up to a distance of 7800 meters."

But excuse me, because the recommended 11700 meters are just a little more than 63 cables! It seems Tirpitz was right: already at distances in 70-80 kbt German shells pierced the English 229 mm at best through time! And after all, what is interesting is that the “Queen Mary” is described as “sudden”, that is, “having killed” a dozen shells, the battlecruiser did not at all give the impression of a trough beaten up in trash, unable to continue the fight?

Why are there battlecruisers! The British Warrior cruiser Warrior, who fought Admiral Hipper's squadron for 35 minutes, received 15 280- and 305-mm projectile hits, but was still afloat 13 hours after that.

Should I remind you that the perfectly protected Lutz was killed by 24 British shells, which turned him into a ruin barely floating on the water?

The vast majority of people interested history the fleet, quite satisfied with the common stamp that "the battlecruisers of Germany demonstrated miracles of survivability, while the British were worthless" eggshell armed with hammers. But is it really? Of course, the German cruisers were much better armored, but did they provide this overwhelming superiority in combat stability?

This is a rather complicated question, and it is possible to answer it only by undertaking a separate study. But the Russian dreadnoughts of the “Sevastopol” type, occupying an intermediate position between the British and German battleships in their reservations, certainly were not “whipping boys” possessing “useless combat stability”.

The version of the unprecedented weakness of booking Russian dreadnoughts was born as a result of the shelling of the former "Chesma", but ... it must be remembered that Chesma was fired almost the best 305-mm gun in the world, probably the best 305-mm projectile in the world. And then everything will immediately fall into place.

According to the results of the shooting of "Chesma" (experimental vessel №4, if you will) the artillery department of the GUK made an interesting conclusion: when meeting a projectile and armor at an angle from 70 to 90, hail (not counting the angle of projectile falling) Russian 305-mm projectile at 70 KBT punched 305-365-mm armor. And this is despite the fact that only cases were counted when a projectile pierced armor and exploded after it - if you lower the requirements until the projectile breaks when the armor penetrates, so the Russian projectile overwhelmed the 400-427 mm armor at the same angles ...

In general, if an alternative historical miracle happened, and the commanders of the German battlecruisers suddenly saw not six huge, high-breasted English battlecruisers, but low, four-sided Russian dreadnoughtt silhouettes flying over the waves, I was afraid that the Kaiser would reward Admiral Hipper posthumously. Yes, and the British certainly would not rejoice in replacing the German battle cruisers with Russian battleships.

Of course, the same English dreadnoughts, not to mention the German dreadnoughts, carried much more powerful armor than the Russian “Sevastopoli”. But she would have helped them in battle, that is the question.

Let's consider a hypothetical duel between the Russian “Sevastopol” and the British “Orion”. The overwhelming majority of those interested in the history of military fleets have an obvious answer. After removing the reference book from the shelf and opening it on the necessary page, we read: the thickness of the side armor of the “Sevastopol” is 225 mm, and the Orion is the whole 305 mm! English and Russian shells have a similar initial speed - 759 m / s and 763 m / s, respectively, but the Russian armor-piercing projectile weighs only 470,9 kg, and the British - 635 kg! We close the reference book and diagnose that a fight with Orion would be a perverted form of suicide for the Russian battleship ... Is that so?

But if we consider the booking of Orion more closely, then ...



Tower armor - 280 mm, barbety - 229 mm. This is much better than the Russian 203 mm and 150 mm, only chances to keep the Russian armor-piercing projectile of the 1911 model in the 70-80 distance from the British defense are virtually no chance. In other words, in the main battle ranges, the British artillery is completely vulnerable to Russian projectiles. Yes, the armor of the English towers is thicker, but what's the use of this?

The upper armored belt has a thickness of 203 mm, and this is better than the 125-mm board and the 37,8-mm armored bulkhead of the Russian battleship, but 8 inches to Russian shells is not an obstacle. True, at this level the Englishman’s artillery is better protected, the British battleship has 178 mm barbet, the Russian has only 150 mm above and 76 mm below. But on the next series of battleships, the British abandoned 178 mm barbet in favor of 76 mm, almost equaling the total thickness of the armor with the Russian Dreadnoughts.

And below the Englishman - the main bronepoyas. Here, it would seem, the advantage of the English battleship! But no - and the point is not that the British main armor belt is lower than that of the “Gangut” and is 4,14 m high against 5 m, because 4,14 m is not bad either. It turns out that the main armor belt "Orion" itself consists of two armor belts. Moreover, 305-mm thickness is only the bottom, and the top one is 229 mm.

The fact of the matter is that directories usually give the thickness of armor, but not the height and the area of ​​the main armor belt. And the imagination subconsciously believes that on the battleships the heights and lengths of the armor belts are about the same, and the English 305-mm armor belt is given a priori palm. They forget that this armor belt does not even reach half the height of the Russian ... Will such armor defend much?



An analysis of the battles of the Russo-Japanese War shows that the main armored belts of the Russian and Japanese battleships (which approximately corresponded in height to the British Orion) were hit by approximately 3% of the total number of shells in the ship. In Jutland, the ratio was better - for example, 2,28-mm armor of English battleships such as Queen Elizabeth only 330 projectile from 3, which hit the dreadnoughts of this type, or 25%, got into 12-meter belts of the 3,4-mm armor. But the armored belt of the English battle cruisers "Lion", "Princess Royal", which had 25 meters of height and "Tiger", already assumed a quarter (XNUMX%) of the total number of hits.
But the most important thing is to keep 305-mm Russian armor-piercing projectile at a distance in 70-80 kbt even Orion’s 305-mm armor, if it could, then two times for the third. But behind it - almost nothing, only an inch (25,4-mm) bevel ...

The conclusion from this comparison is as follows. Yes, the British battleship is better armored, but at a range of 70-80 KBT its protection is quite vulnerable to the effects of Russian 305-mm projectiles. Here, of course, there is a counter-question - how does the armor of our battleships protect against English projectiles at the same distance?

But before we answer this question, it is worthwhile to dwell, perhaps, on the most common myth about Russian battleships.

