Russian Dreadnoughts

[Antoine]

GANGUT -- at Helsingfors, June 25, 1915;
SEVESTOPOL -- end of 1940s.
Both are of the SEVASTOPOL class.

[Antoine]

It happened that occasionally I'd become the starter of this thread as a result of some transfers. Really interesting situation. And I'm ready to write about the "Sevastopol" class dreadnoughts but need more free time. So those of you who are interested in this theme please wait a little!

[Don Boyer]

Would be great to hear about these ships. Always saw pictures and line drawings of them in Jane's and other publications, but almost never the real story of the ship itself.

Look forward to your posts!

[designeraccd]

There is a pretty good, interesting monograph on these much maligned dreadnoughts: The Russian Battleships SEVASTOPOL CLASS by Maciej S. Sobanski.

However, certainly LOOK FORWARD to Antoines's "article" on these interesting battleships! Any idea of when you might have it done Antoine?? DFO :D

[steve roberts]

They certainly looked the part when first built.I believe only Sevastopol was re-configured (Must have been influenced by Japanese design) Was'nt Gangut badly damaged in an air raid?....Steve.

[designeraccd]

All 3 survivors (Poltava was not one) were "modernized" to different degrees: each looked and was different from the others as the years went on. The MARAT was destroyed from funnel/bridge forward by a JU 87 Stuka bomb hit. However, the hulk remained useable with the remainder of her accurate, long reaching 12". Later took back her original name of Petropavlovsk, then again renamed VOLKHOV as a "stationary training ship". She/hulk was scrapped in Kronshadt in 1954. DFO ;)

[steve roberts]

Thanks Designeraced.I originally thought there were only two in the class.Once again Wiki is wrong! Must stop using it!!:D....Regards Steve.

[harry.gibbon]

Steve,

Re Wiki; I think the view often expressed across the various Forums is that it's a reasonable place to start but... myself ... I often search several pages of entries on google pages after reading Wiki.

Little h

[dorupantos]

PARISKAIA KOMUNA was not the same class of battleship ?

[steve roberts]

Hi Little h.I too tend to look up wiki for basic facts,but then refer to other suggested Google sites.I often find that moving the curser to other suggested items gives you several more pages to explore....Regards Steve.

[steve roberts]

Hi Doru.Yes she was,but was later renamed SEVASTOPOL....Regards Steve.

[dorupantos]

Dear Steve ,
I'm moving my cursor on many items from many years . Last time I move my cursor , I found this!
....Regards Doru

[steve roberts]

Thank you Doru,you have not been taking canabis have you? or perhaps listening to too much Beatles music..Many Regards Steve.:D

[designeraccd]

How about a nice view of her 12" 52s?? Also a shot of one of the turrets being built at the ? Works (forget who built them) DFO :D

[designeraccd]

Also a photo of one of the triple 12" as part of a coast defence battery outside Sevastopol. Two turrets, I believe, were used and replaced earlier twin 12" that the German Army destroyed in WW2. I think the turrets were from the Poltava with her other 2 being shipped to the Vladivostok area for the same purpose.

Found a second view showing both turrets......:D

[dorupantos]

Dear DFO I received the information that batlleship Pariskaia Komuna (further Sevastopol , escorted by Profintern-cruiser , came from Baltic Sea into Black Sea) was verry close from Romanian coast in WW2 . As I know Pariskaia Komuna was near soviet ships lead by cruiser Vorosilov at the time of Battle of Tuzla but doesn't approach too much cause the romanian mines . For Profintern-cruiser , there was a ship Krasnii Profintern visiting Constanta-harbour in early 1941 , but I don't see it like a cruiser . Please correct me if I'm wrong !
Manny reagards !

[Antoine]

The cruiser "Profintern" was renamed the "Krasny Krym".

[dorupantos]

Manny thanks !

[Antoine]

Here's the promised "article":

SEVASTOPOL CLASS BATTLESHIPS

The projecting of Russian dreadnought had begun in 1906 when the Special conference presided by the first Russian naval minister admiral A. A. Birilyov worked out first time technical specifications for the future Baltic battleships. But because of absence of shipbuilding programs and strategical plans the credits were not given to the Department. In December 1907 technical specifications of Russian dreadnought were finally proved and then the International competition was declared. The German Blohm & Voss company (Hamburg) became a winner but according the political conjuncture the project of the Baltic Wks (St. Petersburg) by I. G. Bubnov was preferred and this project was in study. So the Navy couldn't get the most powerful battleships in short time: the project was not ready yet and the long-time building in national works was coming.

The project was finally ready in April 1909 and then the building had begun. June 3 (old Russian style), 1909 two ships ("Sevastopol" and "Petropavlovsk") was officially laid in the Baltic Wks and the other two ("Gangut" and "Poltava") -- in the Admiralty Wks. [NB. The official laying was the special ceremony with installation of a "laying board". This ceremony isn't bond with a real building phase.] Practically the stocks period had begun in September-October of the same year. It is supposed to build the ships in 38 month (until August of 1912), but in reality building speed was lower. What reasons? The reasons are in the political situation in the Empire. The new Russian parliament (the Duma) consisted of "liberal-democratic" men and automatically hampered initiatives of the "rotten monarchy". That's why the dreadnought were completed only in the end of 1914.

