Пересвет написал:

#1277512
А в чём была причина?

Необходимость оказывать артподдержку приморскому флангу на большую дистанцию. А 76мм против многочисленных торпийеров Чили, так как главная задача прикрытие своих ЭБр. Которые не построили...
А так, это просто Сентинел.

Отредактированно РыбаКит (13.05.2018 01:33:11)

krysa написал:

#1277514
при встрече с отрядом ЭМ выходят два варианта...

Как там у Новика? Вражеский дестроер не может выйти на листанцию торпедного пуска, так как нам хватает скорости ее контролить, а мы... а мы не попадаем...

krysa написал:

#1277546
с чего бы?

С того, что видят крупный корабль.

krysa написал:

#1277546
При минимальной разнице в скорости и отсутствии дальнобойной арты у скаута?

Крейсер обладает подавляющим превосходством в продолжительности большого хода.

krysa написал:

#1277546
На обеспечение главных сил кладем большой и толстый?

Для начала, главные силы должны быть. Вот когда они есть, их действия и нужно обеспечивать. А если главные силы не главные, то и обеспечивать будет нечего.

QF написал:

#1277570
С того, что видят крупный корабль.

Вот интересно,а от транспорта с митральезами им то же бежать?Корабль ведет огонь мелочью,которая никуда не попадает и единичное попадание которой-не опасно.

QF написал:

#1277570
Крейсер обладает подавляющим превосходством в продолжительности большого хода.

Опять"продолжительность" при оценке столкновений на близкой дистанции вероятно в условиях плохой видимости.Т.е. кратковременных.

QF написал:

#1277570
Для начала, главные силы должны быть. Вот когда они есть, их действия и нужно обеспечивать. А если главные силы не главные, то и обеспечивать будет нечего.

Как бы с броненосцами у РИФ было все в порядке по числу по сравнению с ЯИФ.
А так то можно вместо Рюрика построить  второй "Сисой Великий",вместо Громобоя и России и 3 ББО-еще 3 Петропавловска.Вместо 3 Пересветов-еще 3 модифицированных,а так же не заказывать 6кт крейсера,а заказать еще по Ретвизангу и Цесаревичу.Итого в ПА может быть до 10-12 ЭБР
Вот только как не крути-2ранговые крейсера слишком незначительны,что б их трогать

krysa написал:

#1277564
Я не про линейно-возвышено.Я именно линейно.В край-у Новиков объединение дымоходов 1 и 2,небольшой сдвиг рубки в корму,размещение орудия №2 за орудием №1 (как на Изяславах) и размещение орудия № 3-вместо последней пары на камушках.А точно в нос или корму стрелять-там довернуть град на 10 всегда можно.

Вы есть опасный мечтатель. нагрузить 33 тонны на носовую оконечность особливо с учетом.что газельки сильно уваливались под волну. при косй волне... Водичку вентиляторами не хлебанете?

РыбаКит написал:

#1277574
нагрузить 33 тонны на носовую оконечность особливо с учетом.что газельки сильно уваливались под волну. при косй волне...

Особливо что я меняю 2 120мм Канэ,стоящие на этом месте,на 1 6дм Канэ?

krysa написал:

#1277564
Вы точно ничего не путаете?Смысл боевой единицы,коль она скорость показывает только на испытаниях,в бухте иногда,когда штиль?Нет,понятно что скорость ниже,японцы отмечали что их 30 уз не быстрее нашего 27уз,но все же.Приводимые вами цифры прямо намекают,что лучше торпедная канонерская лодка

Добро пожаловать в реальность.

"In de Robeck’s view, existing destroyers had been designed specifically for the English Channel, where distances were short and ships were maintained at their bases. A Mediterranean destroyer had to be more self-contained, with sufficient range to steam from Malta to the main French base at Toulon or from Malta to the Dardanelles at eighteen knots, and then to remain off that place for two days (the DNC equated this to 1650nm at eighteen knots, about twice the endurance of existing ships). Under seagoing conditions a twenty-seven-knotter could steam 1600nm at thirteen knots (cruising speed) and a thirty-knotter, 1400nm. To achieve his desired range, de Robeck envisaged a four-boiler destroyer that could make eighteen knots on two of them. Her range could be extended further by towing at high speed (as the Japanese were reportedly doing). Nor were destroyers fast enough, because the speed of the cruisers which would hunt them down was ‘increasing every day’. The failure of the thirty-three-knotters suggested that the limit of existing machinery had been reached, and that turbines would have to be adopted. De Robeck was painfully aware that existing destroyers gave themselves away at night by flaring at their funnels, and he wanted funnels raised to eliminate the problem (this was being done in new destroyers, and the E-in-C was experimenting with blowers to reduce flaring)."

"De Robeck wanted a forecastle and increased flare for good sea-keeping. His ship should, moreover, be capable of maintaining her designed speed in a seaway. Other destroyer officers complained of the difference between nominal and actual performance. Nominal destroyer speed was generally guaranteed with a load of thirty-five tons, whereas the full load might well be one hundred tons or more. Surveys showed that the thirty-knot destroyers were really good for twenty-seven knots or less when fully loaded, and for even less as their delicate machinery aged. They lost speed in a seaway, as water washed over the turtleback."