To be continued ...
Author:
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 22 September 2014 09: 03
    11
    it is believed that it was precisely design miscalculations that didn’t allow Sevastopol to be put out to sea, which is why they stood the whole war behind a central mine obstacle
    Maybe they’re just not for the Baltic?
    During the Second World War, they also did not go to sea, showed themselves only as floating self-propelled guns
    But as shown!
    Leningrad would be even harder without them
    1. Князь
      Князь 24 October 2014 21: 22
      +1
      Yes, and Sevastopol, too, would have been more difficult if the "Paris Commune" (aka "Sevastopol") did not participate in the defense
  2. Kars
    Kars 22 September 2014 09: 04
    +9
    If he had been built two, three years from the moment of laying, he would have been a first-class ship.
  3. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 22 September 2014 09: 09
    17
    Oh how many copies are broken, about Sevastopol ....
    Many thanks to the author for the detailed article, we look forward to continuing a very interesting beginning.
  4. wanderer987
    wanderer987 22 September 2014 09: 22
    +4
    Ships of this class were originally created for large-scale maritime operations and not in order to chase flies, even without taking part in combat operations, they were a big factor in deterring the enemy (military parity, for example, TNW) in this case in the Baltic, a relatively small theater of military operations, plus enough large minefields, which limited the actions of the fleet, and the caliber of a gun without the training of the command is not the most important indicator, in the end, without the coherence of the crew and competent command, it is not possible to achieve success in battle, an example of "Chervony of Ukraine!" in the same period, in one of the battles, to increase the firing range, holds were flooded on one of the sides, the result was positive.
    1. turanchox
      turanchox 22 September 2014 15: 58
      +5
      example of "Chervony of Ukraine!" In the same period, in one of the battles, to increase the firing range, holds were flooded on one of the sides, the result was positive.

      maybe all the same "Glory"
  5. Crang
    Crang 22 September 2014 09: 30
    10
    Andrey - the main problem of the first domestic dreadnoughts is long-term construction. A consequence of the stagnation of the country's economy and industry. And the money spent on the construction of these four drains could be used to equip an entire army. From this point of view, it is safe to say that the dreadnoughts that stood in the port throughout the war did not pay for themselves, unlike the older battleships. That is why you are not correctly comparing the laying time of our dreadnoughts and their foreign classmates. It is necessary to compare the time of entry into the combat composition of the fleet of our first dreadnoughts and what in the same period of time entered service with the Western countries. So, when the Andreev flag was raised on our "Sevastopol", the fleet of Western countries and Japan was replenished with superdreadnoughts equipped with 340mm, 356mm and 381mm guns. Against their background, the excellent characteristics of the world's best 12 "gun quickly faded.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 September 2014 16: 04
      +3
      Quote: Krang
      Andrew - the main problem of the first domestic dreadnoughts is a long-term construction

      Dear Krang, I’ll certainly write about all this. Or rather, I’ve almost written, I’ll post the second part either today or tomorrow.
      Quote: Krang
      And because you are not correctly comparing the bookmark time of our dreadnoughts and their foreign classmates.

      It depends on what we are comparing. If we compare the project - i.e. the quality of the design of the ship and find out how advanced our views on the dreadnought were, then we need to compare the bookmark.
      But I will compare not only built but also built ships.
      Quote: Krang
      So when the Andreev flag was raised on our "Sevastopol", the fleet of Western countries and Japan was replenished with superdreadnoughts equipped with 340mm, 356mm and 381mm guns.

      Still not so. Yes, the United States entered the ranks of Texas with their 356 mm, but the English Quin was commissioned only in 1915, and the French - at the end of 1915 - 1916. Well, Japanese Fuso is the end of 1915.
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 23 September 2014 14: 04
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Still not so. Yes, the United States entered the ranks of Texas with their 356 mm, but the English Quin was commissioned only in 1915, and the French - at the end of 1915 - 1916. Well, Japanese Fuso - the end of 1915

        I want to supplement you a little. The fact is that in my opinion, after the commissioning of the superdreadnoughts of Britain, the USA and Germany, all the other battleships also began to hopelessly yield to them. The same Nassau for example, why not a battleship? But where is Nassau and where is Queen Elizabeth? And the moment of commissioning the battleship in this case is not so important.
        And by the way, in my opinion, our dreadnoughts had better chances to resist Lizzy than Nassau did))))
  6. Crang
    Crang 22 September 2014 09: 33
    -4
    According to the results of the shooting of Chesma (experimental vessel No. 4, if you like), the GUK artillery department made an interesting conclusion: when a shell and armor meet at an angle of 70 to 90 degrees (not counting the angle of incidence of the projectile), a Russian 305-mm shell at a distance of 70 KBT pierced 305-365 mm armor.
    In 1MB, the typical naval battle distance was already slightly higher (around 80-100kbt).
    In general, if an alternative historical miracle happened, and the commandants of the German battlecruisers suddenly saw in front of them not six huge, high-breasted battlecruisers, but the low silhouettes of four Russian dreadnought creeping over the waves, then I’m afraid that the Kaiser would reward Admiral Hipper posthumously.
    It is unlikely. Remember how and what the Germans sunk "Marat" in WW2. This case just demonstrated any survivability of the first domestic dreadnoughts.
    1. Andy
      Andy 22 September 2014 10: 18
      +7
      and how drowned? aviation. but by the 40s she was no longer the same as in the 14th.
      1. Crang
        Crang 22 September 2014 10: 23
        0
        Quote: Andy
        and how drowned? aviation. but by the 40s she was no longer the same as in the 14th.

        Well, aviation is understandable. But what? What weapons did the aircraft use do not remind?
        1. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 22 September 2014 17: 44
          +5
          September 23, 1941 the ship in Kronstadt was seriously damaged during an air raid. The damage was caused by the direct hit of bombs dropped by diving U-87 dive bombers, one of which was piloted by Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who later became known as the Luftwaffe (in Rudel’s memoirs [2], it was stated that he attacked Marat twice - on September 16 he dropped on deck "Marat" bombs weighing 500 kg, September 23 - a bomb weighing 1000 kg with a special fuse with a delay in detonation). Two bombs, presumably weighing 500 kg each, detonated at intervals of a fraction of a second — one somewhat in the nose and the other aft from the foremast. When a bomb hit the bow, it detonated the ammunition of the first main-caliber tower. As a result, the tower itself, "jumping", fell into the gap formed by the deck. The nasal superstructure, along with all the fighting posts, instruments, anti-aircraft artillery, the nasal conning tower and the people there, fell on the starboard side, collapsing into the water. A nasal chimney of a characteristic shape fell along with casings of armored grates. The commander of the ship, captain of the 2nd rank P.K. Ivanov, the senior assistant to the captain of the 2nd rank V.S. Chufistov and 324 more were killed. As a result of the injuries, the ship, which received 10 tons of water (with a displacement of 000 tons), was completely flooded and lay on the ground near the wall at a depth of 23 m. All artillery failed [000].