What was the technical characteristics and condition of the Sevastopol class battleships?

Displacement: project -- 23000 t;
full load -- 25300 t ("Sevastopol");
25000 t ("Petropavlovsk");
25946 t ("Gangut");
24800 t ("Poltava").

Dimensions: length oa -- 181.2 m;
length pp -- 180.1 m;
beam -- 26.89 m;
project draught -- 8.5 m;
full load draught -- 9.14 m ("Sevastopol");
9.04 m ("Petropavlovsk"):
9.29 m ("Gangut");
8.99 m ("Poltava").

Machinery: 4-shaft Parsons turbines; 25 Yarrow boilers; 42000 hp = 23 kts; coal -- 816/1500 t, oil -- 200/700 t; range -- 800 nm/20.5 kts, 1624 nm/13 kts.

Trials:
Sevastopol 32950 hp = 19 kts;
Petropavlovsk 38872 hp = 21 kts;
Gangut 34927 hp = 20.3 kts;
Poltava 19800 hp = 17 kts.

These trials as you can see showed a VERY low speed characteristics. But in November of 1915 the "Poltava" had the repeat trials after her screw were replaced and showed such results: 52000 hp = 24.1 kts (!).

Protection (see the scheme): main belt -- 125-225 mm;
upper belt -- 75-125 mm;
upper deck -- 38 mm;
middle deck -- 25 mm;
lower deck -- 12-51 mm;
longitudinal bulkhead -- 38-51 mm;
traverses -- 102-125 mm;
conning tower -- 256/120 mm;
turrets -- 203-305/76 mm.

Armament: 305/52 mm guns -- 4×3*;
120/50 mm guns -- 16;
75 mm AA guns -- 2 ("Sevastopol" and "Poltava");
63.5 mm AA guns -- 2 ("Petropavlovsk" and "Gangut");
47 mm guns -- 1;
457 mm submerged TT -- 4.

[* I wrote about these guns yet here: http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3214&page=3.]

Crew: 31 officers, 28 conductors and 1066 men.

Some tactical summary. The dreadnoughts were constructed according the experience of the Russo-Japanese war. In period of the projecting artillery officers dominated in the NGS (Naval General Staff) and they demanded the ideal works of the guns. The arrangement of the guns was submitted to this demanding: line one-level order of the turrets, low board, deck maximally free from superstructures, wide sectors of firing -- all these things helped to organization of firing the best way. Such gun arrangement plus high speed gave high "tactical speed", which gave battleships a possibility to choose the most advantageous course angle in a fight. So these ships could make a "crossing T" for example to any enemy.
It is clear that in such conditions armour protection played the second role. One of the lessons of the Tsushima was the most full protection of the board to resist high-explosive shells. That's why the "sevastopols" had full but comparatively thin armour. It is considered that choosing the course angle can increase the resistance of the protection.
The weakest place of the "sevastopols" was their sea-worthiness. Low board and constructed bow different made them very "wet". And this lack of course seriously lowered the fighting possibilities of the ships.
But the main lack of the first Russian dreadnoughts was the fact that they were too late! They would be masterpieces in 1910. But the long projecting and building made them obsolete against a background of the second generation dreadnoughts with 343 and 356 mm guns.

Building dates (old style):
Sevastopol launched June 16, 1911; commissioned Nov. 4, 1914;
Petropavlovsk launched Aug. 27, 1911; commissioned Dec. 20, 1914;
Gangut launched Sept. 24, 1911; commissioned Oct. 21, 1914;
Poltava launched June 27, 1911; commissioned Dec. 4, 1914.

Names (traditionally chose by the Tsar):
Sevastopol (Севастополь) -- named in honour of the heroic Sevastopol defence in 1854-1855;
Petropavlovsk (Петропавловск) -- named in honour of victory at Petropavlovsk (in Kamchatka) in 1855;
Gangut (Гангут) -- named in honour of the first Russian naval victory at cape Gangut (Hanko) in 1914;
Poltava (Полтава) -- named in honour of the victory at Poltava (in Ukraine) in 1709.

(to be continued)

[designeraccd]

Hi Antoine, nice article.

Besides their ability to take on HEAVY seas-as evidenced by P. Kommuna's bow damage on her voyage to BS; what is your opinion of their armor scheme? You explained the "theory" behind it, but as, IIRC, they never really faced other modern BBs....what do you think of the scheme?

Also, given that this general "configuration/turret layout" was basically followed by the Borodino/Izmail's plus the proposed 16" gun designs; what is your view of that layout compared to more conventional ones like, for example the USN's Nevada which also had a completely different (all or nothing) armor scheme..........DFO ;)

[astraltrader]

In response to a request from Antoine I have renamed this thread Russian Dreadnoughts so the scope can now be widened from just Gangut. :)

[designeraccd]

Then there was this "design study": This was the ultimate BB study done in June 1914 by the Russo-Baltic SY in Revel. It was never seriously considered for production and was more of a design study to see if it can be done. It was considered to be too big for the Baltic Sea operations.
Wondering if Antoine can add any interesting details, background etc?? DFO ;)

Note the proposed QUAD 16" turrets! Given the turret spacing, looks to be a bit more like Tiger or Kongo internal arrangements compared to Sevastopols.

[steve roberts]

Hi DFO.They were very good at designing ships but never actually building them.Perhaps they were as cash strapped then as modern Russia is today?...Regards Steve.:confused:

[Marek T]

... there was a ship Krasnii Profintern visiting Constanta-harbour in early 1941 , but I don't see it like a cruiser . Please correct me if I'm wrong !
Manny reagards !You are right - the KRASNYJ PROFINTERN on photo you posted is not a cruiser, but a cargo ship.
She was built in built 1902 at R. Craggs & Sons, Tees Dockyard, Middlesbrough as HAFIS. Then she was renamed ALEKSEI TRAPANI (1903), ARGUN (1904) and KRASNYJ PROFINTERN in 1921. Reportedly she was lost on 14.02.43 in Poti.

[dorupantos]

Dear MAREK you are great !

[CGRET]

Antoine,

Great article, well done!

As with any Battleship there is alway's the question's of how much armour to be included in the design verses speed.

DFO present's some interesting question's regarding the overall design charactistics and performance of said design.

Regards
Charles

[dorupantos]

I was impressed about this thread and I have read a little more about these ships . I found that Gangut-class battleships were also designated as icebreakers and they were based on italian design !
I have also a question to propose : in the third picture there is ship "Romania"(built in Italy and used in ww2 like auxiliary-cruiser and transport-ship) and in the background of this picture there is a battleship with the configuration of Gangut-class before modernisation . It is a soviet battleship or is an italian ?

[steve roberts]

Hi Doru.She looks to me like an unmodified "Gangut".The turret layouts were unique to that class...Regards Steve.

[dorupantos]

Thanks STEVE ! Some information is unnavailable on net so I have to ask other versant .

[G. Shoda]

3rd photo is probably not a Gangut class ship.

Background appears to the Sevastopol area of the Black Sea.

My guess it that the dreadnought is the Russian Imperatritsa Ekaterina II of the Imperatritsa Maria class. This class of Black Sea battleships resembled the Ganguts from profile views. However, Siegfried Breyer points out that in the Imperatrisa Maria class ships "B" turret faces forward versus the reverse in the Ganguts. Also, the Marias had a lattice derrick before the stem (not seen in earlier photos of the Imperator Aleksandr III) unlike the Ganguts.

Imperatritsa Ekaterina II had its main mast set distinctly apart from the rear conning tower and had a noticeable bridge structure joining the two. Imperatritsa Maria's main mast was much closer to the rear conning tower. Imperatator Aleksandr III had it's mainmast a bit closer to the conning tower than Imperatritsa Ekaterina II and had a less noticeable bridge connecting the two structures.

Imperatritsa Ekaterina II had a more substantial lattice derrick at the stem that gave her the appearance of having a clipper bow in some photos. This is not the case in photos of the other two ships.

[Antoine]

My guess it that the dreadnought is the Russian Imperatritsa Ekaterina II of the Imperatritsa Maria class.

You are right but this dreadnought is correctly named the "Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya" (means "Empress Catherine the Great"). This shot was made in 1917 when the battleship was renamed the "Svobodnaya Rossiya" (means "Free Russia").
The ship in foreground is the "hydrocruiser" "Rumynia", ex-steamer "Rumania". She was built in 1905 by the Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire (France), transferred to Russian in 1916 and re-equipped as a seaplane carrier (4500 t; 106.2×12.3×5.7 m; 2 VTE; 6500 hp = 18 kts; 4 - 152/45 mm guns, 1 - 75/50 mm AA gun, 7 seaplane). She was in staff of the Hydrocruiser Division of the Black Sea Fleet. May 1st of 1918 she was captured by German at Sevastopol. November 24 of 1918 re-captured by the Allies and returned to Romania.

[dorupantos]

I am confused ! Gangut(Sevastopol)-class battleship has unique design and now appears another battleship class with same design (Imperatritsa Maria) . Look carefully to the background of the picture of Romania-ship : the bow of the battleship resemble to modern Gangut-class battleships .

[Antoine]

(continuing)