          2x500 and 1000 kg BRAB, from a dive, to the deck, almost at 90 degrees ... By "killing capacity" - the equivalent of 10-15 15 'salvoes from an average distance, in polygon conditions, with 50-60 kbt (taking into account the probability of hit ).

          In Pearl Harbor, "Arizona" also sunk 1 BRAB (made from a 14'-projectile) (piercing the deck and causing detonation of the main battery ammunition)
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Gomunkul
          Gomunkul 22 September 2014 17: 50
          0
          Well, aviation is understandable. But what? What weapons did the aircraft use do not remind?


          "Knight's Cross" and Oak Leaves are very high awards by German standards, and they are not awarded for simple participation in sorties. These awards by status can be compared with the Hero of the Soviet Union. Therefore, there is no doubt that the aforementioned captains J. Potter and D. Peltz were awarded precisely for the sinking of the "Marat", because the German aviation did not perform other feats near Leningrad in September 1941. Most likely, during the sinking of the Marat, the VM-1000 mines were used, which were used in the German aviation as heavy bombs. Each mine contained 700 kg of explosives. This amount of explosive is quite enough to tilt a ship with a displacement of 23 tons in case of a close fall (which happened to the Marat shortly before its death), and in case of a direct hit, destroy armored decks with a blast wave and cause detonation of ammunition in the cellar of the N000 main caliber tower ...
          link: http: //samlib.ru/t/tonina_o_i/a_marat_01.shtml
        4. Князь
          Князь 24 October 2014 21: 24
          0
          Heavy bombs and torpedoes
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 September 2014 16: 05
      +7
      Quote: Krang
      In 1MB, the typical naval battle distance was already slightly higher (around 80-100kbt).

      No :))) From such distances sometimes shot, but almost did not hit.
      Quote: Krang
      It is unlikely. Remember how and what the Germans sunk "Marat" in WW2. This case just demonstrated any survivability of the first domestic dreadnoughts.

      In general, not an indicator - a bomb dropped from the top.
    4. Князь
      Князь 24 October 2014 21: 27
      -1
      Where did he drown?
      On September 23, 1941, the ship in Kronstadt, the Marat battleship, was heavily damaged during an air raid.
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 22 September 2014 10: 09
    +6
    Article plus for a detailed analysis of the main qualities of battleships - artillery and armor. How many koipy were broken about the qualities of battleships of the "Sevastopol" class! And yet ... All this is only theoretical calculations. Everything is tested in battle. Alas, shortsightedness and miscalculations in planning and banal reinsurance (popularly called cowardice) led to the fact that the qualities of battleships, being strong on the boomeg, remained so. Although there was an opportunity to measure their strength with their peers: "Kaisers" and "Koenigami". Again, the outcome of the confrontation is influenced not only by the distance of the battle, the quality of shells and artillery, but also the course angles at which the battle is being fought, and the peculiarities of the weather in which the battle is being fought. And they also significantly affect the level of security of the ship and the ability of artillery. Therefore, the theoretical calculations of this article, tied to a simple comparison on the ideal conditions, achieved at the test sites, remain just theoretical calculations. And thank God if the quality of the Russian shells would correspond to the declared one. For the shelling of the Kronstadt forts by "Glory" suggests otherwise.
    So the Germans and the British checked the capabilities of their ships in the battle for compliance with the declared characteristics. What can not be said about us, Italians with the French, Americans.
    Therefore, we are strong only on paper ...
    Thanks to the author for the article hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 September 2014 16: 16
      +7
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Although there was an opportunity to measure their strength with their peers: "Kaisers" and "Koenigami".

      Yes, there were almost none - after the commissioning of Sevastopol, the Germans did not go to visit us about less than 8 dreadnought.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Therefore, the theoretical calculations of this article, tied to a simple comparison on ideal conditions achieved at the test sites, remain simply theoretical calculations.

      Sure. But it should be borne in mind that "Sevastopoli" are declared "the most dastardly battleships in the world" based on the same theoretical calculations (only, usually, much less detailed than mine :)))
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And thank God if the quality of the Russian shells would correspond to the declared one. For the shelling of the Kronstadt forts by "Glory" suggests otherwise.

      I believe that you mean the suppression of the Sveaborg uprising in 1906 by "Glory"? Then you are absolutely right - the shells really did not explode there and the consequences of the shelling were negligible.
      But it should be borne in mind that the shelling was carried out by Tsushima 305-mm shells weighing 331,7 kg. There could be no other shells at that time on the battleships - the new 331.7 kg projectile with an increased explosive content and improved fuses appeared only in the 1907 year.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Thanks to the author for the article

      And thank you for your kind words!
      1. Kars
        Kars 22 September 2014 16: 59
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        declared "the most ridiculous battleships in the world"

        and who do you think should be? if we forget about the Austro-vegans.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 September 2014 17: 03
          +4
          Quote: Kars
          and who do you think should be?

          French "Courbet", Heligolands of Germany, "Colossus" and in general any 12-inch battleships of England, Viribus-Unitis, Kawachi of Japan, US battleships on "Wyoming" inclusive, yes, in fact, any Italians in terms of the aggregate performance characteristics of the "Sevastopol"
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 September 2014 17: 13
            +2
            Somehow it turns out strange but okay, but the answer to everything except Sevastopol is not very good for me. I would be the worst of the above list.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              22 September 2014 18: 02
              +2
              Quote: Kars
              I would be the worst of the above list.