In April 1915 all four dreadnoughts had composed the 1st Battleship Brigade of the Baltic Fleet (the "Petropavlovsk" was the flagship). They almost see no action during the World War I. The first three ones covered the mine-laying operation in 1915: one time -- the "Sevastopol" and the "Gangut", other two times -- the "Petropavlovsk". Why? The main strategical task of the Baltic Fleet was the defence of the Central Mining-Artillery Position in case of the German navy's attempt to breakthrough to Petrograd. Dreadnoughts had to be the main force in this fight. So the risk of being torpedoed or mined or grounding in shallow Finnish Gulf [all four ships had navigation damages in 1915-1916] during the local operations was rather unjustified. That's why using the Baltic dreadnoughts was possible only by the order of the Headquarter.
Nevertheless let's consider the fighting possibilities of the "Sevastopol" class. Doing this we can follow the German naval command. Planning the operation "Albion" in 1917 they thought of the possible appearance of the Russian dreadnoughts (plus two pre-dreadnoughts of the "Andrey Pervozvanny" class) on the battlefield. And what could they (and can we) see? Russian dreadnoughts had a longer and heavier "sword". Their common salvo (22608 kg) surpassed the salvo of all four "königs" plus the "Bayern" (22200 kg) or all five "kaisers" (20250 kg). It is also important to see that turrets of the "kaisers" had 60° angle of side fire when the turrets of the "sevastopols" had 130°. German dreadnoughts had much better armour and constructive protection but Russian ones had higher tactical speed and wider room for manoeuvring among minefields. That's why the German command used all their ten modern battleships (excluding the "Baden" -- the flagship of the Hochseeflotte) in the Moonzund operation and didn't develop their success. These facts can be answer of fighting possibilities of the "sevastopols".
But in reality there was no such menace for the German naval forces. At first, the Russian command didn't prepared to use dreadnoughts out of the Central Position (and so the fore bases weren't ready for that). And at second, long staying at Helsingfors "revolutionized" the crews of the dreadnoughts too much and in 1917 the "proud of revolution" wasn't going to fight a real fight instead of murder their own officers.
Then 1918 had come and the dreadnoughts were forced to go to Kronshtadt with all the Fleet (so-called the "Ice Cruise"). Then their fates had divided: the "Sevastopol" and the "Petropavlovsk" remained in staff of active fleet but the "Gangut" and the "Poltava" were given for a long storage. The "Petropavlovsk" became a part of the DOT (the Acting Detachment of ships) and in June 1919 first time used her "long sword" in real action -- against the mutinous fort Krasnaya Gorka. In March 1921 the roles had changed -- the "Sevastopol" and the "Petropavlovsk" took part in the Kronshtadt mutiny and were damaged by coastal guns. After those events they were renamed the "Parizhskaya Kommuna" ("Paris Commune") and the "Marat" respectively. [Very strange names for Russian battleships (even Red)!]
In 1925 the time of the "Gungut" had come: she was renamed the "Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya" ("October Revolution"), repaired and next year completed for the Naval Forces of Baltic Sea. The "Poltava" was badly damaged by fire November 24, 1919 and could not be recommissioned. There were projects to reconstructed her as an aircraft carrier and as a battlecruiser. She even was renamed the "Frunze" in 1926. But all these plans were failed and her details were used for repairing her sisters.
In 1929 the "Parizhskaya Kommuna" was departed to Black Sea (the Imperaial Black Sea Fleet was almost totally destroyed or driven out during the Civil War). Because of the mentioned bad sea-worthiness the battleship had gotten a special bow spoon-shaped construction. But in reality this construction not only didn't provide raising on wave but also drawn up water. In stormy Biscay Bay list of the ship reached 29°, deck hatches became non-hermetic... The situation was critical. But fortunately the bow construction had fallen down under the storm's blows and after all the battleship had come to Sevastopol.

Modernizations. Modernizations of the "Sevastopol" class dreadnoughts were rather "cosmetic". They hadn't really changed the fighting characteristics. Sea-worthiness, propulsion, systems of fire control were slowly improved, but the armament and protection remained the same.

MARAT. Modernized in 1928-1931. Boiler replacement (22 oil boilers), installing "forecastle", rebuilding the bow superstructure and funnel with installing new fire control system.
OKTYABRSKAYA REVOLYUTSIYA. Modernized in 1931-1934. Boiler replacement (12 oil boilers made for the "Izmail"), rebuilding the bow superstructure, fore-mast and funnel (the conning tower was made two-tiered using the tower of the "Poltava"), installing the crane for seaplanes on the main-mast, thickening the armour of turrets' roofs and casemates (152 mm).
PARIZHSKAYA KOMMUNA. Modernized in 1933-1938. Such as on the predecessors but the middle deck protection was thickened (75 mm, using plates of the "Imperator Nikolay I"), the angle of raising of 12" guns was increased (40°), anti-aircraft artillery had been strengthened. As the result the stability had become worse.

For the time of the World War II the "Sevastopol" class battleships were absolutely obsolete. But they didn't had a sea opponent and their guns were used against German land forces. It is well-known that naval and coastal artillery played very important role in the Leningrad defence. That's why two Baltic battleships became the aims for the Luftwaffe attacks in September of 1941. September 23 two bombs hit bow part of the "Marat" and stimulated an ammunition explosion. The bow tore and the battleship set on the ground (326 dead). Later she was raised and used as a floating battery (without the bow). March 31, 1943 the ex-battleship was re-renamed the "Petropavlovsk". After the war she was used as a non-self-propelled training vessel, in 1950 renamed the "Volkhov", September 4, 1953 stricken from navy list and in the beginning of 1960s scrapped.
The "Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya" was damaged during German air attacks but she was lucky and went to Leningrad to repair. She was stricken from navy list February 17, 1956 and then scrapped.
The "Parizhskaya Kommuna" took part in the Sevastopol defence and supported landing operations. March 31, 1943 she was re-renamed the "Sevastopol". She also was stricken from navy list February 17, 1956 and then scrapped.

P. S. Please be patient to my English and lack of time.

Some illustrations:
1. The "Petropavlovsk" on trials. The photo can give an idea about sea-worthiness of this class battleships.
2-5. The battleships of the 1st Brigade on Helsingfors Roads, June 25, 1915.
6. The "Sevastopol" with the torpedo nets installed.
7. The "Poltava" on her repeat trials, November 21, 1915.
8. Damages of the "Parizhskaya Kommuna's" bow after Biscay cruise, end of 1929.
9-11. The battleships after modernization.
12. The "Marat" after being raised.
13. The "Parizhskaya Kommuna" during the defence of Sevastopol.
14-15. The battleships in the end of 1940s -- beginning of 1950s.

[Antoine]

Look carefully to the background of the picture of Romania-ship : the bow of the battleship resemble to modern Gangut-class battleships .

The battleships of the "Imperatritsa Mariya" class had very similar design to the "Sevastopol" class. But what about their bows? In 1915 some Russian ships (including the Black Sea battleships) had gotten a special bow mine-sweeping equipment called "for-tral" (means something like "fore-sweep"). This thing was failed and removed in 1916 but their foundations remained.

[Antoine]

Hi Antoine, nice article.

Besides their ability to take on HEAVY seas-as evidenced by P. Kommuna's bow damage on her voyage to BS; what is your opinion of their armor scheme? You explained the "theory" behind it, but as, IIRC, they never really faced other modern BBs....what do you think of the scheme?

Also, given that this general "configuration/turret layout" was basically followed by the Borodino/Izmail's plus the proposed 16" gun designs; what is your view of that layout compared to more conventional ones like, for example the USN's Nevada which also had a completely different (all or nothing) armor scheme..........DFO ;)

Hello, Dennis!

As we know the "sevastopols" never met any enemy's warships in fight. They acted only again the coastal objects. Their service shows that their characteristics' combination had given almost ideal fast floating batteries. And their duty -- defence of the Central Mining-Artillery Position -- didn't demand something more from them. They could realize their possibilities in Finnish Gulf very well (and German knew it).
On the other hand as I wrote yet these ships had become obsolete before completing and had some "childish illnesses". That's why I don't want to compare them seriously with some contemporaries. I consider them only as founders of so-called "Russian type" of dreadnought. Their general layout with some typical details (turret arrangement, so-called "dispersed armour" with two belts -- thick outer and thin inner, high speed etc.) were inherited by the further projects -- the "Izmail" and the Battleship of 1915. I'm going to write about ALL types of Russian dreadnoughts in this thread.
It is interesting question about two armour schemes -- European and American (rather well-forgotten French;)). Each of them had their pluses and minuses and was good for certain time and conditions. Of course the European scheme was better in North Sea or Finish Gulf. When the distance of firing was not too far because of guns' possibilities and weather conditions there was necessary to have maximally protected side. Increasing of the main calibre and weather conditions of an open ocean dictated also increasing of fighting distance when the hits became more rare but more sensitive and forced to protect only most living part of the ship with most possible thick armour. Of course such scheme was more progressive for every High Sea Fleet of the end of 1910s.

[G. Shoda]

Antoine: Interesting & informative posts. I had read somewhere, probably in Warships International, that the Russian idea was that the Baltic dreadnoughts 7 inches of belt armor was considered sufficient againts 12 inch gunfure in light of the lessons they learned from Tsushima.

[designeraccd]

Based on what I've read, for the WW 1 era....German BBs and CBs (battlecruisers) were very tuff nuts to crack/sink...as they showed at Jutland, for example. I would suspect a Sevastopol would have come off much the worse for wear against them, one on one. OTOH, again from what I've read, the 12" 52s on your Russian Dreadnoughts (both classes) were the best 12" of the time and probably could reach out and "touch someone" at longer range than most other heavy guns of the time. Therefore if they obtained early hits they might have given a good account versus the Germans...if they didn't get HIT! That, IMhO, gets back to what I believe were erronous lessons learned fighting the Japanese Fleet.

While I think I would have preferred to be on Nevada or Derfflinger in lieu of a Sevastopol; the rather low "reputation" they have in the West was probably perpetuated by a misunderstanding of their design goals and a few negative comments repeated over and over in various Western books down thru the years.

Look forward to your comments on the Russian never-builts as well as any others on the Sevastopols! I find them all to be very interesting and have for many years. DFO ;):D

[Antoine]

Based on what I've read, for the WW 1 era....German BBs and CBs (battlecruisers) were very tuff nuts to crack/sink...as they showed at Jutland, for example.

One of the lessons of Tsushima is that there's no necessary to SINK a battleship with big shells -- it is enough to make her totally helpless destroying her firing control, crew, funnels, etc. Jutland hadn't truly deny this lesson -- Hipper's battlecruisers were very heavily damaged and couldn't continue to fight next day. Of course they could sink 3 British battlecruisers for the only "Lützow" but let's don't forget bad firing of Beatty's ships.

While I think I would have preferred to be on Nevada or Derfflinger in lieu of a Sevastopol; the rather low "reputation" they have in the West was probably perpetuated by a misunderstanding of their design goals and a few negative comments repeated over and over in various Western books down thru the years.