              Here on this score - I did not seriously analyze. Maybe Kawachi? :)) I don’t know :)
              1. Kars
                Kars 22 September 2014 18: 05
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Maybe Kawachi ?:

                I’ll go and see what they’re eating, the name is familiar.

                and so All the same, it is necessary to somehow compare - and the most honest thing will be by the date of adoption. And then at the time of launching (I’m not talking about adoption) the same Colossus mentioned was the twelfth battleship of the English fleet.
              2. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 22 September 2014 20: 44
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Here on this score - I did not seriously analyze. Maybe Kawachi? :)) I don’t know :)

                In fact, the Kawachi and Zetsu have somehow not grown to full-fledged battleships. In essence, these are just enlarged "Aki" with the replacement of 12-254mm guns in 6 turrets by 8-305mm in four. At the same time, the length of the barrels of the side towers was less than in the extremities with all the ensuing consequences (inconvenience of zeroing due to the different speed of the projectiles, and therefore the differences in burst times, inconvenience in fire control). In addition, they kept confusion in the artillery of smaller calibers, being armed with 152mm, 120mm and 76mm guns. Those. The Kawachi were simply the logical culmination of a line of ships starting with the Tsukuba. Battlecruisers of the Congo class became the real ships of the "all big gun" class. On the basis of which the subsequent series of battleships were built.
                1. murriou
                  murriou 30 March 2016 23: 50
                  +1
                  Do not forget that the Kawachi entered service in 1910, among the very first imitators of the Dreadnought.

                  In 1912-1913 they had the "Congo" LKR, at that time the strongest in their class.
                  And in 1915, they already commissioned the Fuso, which was very much superior to the Russian battleships in all respects.
            2. sergius60
              sergius60 22 September 2014 19: 26
              +1
              Spanish type "España" (+ "Alfonso 13", "Jaime 1"). With a tonnage of 16,7 thousand tons and 8x305mm / 50, they turned out to be still "handsome" !!! Gishpantsy were really going to fight on them? : - (((It's a mystery to me.
              Here I found: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_ships_type_first_Espanya
              1. Kars
                Kars 22 September 2014 20: 19
                +1
                Quote: sergius60
                With tonnage in 16,7 thousand

                Well, using the comparison method proposed (as I personally understood), the Spaniards simply built a super battleship that did all the tech Edward, Mikass and Borodino as children.
              2. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 22 September 2014 20: 51
                0
                Quote: sergius60
                Spanish type "España" (+ "Alfonso 13", "Jaime 1"). With a tonnage of 16,7 thousand tons and 8x305mm / 50, they turned out to be still "handsome" !!

                The Spanish built the Espagni based on the size of the docks available in the country. And since they could only take the dimensions of the then last battleships, the Italian battleships were designed based on limitations in size and displacement. Well, I really wanted to join the club of dreadnought owners. Fortunately, turbines appeared. Due to the weight savings in the mechanisms and the "child" thickness of the armor, it was possible to push it into 17000 tons. eight 305mm cannons. As a result, we have a pocket battleship, which, with its speed of 19 knots, booking of 203mm could only die (hypothetically) even when meeting with peers.
                And so nothing, pretty boat "economy class"
                I personally like smile
          2. murriou
            murriou 30 March 2016 23: 54
            0
            But they were all launched and put into operation much earlier than the Sevas and Imps. And the contemporaries of the Russian "battleships" on commissioning, around the world, turned out to be much more powerful than them in most significant parameters.
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 22 September 2014 20: 54
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And thank you for your kind words!

        You're welcome smile We will wait for the second part of the article
  8. Crang
    Crang 22 September 2014 10: 10
    +2
    The conclusion from this comparison is as follows. Yes, the British battleship is better armored, but at a range of 70-80 KBT its protection is quite vulnerable to the effects of Russian 305-mm projectiles. Here, of course, there is a counter-question - how does the armor of our battleships protect against English projectiles at the same distance?
    And almost nothing. The 381mm shell of the British will penetrate our GBP from any distance from which it hits. But if our old battleships had colossal survivability thanks to their powerful internal armor, then dreadnoughts have almost no internal armor around the "shell" of GBP and VBP. Their fate will be decided not by the number of shells hit, but by the place where the shell will hit.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 September 2014 16: 17
      +3
      Quote: Krang
      And almost no how

      But let's see :)))
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 23 September 2014 13: 34
        0
        What are seriously going to fight? belay
      2. Князь
        Князь 25 October 2014 15: 30
        0
        People who will be able to simulate the battle of battleships such as "Gangut" with foreign brothers in class?
  9. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 22 September 2014 10: 32
    +9
    Hello Andrey and many thanks for a rather interesting analysis. There is a lot of information, but this whole dispute can only be resolved by a general battle between ours and English or German ships. And there were no such battles. The reason is the fear of Russian naval commanders for the death of their ships. And battleships of the "Gangut" type were generally released at sea with the personal permission of the emperor.
    An example can be cited not only of Jutland, but also of the battle at Cape Sarych, where several shells hit the "Goeben". One could cite as an example "Slava", which got several German shells in 1915 and 1917. Well, at the very beginning of the article there are data on the contemporaries of "Gangut", but I did not see the Austro-Hungarian battleship "Viribus Unitis". And he has 12 guns with a caliber of 305 mm in an onboard salvo, and an armored belt - 280 mm.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 September 2014 16: 20
      +5
      Quote: VohaAhov
      A lot of information, but this whole dispute can be resolved only by a general battle between ours and English or German ships. But there were no such fights

      Right. But I just want to note that our battleships are not accused of all mortal sins, either on the basis of battles, but only on paper. So I presented a different point of view.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      The reason is the fear of Russian naval commanders for the death of their ships.

      Generally speaking, Essen was not afraid and was preparing battleships for a fight. But ... how he left at the wrong time! crying
      1. avt
        avt 22 September 2014 20: 55
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Right. But I just want to note that our battleships are not accused of all mortal sins, either on the basis of battles, but only on paper. So I presented a different point of view.

        But because it is somehow overlooked that they were the first and built for a really long time. The operating experience brought Nikolai I. Well, if you like, then completely his dreams, including Shukhov's towers of masts laughing , Russian shipbuilders have already implemented in the USA starting with “Nevada.” It was not only Kolchak who traveled to the USA, many Russian engineers were sent there to fulfill the defense order.
    2. murriou
      murriou 30 March 2016 23: 43
      0
      at Cape Sarych, there was ONE effective hit to "Goeben". Eberhard's lies in our time to quote - to expose yourself as an idiot.
  10. smershxnumx
    smershxnumx 22 September 2014 10: 57
    +6
    Very informative! Thanks to the author for a detailed study of the article! hi
  11. Taoist
    Taoist 22 September 2014 11: 07
    +4
    Good article. In any case, an attempt to analyze not some individual performance characteristics but their complex. Well, do not forget the "design specifics" of "Sevastopol" - they were never planned to be used as a "high seas fleet" - after all, a battle on a mine artillery position is very different from free maneuvering on the high seas. Hence the underestimated side height, and "blurred booking" and the maximum weight of the side salvo ... The problem of these dreadnoughts is not in their performance characteristics, but rather in the general "impotence" of commanding them ... Which is sad.
    1. Crang
      Crang 22 September 2014 11: 41
      -2
      Quote: Taoist
      Well, do not forget the "design specifics" of "Sevastopol" - they were never planned to be used as "high seas fleet" - all the same, a battle on a mine artillery position is very different from free maneuvering on the high seas. Hence the lowered side height, and "blurry booking" and the maximum weight of the side salvo ...