I want to remind the "sevastopols" were the first generation of Russian dreadnoughts. Our people said something like this: "The first blin comes to a lump". It means that the first attempt usually don't give good result. You write of the "Nevada" or "Derfflinger" but replace them with the "Delaware" and "Nassau" and the situation will generally change. The "sevastopols" were the only incarnation of the Russian dreadnought conception. I'm sure if the "izmails" were finished their predecessors would be half-forgotten such as first generation dreadnoughts of every country. I hope I'll try to compare the "Izmail" class with their contemporaries. It would be interesting!

[designeraccd]

Looking forward to your thoughts. You are correct Nevada and Derfflingers were "2nd Generation" Dreadnought types. Also, to mission disable versus sinking, a warship can pretty much decide a naval battle too, but if the ship can SURVIVE to be repaired (think Seydlitz) well then she can fight yet again!

I suspect most, if not all, of today's DDs, Corvettes etc have "glass jaws": they can hit but not take a punch without a minimum of being effectively disabled. Electronics don't stand up well to high explosives and as far as I know nothing today (excluding 100,000 ton CVs) have the kind of armor protection a Baltimore class CA, for example, did when electronics did not form the heart of a ship's fighting power. Without electronics a warship can't "see" or guide its weapons (missiles or guns) to effectively hit targets...hhmmm? Maybe a Sevastopol wouldn't do badly today??!! DFO :eek::D

[Antoine]

Also, to mission disable versus sinking, a warship can pretty much decide a naval battle too, but if the ship can SURVIVE to be repaired (think Seydlitz) well then she can fight yet again!

I meant that there's no necessary to sink a ship by BIG SHELLS. To make one's enemy helpless is enough for victory. The remainder is the work for light forces. Remember the fate of the "Knyaz Suvorov". Remember that the "Lützow" and the "Pillau" were also badly damaged and scuttled by their own crews. The fact that the "Seydlitz" could return to the base is a miracle made by British admirals.

[designeraccd]

The "joy" of designing a warship: balancing hitting power versus survivability! Fortunately the items I design aren't life or death, well unless you count economic death if the Company products don't SELL that I helped Design!

I digress...with warships new or old the problem has always been there: how hard can you hit, and how much tonnage is devoted to that versus protection and engines etc, etc,etc. Not to mention does the Country's Treasury have the funds to pay for the warships? Always a series of conflicting challenges!

Your thoughts on Izmails and other Russian BB design proposals are anticipated! If only I could READ the Russian book I have on those proposed ships, but alas it doesn't even have English subtitles. DFO ;)

[Don Boyer]

The Big Three have ruled shipbuilding since the days of steel really: Gun power, armor and engine power. I guess you could say that for the days of sail as well, but in different terms. Every ship design was a trade-off of these three, and a delicate game it is. Only a little less armor, less engine power or not enough firepower makes or breaks a ship design as far as actual utility at sea goes. You have to balance those three to get the ship you want to perform its function as you want it and have it be "water dynamic" as well.

Glad we have "The Designer" aboard the forum to remind us of these little details. It's also why Norman Friedman's Design histories (I bet designeraccd has them all on his shelf) are important to understanding how ships performed in battle and why some were better than others.

Regards,

[Antoine]

THE IMPERATRITSA MARIYA CLASS

The question of the Straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles) always was lively important for Russian Empire. 2/3 of Russian export and 4/5 of import goes via Black Sea and depends of Turkish government’s will. That’s why occupation or changing the regime of the Straits was the main aim of Russian Eastern politics. And the building of the Black Sea Fleet always served to that aim.
In 1910 the Naval Department worked out a shipbuilding program for Black Sea included 3 dreadnought battleships, 9 destroyers and 6 submarines. In 1911 this program was supported by the Duma (because was bond with interests of Russian trade) and then approved by the Czar.
It is supposed to made new dreadnoughts with 14’’ guns but events had corrected the projecting. Ottoman Navy had bought the Brazilian dreadnought “Rio de Janeiro” (14 – 12’’ guns) being constructed by the Armstrong and ordered two new battleships with 10 13.5’’ guns. So the situation of 1904 when the newest “Borodino” class battleships were too late for the war could be repeated. The Black Sea Fleet needed new battleships immediately and there wasn’t time for long projecting. That’s why the 12’’ calibre had been chosen. Calculations showed that the salvo of the “Sevastopol” (5712 kg) slightly surpassed the salvo of the Turkish “Reshadieh” (5670 kg) and three dreadnoughts with 12 12’’ guns could be enough power against Turkish ones.
Generally technical data of the “Imperatritsa Mariya” class were extremely closed to the “Sevastopol” design. But they were rather “squadron” than “fast” version of battleship. It was traditionally for Black Sea Fleet that its battleships had lower speed but thicker armour than Baltic ones. So the speed of the “imperatritsas” was 2 knots lower. Length to beam ratio had been decreased. Armour had become stronger. Moreover urgent projecting had led to serious defect – essential bow different. To eradicate it they had to shorten ammunition store of the first two turrets on “Mariya” and remove first 130mm guns from each side of “Alexandr III”. The project of “Ekaterina II” had been slightly changed: dimensions and displacement had been increased and all weights moved to the stern by two spaces.
Let’s see the technical data:
Displacement:
design – 22600 t (“Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya” – 23873 t);
full load – 24400 t (“Imperatritsa Mariya”);
23400 t (“Imperator Alexandr III”);
24497 t (“Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya”).

Dimensions:
length wl – 168 m (“Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya” – 169.46 m);
beam – 27.36 m (“Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya” – 27.9 m);
design draught – 8.36 m;
full load draught – 8.94 m ("Imperatritsa Mariya");
8.65 m ("Imperator Alexandr III");
8.7 m (“Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya”).

Machinery: 4-shaft Parsons turbines; 20 Yarrow boilers; 26500 hp = 21 kts (“Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya” – 27000 hp = 21 kts); coal – 1200/1700 t, oil – 500 t; range – 1640 nm/21 kts, 2960 nm/12 kts.

Trials:
Imperatritsa Mariya – 20.5 kts;
Imperator Alexandr III – 28957 hp = 20.95 kts;
Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya – 20.7 kts.

Protection:
main belt – 125-263 mm;
upper belt – 75-102 mm;
traverses – 102 mm;
upper deck – 25-38 mm;
middle deck – 25-38 mm;
lower deck – 12-51 mm;
longitudinal bulkhead – 25-51 mm;
barbettes – 125-256 mm;
turrets – 256-305/125 mm;
fwd conning tower – 305/203 mm;
aft conning tower – 305/120 mm.

Armament:
305/52 mm guns – 4×3;
130/55 mm guns – 20;
76/30 mm AA guns – 4 ("Alexandr" and "Ekaterina");
75/50 mm AA guns – 4 ("Mariya");
457 mm submerged TT – 4.

Crew: 32 officers, 28 conductors and 1130 men.

Some summary. As we can see the “Imperatritsa Mariya” class battleships were based on the “Sevastopol” design that was obsolete for that time. They were projected urgently for the local task on the local theatre – and no more.
Moreover the wartime experience showed that the “Black Sea tradition” played its negative role. If “imperatritsas” had the higher speed (as the “Sevastopol”) they would be more successful in action and have more perspectives.

Building dates (old style):
Imperatritsa Mariya – laid July 1912 (officially – October 17, 1911), Russian Shipbuilding Society (RUSSUD), Nikolaev; launched October 19, 1913; commissioned June 23, 1915;
Imperator Alexandr III – laid August 1912 (officially – October 17, 1911), Russian Shipbuilding Society (RUSSUD), Nikolaev; launched April 2, 1914; commissioned June 15, 1917;
Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya (before June 27, 1915 – Ekaterina II) – laid October 20, 1912 (officially – October 17, 1911), Society of Nikolaev Works and Yards (ONZiV), Nikolaev; launched May 24, 1914; commissioned October 5, 1915.

It is interesting that the Black Sea dreadnoughts were built simultaneously with the shipyard – literally on the empty place. But as we can see they were ready for action faster than the Baltic ones. It was the triumph of the policy of using private works for battleshipbuilding!