      Alas, the smeared onboard armor was not made at all because of deep knowledge of the art of fighting "in a mine-artillery" position (for which dreadnoughts are generally ill-suited). And just on the basis of hasty conclusions on the Tsushima battle. Our dreadnoughts wanted to protect from the hail of medium-caliber OFS. As for the "maximum weight of the onboard salvo", the location of the main guns on the Russian dreadnoughts was unsuccessful, and practically nowhere in the world was anything like this (with the exception of one series of Italians) repeated. In general, these boats, simple as a nut, do not cause any delight in me. Previous battleships were much deeper and more elaborate.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 23 September 2014 14: 13
        +2
        The question is not in "deep knowledge" - in general, it is worthwhile to understand that all the calculations of theorists scatter to dust after a collision with reality. Yes, of course, the experience of Tsushima influenced the appearance of the first dreadnoughts, but to consider that it was determined only by this? By the time the Sevastopol was laid, the "medium caliber" had already disappeared from the "ships of the line" as a fact, having degenerated into an anti-mine one.
        The location of the main battery towers (especially with the Russian three-gun turrets was much more successful than the linear rhombic arrangement on the British and even more so on the first German dreadnoughts) The "linearly elevated" arrangement of the towers that appeared later and became classic was primarily due to the need to have a developed superstructure and required ensuring reliable armoring of the barbets of the lofty towers not covered in this case by the armor belt ... So everything is learned in comparison. In the conditions of the shallow Baltic or an enclosed maritime theater, such a scheme provided the maximum weight of the side salvo with a simultaneous reduction in the size of the affected side. This sacrificed both seaworthiness and range ... Russian battleships outnumbered their classmates in "fire performance" by almost one and a half times, while having some advantage in the course and almost in no way inferior in defense. Another question is that the evolution of dreadnoughts was much faster than the change of generations of ships before. As a result, our "Sevastopoli" were out of work.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 September 2014 16: 21
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      Well, do not forget the "design specifics" of "Sevastopol" - they were never planned to be used as "high seas fleet" - all the same, a battle on a mine artillery position is very different from free maneuvering on the high seas. Hence the lowered side height, and "blurry booking" and the maximum weight of the side salvo ...

      Thank you for your kind words, dear Taoist, I hope that after the next continuation of this article you will have a reason to reconsider your point of view :))
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 23 September 2014 16: 22
        0
        Perhaps I read with pleasure.
    3. Kostya Rokol
      Kostya Rokol 24 December 2019 09: 57
      0
      You are mistaken. When they were designed - nobody thought anything about mine-artillery positions. Quite the contrary - mine-artillery positions arose because there was nothing to seriously oppose the German fleet. The smeared reservation is precisely the result of Tsushima. For some reason, it didn’t occur to anyone that it was insanity: to switch to the concept of only large guns, but to build reservations from medium calibers - as if they were going to fight with armadillos, as in the past war. It was the results of the shooting of Chesma that led to the fact that mine-artillery positions were erected, and Sevastopoli was kept away from real danger. But the question is - why did you conduct this experiment already when nothing could be corrected?
  12. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 22 September 2014 11: 30
    +7
    Krang “But almost nothing. The 381mm shell of the British will penetrate our GBP from any distance from which it hits. But if our old battleships possessed colossal survivability thanks to their powerful internal armor, then dreadnoughts have almost no internal armor around the "shell" of GBP and VBP. Their fate will be decided not by the number of shells hit, but by the place where the shell will hit. " He himself dealt with this issue back in 90-91, having access to the storehouse of the Sevatopol Sea Library, using armor penetration tables, he shielded various options for clashes and came to approximately the same conclusions as the author. Dear KRENG looked inattentively at the drawings of the midsection given above and for some reason not I noticed on them “SHIELDER 50 mm (made of mild steel with high tensile strength, no bevel of the 50 mm armor deck). "TIGER", "PANTHER" with "T_75" knowing that they weighed 34 times more and bashful to forget about "KV_1,5" and "IS_85"). The main task of our shipbuilders was to ensure the smallest armor action of the projectile, which was successfully embodied in metal. It is also worth considering the speed of our ships on tests of 2 knots. And the fortitude of the Germans is largely due to the disgusting quality of the British skikh armor-piercing shells. Under the influence of our br. and semi-armor. SN with 24 kg TNT and slow-motion bottom adult. The Germans would have had a very hard time. The main drawback of our ships was the incorrect distribution of the thickness of the deck armor, partially corrected on the Black Sea ships and completely in the last, etc. But such deck armor was then generally used by everyone.
    1. Crang
      Crang 22 September 2014 11: 46
      +1
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      Dear KRENG gazed inadvertently at the midsection section drawings given above and for some reason did not notice on them “ANTI-SHIELD 50 mm (made of mild steel with high tensile strength, no bevel of the armored deck 50 mm).

      Why is it inattentive? I saw it. And what about booking cellars and barbets of GC installations?
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      And the resistance of the Germans is largely due to the disgusting quality of British armor-piercing shells.

      But the firmness of the Germans is explained by the fact that the protection of the "König", for example, was quite at the level of the battleships of WW2 and was almost in no way inferior to the "Tirpitz". So in a hypothetical battle: "Sevastopol" vs "Koenig" ours merges without options.
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      It is also worth considering the speed of our ships in tests of 24 knots.

      23 and even then with difficulty. Values ​​close to 24uz were already shown by "Marat", "OR" and "PC" after large-scale modernization.
      1. xan
        xan 24 September 2014 11: 41
        0
        Quote: Krang
        But the firmness of the Germans is explained by the fact that the protection of the "König", for example, was quite at the level of the battleships of WW2 and was almost in no way inferior to the "Tirpitz". So in a hypothetical battle: "Sevastopol" vs "Koenig" ours merges without options.

        Famously with conclusions and forecasts. But what about the real battle between the old Russian battleship "Eustathius" and the newest German "Goeben" in the Black Sea, where our old man with old cannons incomparable with the "Sevastopol" guns inflicted more damage on the German than he received himself? In all skirmishes at sea in WWI, ours fired better than the Germans, in contrast to the same British.
        1. murriou
          murriou 30 March 2016 23: 38
          0
          "what a real fight"
          You judged this fight not by real data, but by Eberhard’s lies - and in vain.

          Aren't you alarmed that Eberhard offered to obtain his "data" on the losses of "Goeben" by collecting port rumors, and judging by the result - he also added his fantasies there? Well, about the supposedly preparing landing from the Goeben and the large number of Turkish marines there, and other such nonsense - in our time there are people who are able to believe it?

          In reality, the Germans knew their losses precisely in the reports (they confuse the reports with newspaper propaganda, but are there any idiots here, I hope, a little?) Authentically reflected.
          So, the effective hit on "Goeben" was ONE. True, it happened from the very first sighting shot - and then the entire Russian squadron thrashed with a flight and a half and with zero result.
          As a result of this single hit, the effect was very large, lucky: a casemate of 150 mm guns was knocked out, 12 people died immediately, 4 later, from burns and poisoning by powder gases in a fire.

          But, I repeat, this hit was the only (!) Effective, which indicates not so good accuracy.
          Whereas there were 5 effective (!) Hits from 3 Goeben's volleys, of which the first two were incomplete, sighting, the number of casualties killed and wounded on the Eustathia turned out to be much greater than the German ones.

          "old Russian battleship"
          There were four such battleships, otherwise the "Goeben" would not have started to run away, but would have torn the "Eustathia" like a hot water bottle.

          It was not for nothing that Eberhard, although he boasted that "Goeben" was afraid of him, but in reality it was the other way around: the Russian Black Sea Fleet before the appearance of "empresses" was afraid to go to sea otherwise than the whole crowd, and the Turkish-Germans frolicked around the World Cup as wanted.

          "the newest German"
          This "newest" LCR was, first of all, LCR, i.e. armored very weakly, not much better than Russian "battleships" from the "Empress" series.

          In addition, he was in service since 1912 and managed to wear out pretty much for the PMV, and he did not have the conditions for normal repair and maintenance at the World Cup.
          All this pretty evened out the chances in favor of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

          "In all skirmishes at sea in WWI, ours fired better than the Germans"
          Yes? And were there many such hassles?

          In the Baltic, all losses of the German fleet are from British (!) Submariners and Russian mine (!) Barriers. The Russian fleet there all the PMV sat out in a blank defense behind minefields.
          At the World Cup - only the demolition of a light cruiser on mines.

          But the Russian fleet suffered heavy losses from the German artillery fire: in the Baltic there is one battleship "Slava" worth a lot, at the World Cup - the minelayer "Prut", a torpedo from the destroyer sunk a large gunboat, plus some other trifle.

          "unlike the same Englishmen."
          The British in the Baltic sank their submarines many times more than the entire Baltic Fleet, and the number of warships was the same.
          In the open sea, in open battle, although they suffered more losses than the German, they themselves destroyed several large warships and drove the Germans out of the North Sea cleanly.

          The Russian Navy could not boast of anything like this for the entire WWI, having suffered losses in displacement, more than twice exceeding the corresponding. loss of opponents.
        2. murriou
          murriou 31 March 2016 00: 02
          0
          I looked again and realized that the author of this marvelous commentary did not at all understand the difference between "Germans" of different classes and generations: LKr "Goeben" arr. 1912 with the armor slightly better than the Empresses, and the Kaiser or König LK with a 350mm armor belt thickness (and made of steel of much better quality than Putilovskaya) - Russian 12 "guns were too tough from distances longer than in emphasis.

          And this "specialist" does not make a difference, German and German, why understand them something wink
  13. K-50
    K-50 22 September 2014 11: 36
    +6
    Thanks to the author. Informative, interesting. Plus definitely. good
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 September 2014 16: 22
      +3
      You're welcome!:)
  14. goose
    goose 22 September 2014 11: 38
    +7
    Quote: Krang
    Well, aviation is understandable. But what? What weapons did the aircraft use do not remind?

    And at what angle and from what height did this weapon fall? 4500 m high, almost vertical. Sea guns do not shoot like that.
    If you recall Pearl Harbor, then all American superlinkers that were commissioned later than our Ganguts and Mari (and were the most protected superdreadnoughts of the 1st World War) were flashed with 225 kg bombs right up to the keel.
    So no wonder. You have not discovered America. None of the dreadnought or super-dreadnought of that time could not withstand the penetration of a dive-bomb armor-piercing bomb not only 1400 kg, but even 250 kg.
  15. Kars
    Kars 22 September 2014 11: 44
    +5
    And even the Lady of the Seas of England, a month after the laying of the domestic Sevastopol, begins the construction of two dreadnoughts of the Colossus type, all with the same ten 12-dm guns.


    The Colossus was launched on April 9 of the 1910 of the year from the stocks of the Scott shipyard. in Greenock in Scotland. It went into operation on August 8 1911 of the year.

    Alozhen at the Baltic Shipyard on 3 on June 1909, simultaneously with the Petropavlovsk battleship of the same type, launched on the 16 on June 1911 on the year and entered service at the end of December on the 1914.

    and I’ll probably also say that the battleships of the Russian Empire became a triumph of the tsarist bureaucracy. There’s a very vivid history of the inter-office red tape right at the royal level.
  16. 89067359490
    89067359490 22 September 2014 11: 56
    +3
    When they were laid down, they were considered one of the best battleships. But alas, they built for a long time and the ships against the background of superdreadnoughts turned out to be outdated. During the construction of the Empresses on the Black Sea, this was taken into account and the ships of the "Empress Maria" class had a number of differences, in particular, the full speed reduced to 20 knots , increased turret armor up to 250-mm and gun elevation angle up to 35 °. And the ships of the "Izmail" class were to become the best not only in the country but also in the world.
  17. asdick72
    asdick72 22 September 2014 12: 10
    0
    After the defeat in the Tsushima battle (the Japanese used mostly high-explosive shells), the new Russian ships had a spaced reservation to counter mainly high-explosive high-caliber shells. In addition, the ships had almost 100% board reservation, albeit with thin armor.
    1. goose
      goose 22 September 2014 16: 37
      0
      And rightly so, the ship does not lose combat capability from close explosions and fragments.
      By the way, it must be borne in mind that ships were created primarily for the Baltic, which greatly limited the designers in terms of the width of the ship and, especially, its draft.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. Denimax
    Denimax 22 September 2014 17: 26
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    Well, do not forget the "design specifics" of "Sevastopol" - they were never planned to be used as a "high seas fleet" - after all, a battle on a mine artillery position is very different from free maneuvering on the high seas. Hence, the lowered side height, and "blurry booking" and the maximum weight of the side salvo.