As for service the “Imperatritsas” were the most active battleships of the Great War. Only in the second half of 1916 they put out to sea 24 (!) times.
As we know Turkey hadn’t gotten their dreadnoughts – they had become HMS “Agincourt” and HMS “Erin”. But on August 1914 the German “Goeben” and “Brealau” had appeared at Constantinople and become “Turkish”. The Black Sea Fleet needed their dreadnoughts. That’s why fitting of the “Mariya” and then of the “Ekaterina” was fastened and some details of the “Alexandr” were transferred to them. As the result the “Imperatritsa Mariya” had appeared at Sevastopol on June 30th 1915.
By the order of the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet Admiral A. A. Ebergard the fleet was divided on three manoeuvring groups: 1st – “Imperatritsa Mariya”, cruiser “Kagul” and oil destroyers-“noviks”; 2nd – “Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya”, cruiser “Pamyat Merkuriya” and also oil destroyers; 3rd (reserve) – old battleships “Evstafy”, “Ioann Zlatoust”, “Panteleimon” and some coal destroyers. Such operation groups of ships of different classes were real innovation in naval tactics!
The dreadnoughts had different tasks during the war: blockading Turkish and Bulgarian coast, covering operations of old battleships and light forces, escorting troop transports and of course – chasing the “Goeben” and “Breslau”. December 26th 1915 the “Ekaterina” met the “Goeben” and began to fire from 125 cables but the German ship used her speed advantage and could escape. The “Mariya” wasn’t such lucky but she two times met the “Breslau” but didn’t have a success because of the German cruiser’s fast speed and using smokescreen. June 22-25th 1916 the Fleet made operation against the German cruisers off Bosporus but because of bad planning the lucky “Goeben” could return to her base. But it was her last cruise in Black Sea during the War – because of risk to be caught by the “Imperatritsas” she stayed at Constantinople.
October 7th 1916 there was a big blow under the bow turret of the “Imperatritsa Mariya”. Then the series of lesser blows followed and an hour after the battleship had sunken in the Sevastopol’s Northern Harbour. There are several versions of this loss but nobody knows the truth yet. The battleship had been raised in spring of 1918, a year later been docked but because of the Civil War wasn’t restored and had been scrapped in 1926-1927.
The loss of the first “Imperatritsa” didn’t change the situation in Black Sea. It had changed after the so-called “February Revolution”. April 16th 1917 “Ekaterina” had been renamed the “Svobodnaya Rossiya” (means “Free Russia”) and the “Alexandr” had become the “Volya” (means “Liberty”). June 12th the ex-“Ekaterina” met the “Breslau” but again the cruiser could escape. Then (later than in Baltic Sea) followed demoralization of the fleet. October 19th 1917 Russian ships had the last chance to catch the “Breslau” but the crew of the “Svobodnaya Rossiya” willfully returned the ship to Sevastopol. That was the end of fighting actions.
May 1st 1918 to prevent being captured by German dreadnoughts with some other active ships had gone to Novorossiysk there the great drama of the Black Sea Fleet had happened. In atmosphere of demoralization, desertion, espionage and pressure by German the “Volya” with 6 destroyers returned to Sevastopol when the other part was scuttled by own sailors. The “Svobodnaya Rossiya” had been sunken with 4 torpedoes of the destroyer “Kerch” on June 18th 1918.
The “Volya” had been seized by German but wasn’t commissioned. November 24th 1918 the Allied had re-seized her and led to Izmid. August 1919 the dreadnought had been returned to Russian and consisted in the Naval Forces of the South of Russia named the “General Alexeev”. November 1st 1920 the battleship left Sevastopol forever and went to Constantinople. There November 21st the remained ships had become the Russian Squadron and December 8th had departed to Bizerta. December 23rd the Squadron had been interned by French and was slowly dying at Bizerta four years. On September 1924 the French government had acknowledged USSR. That was the end of the Squadron. October 24th 1924 St. Andrew flags had been lowered and the crews become refugees. But the ships weren’t transferred to Soviet. The “General Alexeev” stayed at Bizerta 13 years and then had been scrapped.

About the fate of Black Sea dreadnoughts' big guns you can read here: http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3214&page=2.

Here you can see the colour drawing of the "Imperatritsa Mariya" by Alexandr Dashiyan (dash): http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2764&page=7.

Illustrations:
1. Mounting the keel blocks of the "Imperator Alexandr III", October 1911;
2. "Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya" at the end of fitting-out;
3. "Imperatritsa Mariya" at Sevastopol;
4. "Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya";
5. "Goeben";
6. Bow of the "Breslau" after the rendezvous with the "Imperatritsa Mariya";
7. Explosion of the "Imperatritsa Mariya";
8. "Volya" during the trials;
9. "General Alexeev", cruiser "General Kornilov" (ex-"Kagul") and yacht "Almaz" at Bizerta, 1921.

[dorupantos]

My last posting in this thread battlleship SEVASTOPOL !

[hood51]

Some pictures from Novosti Press Agency sent to me i 1972

1 - SEVASTOPOL - 1943

2 - POLTAVA

3 - GANGUT

4 - SEVASTOPOL

Hope they are of interest

Steve

[designeraccd]

Let's not forget the LAST dreadnought the Soviets acquired, despite her fate! DFO ;)

[astraltrader]

Thanks for the pictures Steve, here is a picture of Novorossisk [ex Giulio Cesare] taken in 1950 that is also of a worthwhile size.

[BlackBat242]

So, to recap.

Baltic fleet:
built: 4xGangut class (12x12")
started construction, none finished: 4xBorodino {or Izmail} class (12x14")

Black Sea fleet:
built: 3xImperatritsa Mariya class (12x12")
started construction, not finished: Imperator Nikolai I (12x12")



Imperator Nikolai I was basically an enlarged Imperatritsa Mariya, with heavier armor.

(all dates new style)
Laid down 28 April 1915, launched 18 October 1916, construction suspended 24 October 1917.
Scrapped starting 28 June 1927

Drawing (the bow on the drawing looks wrong... not only from the pic, but different from all the other Russian dreadnought bows) and pictures of her before & during launch (she was specifically stated to have an "icebreaker bow" in hopes of transferring her to the Baltic Fleet later):

[kronserg]

Some better versions of these photos:

106437 106438

[Don Boyer]

Antoine:

I note in your section on battleships, you listed the crew as "32 officers, 28 conductors and 1130 men." "Conductors" is a term I've never heard of before and must be unique to the Russian navy. What is the equivalent in western navies, if there is one? I was thinking the term might be equivalent to warrant officers or chief petty officers in the US Navy?

An enjoyable read on this subject, not my strong suit, obviously! :) I notice that all these designs of this era had the secondary batteries directly below the main turrets. This must have made working those guns a real joy if the main battery was firing!

Regards,

[hood51]

Thanks for the pictures Steve, here is a picture of Novorossisk [ex Giulio Cesare] taken in 1950 that is also of a worthwhile size.

Very nice picture, Terry. Pics of her are rare in Russian service.

Thanks
Steve