    What then monitors do not fit? On monitors, you can greatly simplify everything, the main emphasis is on booking and caliber.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 September 2014 17: 48
      +1
      Quote: Denimax
      What then monitors do not fit?

      Russian dreadnoughts were not designed for the defense of TsMAP :))
      1. Denimax
        Denimax 22 September 2014 18: 01
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Russian dreadnoughts were not designed at all for the defense of TsMAP

        What were they designed for then, to access the sea?
        Ten years before the WWII was one and very unsuccessful.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 September 2014 18: 03
          +1
          Quote: Denimax
          What were they designed for then, to access the sea?

          Generally speaking, yes.
  19. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 22 September 2014 19: 10
    0
    What a delight, all the people you know, and again about the first battleships))) Thanks for the article, we are waiting for conclusions.))
  20. Bosk
    Bosk 22 September 2014 19: 23
    +1
    Purely visually, "Sevastopoli" resemble monitors-multi-tower seaworthy monitors that have reached the pinnacle of their development.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 23 September 2014 14: 20
      0
      De facto the way it is. Ships of coastal defense. Low autonomy, low seaworthiness - an empty deck ...
      1. xan
        xan 23 September 2014 15: 54
        +2
        Quote: Taoist
        Low autonomy, low seaworthiness

        Are autonomy and seaworthiness sufficient to perform tasks in the ocean or not? Is the board height sufficient for seaworthiness?
        In my opinion, the silhouette of "Sevastopol" is beautiful, although it looks like a monitor.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 23 September 2014 16: 08
          -1
          Well, in any case, when the "Paris Commune" (Sevastopol) was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet, during a storm in the Atlantic, it almost went down. (despite the fact that she had already been modernized to increase seaworthiness) In addition, the low freeboard and smooth tank led to the fact that even with a relatively small wave, the ship could not operate with artillery - not only the anti-mine caliber was flooded, but also the main battery turrets. + the usual construction overload for domestic ships, which led to a trim on the bow. Well, the range of 3000 miles is by no means an economic move. Those. the distance from the bases of more than 1000 nautical miles was categorically contraindicated for Sevastopol.
          1. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx 23 September 2014 16: 30
            +1
            Quote: Taoist
            Well, in any case, when the "Paris Commune" (Sevastopol) was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet, during a storm in the Atlantic, it almost sank. (Despite the fact that it had already been modernized to increase seaworthiness)

            As far as I remember, it was this notorious "modernization" that caused the ship to nearly sink. Therefore, after the campaign, all these remakes were hastily removed from the ship. Conclusion - the ship in its original condition had better seaworthiness compared to the "modernization".
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 23 September 2014 16: 48
              0
              No ... there, it was just that they almost tore off this patchwork with a storm, so I had to cut the structure, later the tank patch was returned to its place - because without it there would be no germination at all ...
  21. altman
    altman 22 September 2014 20: 42
    +1
    In addition to various comparative characteristics, there are some more factors. I believe that such is the degree of training of the commandors and .. ordinary luck. Not even the rate of fire, but just stupidly - where did the shell hit. A successful hit in the flagship, a little panic, ordinary nerves and all. Those who are lucky can win the battle with less power and less armored ships. It is clear that many different factors play a role, the professionalism of the team and officers, the courage and intelligence of the admirals. And not everything is decided by the reservation and the caliber of the guns.
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 22 September 2014 23: 24
      0
      Well, this is an article about a hypothetical duel between Gangut and his opponents. It is understood that the teams are prepared equally and the case did not help anyone. I am waiting for an explanation of the need for a linear arrangement of towers, and not linearly elevated. I believe that it was possible to sacrifice two guns and three gun turrets in order to increase speed and armor in general and the conning tower in particular. If you take Koenig as a model, this is probably the best ship at the end of the year 14.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  22. xomaNN
    xomaNN 22 September 2014 21: 48
    0
    An extremely sensible article. The author - respect from a graduate of the St. Petersburg Ship and an interest in military shipbuilding smile
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 September 2014 18: 02
      +1
      Thank you, glad you liked it!
  23. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 23 September 2014 13: 49
    0
    Quote: Victor Wolz
    о

    I think the author will write about this in the second part. In general, in one of the topics I already had the pleasure to get acquainted with the opinion of the author, where he fairly reasonably indicates that the location of the elevated part of the tower leads to the need for an additional increase in armor barbet. And the use of towers on the same level allows this armor to be used to strengthen the side. Thus, we can conclude that an attempt to use linearly elevated towers in Sevastopol would lead to a decrease in on-board booking. It is quite reasonable, in my amateurish opinion.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 23 September 2014 15: 18
      +2
      There is not only this, there is also the need to compensate for the stability of the enormous weight of the rotating part of the tower, which is pulled up. The increase in silhouette and, as a result, the easier shooting and hitting ... The need to strengthen the design of the extremities for the perception of a larger shoulder when returning raised towers. Well, there are no miracles - everything has a price.
      1. Victor Wolz
        Victor Wolz 23 September 2014 19: 08
        0
        Curly written))) I wonder why in the west they did not go in cycles in it and with pleasure built ships with a linearly elevated arrangement of towers. Especially pleased with the project of Izmail from the German company Vulcan with 10 main guns in 5 towers.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  24. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 23 September 2014 13: 52
    0
    By the way, as for the "strange" location of the main battery towers, here, in my opinion, the first place should be awarded to the British Rodney, where all three towers are in the bow of the ship)))
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 23 September 2014 15: 19
      0
      At Rodney, this conscious decision (as well as at Sevastopol) deliberately sacrificed aft corners of the shelling to increase armor protection within the strict limit of water displacement. Reduced the length of the citadel.
      1. xan
        xan 23 September 2014 15: 47
        +1
        Rodney distinguished himself in finishing off Bismarck. Dashing ship, dashing crew.
    2. Motors1991
      Motors1991 23 September 2014 16: 02
      -1
      Nelson and Rodney were created for operations in the Baltic, the same low speed of 23 knots, low draft. During the Civil War, the British in 1919 tried to capture Kronstadt, there were no super-dreadnoughts to maneuver, and monitors with one 381mm gun turned out to be weak. ships with low draft and low speed, but with heavy-duty 406 mm artillery, were designed specifically for the destruction of coastal fortresses.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 23 September 2014 16: 13
        +3
        Nothing of the kind, Nelson and Rodney is a product of the "Washington Accords" - the result of how to "shove the unproductive" - ​​ie. the maximum allowed caliber and armor within the released displacement limit. Anglam would never have thought to create ships "for the Baltic" - there simply was no one to fight with ... There is no German fleet, there is no Soviet one either ... But how hello to get a mine or a torpedo into the side ... here are battleships definitely not needed ...
        1. Motors1991
          Motors1991 23 September 2014 20: 06
          0
          Maybe I didn’t quite correctly put it, Rodney and Nelson were created under the impression of a war in the Baltic, when the British were convinced that they could not take Kronstadt with a demoralized and poorly trained garrison. Under the terms of the Washington Agreement, as I understand it, only these two ships and During the Second World War, American Iowas mixed the islands in the Pacific with the Japanese and their fortifications, turning them into a lunar landscape, on which even tanks could hardly move, thereby confirming the correctness of the British considerations. And once again I remind Nelson and Rodney slow-moving ships, speed 23 knots.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 23 September 2014 22: 33
            0
            Relatively slow. And why do they need more ... If you think they’re only on the shore and shoot ...? And Iowa have never used their speed ... just why not. The speed race for large surface ships, in general, did not end there.
  25. Taoist
    Taoist 24 September 2014 14: 26
    +1
    Something our venerable author pulls with the continuation ... And it would be interesting to read. I hope he will not be offended that I argue in his topic, but I have long been interested in the history of military shipbuilding in Russia. Even as a child (I was 10 years old) I came across an excellent monograph "Ships and shipyards". It was with her that my personal library on the history of shipbuilding and the fleet began. Then there was a ship-modeling circle, the Volgograd KYUM, a military school ... so everything stated here for me is not even some kind of abstract history.

    "Sevastopoli" is certainly a wonderful page of our fleet, the first and, unfortunately, the last dreadnoughts of Russia. And in this regard, they have already taken their place in history. Well, discussions about how successful or unsuccessful they were can take a long time ... So we are waiting for the continuation of the banquet.

    Yes and one more IMHO. As the experience of fighting on the Black Sea and the battle of Glory against two German dreadnoughts in the Baltic show, far from everything is decided by the thickness of the armor and the caliber of the guns ... This should always be taken into account.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 September 2014 17: 16
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      "Sevastopoli" is certainly a wonderful page of our fleet, the first and, unfortunately, the last dreadnoughts of Russia.

      Why not? There were also the Black Sea "Catherines" :) drinks
      And the second part I posted, probably tomorrow will be on the main
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 24 September 2014 20: 02
        0
        Well, I would not consider the "Black Sea series" separately. In principle, this is one and the same project "slightly adapted version" ... Now, if the "Ishmaels" were completed ... it would be a completely different calico ...
  26. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 24 September 2014 23: 30
    0
    [Taoist] Now, if the "Ishmaels" were completed ... it would be a completely different calico ... Yes, the same current eggs in profile. The battleship Kostenko with 9 406mm guns is already interesting.
  27. ASDik37
    ASDik37 25 September 2014 17: 19
    0
    [quote = Bersaglieri] [quote] On September 23, 1941, a ship in Kronstadt was severely damaged during an air raid. The damage was caused by the direct hit of bombs dropped by diving U-87 dive bombers, one of which was piloted by Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who later became known as the Luftwaffe (in Rudel’s memoirs [2], it was stated that he attacked Marat twice - on September 16 he dropped on deck "Marat" bombs weighing 500 kg, September 23 - a bomb weighing 1000 kg with a special fuse with a delay in detonation). Two bombs, presumably weighing 500 kg each, detonated at intervals of a fraction of a second — one somewhat in the nose and the other aft from the foremast. When a bomb hit the bow, it detonated the ammunition of the first main-caliber tower. As a result, the tower itself, "jumping", fell into the gap formed by the deck. The nasal superstructure, along with all the fighting posts, instruments, anti-aircraft artillery, the nasal conning tower and the people there, fell on the starboard side, collapsing into the water. A nasal chimney of a characteristic shape fell along with casings of armored grates. The commander of the ship, captain of the 2nd rank P.K. Ivanov, the senior assistant to the captain of the 2nd rank V.S. Chufistov and 324 more were killed. As a result of the injuries, the ship that received 10 tons of water (with a displacement of 000 tons) was completely flooded and lay on the ground near the wall at a depth of 23 m. All artillery failed [000]. [/ Quote]
    However, already on October 31, 1941, two main-caliber towers fired again at the advancing German units hi
  28. murriou
    murriou April 9 2016 16: 54
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Denimax
    What were they designed for then, to access the sea?

    Generally speaking, yes.

    At the same time, their seaworthiness turned out to be shitty, and their sailing range was not high - they were not adapted for sea open spaces at all. In general, in all respects, except perhaps artillery, not a candle to God, not a poker line.
    Therefore, they did not participate in naval battles in their entire history, except that there was one (!) Anecdotal time, after WWI, when the "Petropavlovsk" frightened off British destroyers.

    The Empresses did not do much better with this: one unsuccessful shelling of the Goeben and a couple of similarly unsuccessful shelling at the light cruiser Breslau.
  29. Kostya Rokol
    Kostya Rokol 24 December 2019 11: 06
    0
    "The version about the unparalleled weakness of the armor of the Russian dreadnoughts was born as a result of the shelling of the former Chesma, but ... it must be remembered that the Chesma was fired by almost the world's best 305-mm cannon, probably the world's best 305-mm shell. everything will immediately fall into place. "
    - It should be remembered that "Chesma" was fired upon by "John Chrysostom". From cannon 305L40, the same as on "Three Saints" or "Great Sisoe".