"To support his destroyer commander, Fisher cited details of new German destroyers of the S 90 class. These had the sort of endurance de Robeck wanted (3158nm at fourteen knots) and Fisher found them ‘very seaworthy looking’. Moreover, they ran trials with much heavier loads than the Royal Navy used – in November 1899 S 90 made 26.4 knots fully equipped, with sixty-five tons of coal (capacity was ninety-three tons in bunkers, and 130 tons if coal was stowed in the boiler rooms – which would cause stability problems). The DNC pointed out that British destroyers of about the same size performed similarly; loaded like the German ships, the thirty-knotters would make twenty-seven knots. Compared with the German ships, the twelve British destroyers just ordered were somewhat longer, with narrower hulls drawing about one foot more water for the same displacement of 350 tons. The DNC thought the sea speed (at maximum continuous power, say half of trials power) would be 22–23 knots, compared with twenty knots for the Germans. He admitted that endurance figures, based on the coal consumption of a lightly loaded ship were unrealistic. Thus the thirty-knotters had an on-paper endurance of 3200nm at thirteen knots, but ships steaming to foreign stations found 1250nm to 1400nm more realistic. The armament of British and German destroyers was not comparable. The Germans thought of their ships as seagoing torpedo boats and not as destroyers. Thus, the Royal Navy had one 12-pounder (3in) on the conning tower and five 6-pounders (2.24in) in the waist and aft. The Germans had three 5cm (1.9in) guns; one on the after conning tower, and one each side on the upper deck forward. They had three instead of two torpedo tubes, and they carried two spare torpedoes (the British carried none). The British had larger complements, perhaps due in part to the larger gun armament: four officers and warrant officers and fifty-eight or fifty-nine ratings, compared with two officers, four warrant officers, and forty-four ratings in the German ships. S 91 made 26.8 knots on her three-hour trial with sixty-five tons of coal, but 24.6 knots fully loaded."

"By July, the DNC was preparing sketches for what amounted to a feasibility design for the next series of destroyers, to be ordered in 1902. It would provide the basis for the request for bids, and also a benchmark against which the builders’ designs could be checked. It is not clear if it was ever circulated to the builders. The DNC sketch embodied many features of the German destroyers, such as the form of bow, position of the bridge, and reduced use of ventilating cowls. The key change was to require the ship to run four-hour trials realistically loaded. The DNC began with a thirty-knotter hull form adapted to a 125-tons load, which reduced speed to twenty-seven knots (just as a thirty-knotter with a trial load of thirty-five tons would be reduced to twenty-seven knots with a more realistic ninety-ton load). Thus what might seem a drastic reduction in speed could also be seen as a more realistic view of the capacity of existing destroyers. The next stage was to add a forecastle, both to make the ship drier and to meet a demand for better accommodations. Given the two living decks forward, it was no longer necessary to accommodate petty officers and ratings abaft the engine room. Existing destroyers with lightweight fast-revving engines needed frequent repairs; hence many would not be available for war service. The solution was heavier engines running at lower revolutions (the E-in-C wanted 350rpm to be the maximum, compared with the 400rpm he had imposed for thirty-knotters). Seagoing officers continually complained that the thirty-knotters were too weak, and several destroyers, such as HMS Seal, reported serious weakness revealed when steaming in bad weather. Early in September 1902, the DNC pointed out that the desired changes would cost about one knot, so the required trial speed should be reduced to twenty-six knots."

"In October 1901, the Controller (Admiral May) approved the design. In view of recent problems, particularly the loss of HMS Cobra, the DNC was asked if his larger ship would have a greater margin of structural strength. He could only say that its margin was at least equal to that of current destroyers. If more was wanted, speed would have to be sacrificed. The Controller pointed out that these larger destroyers would be better capable of keeping the sea than existing destroyers, and hence would undoubtedly be used as fleet scouts. He therefore wanted greater strength. To provide it, speed was reduced another half knot, to 25.5 knots. The First Sea Lord approved the decision, and the ships were known as ‘25 and a half knotters’. Foreign destroyers might be faster on paper, but they would hardly match these ships in sea-keeping."


"The DNC pointed out that if the ships were to function as scouts they would need further strengthening. They would not be far from the Sharpshooter design produced about a quarter-century earlier, with about the same length and freeboard, displacing 630 tons fully loaded, reducing their trial speed still further, to 23.5 knots or possibly twenty-four knots. This was going too far. The Controller wanted a destroyer, so he wanted at least 25.5 knots. Fleet scouts (which might work with destroyers) were a separate proposition (see below). The Controller meant merely that ships would be used as scouts, hence should be strengthened to the point of sacrificing half a knot."

"The return of four River class destroyers to Queenstown at the end of the manoeuvres showed how much better the Rivers were. At 6am on 13 August, thirty-one destroyers left Ireland for operations at Falmouth and the Scilly Islands, to return to the nearest Irish base port (Waterford, 160 miles away, and Queenstown, 185 miles away) at the end of the manoeuvres at 8am on 15 August. They encountered a severe gale and heavy seas off Land’s End. Only four Rivers (Avon, Cherwell, Eden and Weiland) and HMS Hunter made it to Waterford. Hunter was badly damaged by the seas, although speed was reduced on her account."

"The CO of Arun recalled a run from Queenstown to Scilly against a moderate southwest sea with Blackwater (another River), six thirty-knotters, three torpedo gunboats, and several twenty-seven-knotters. The two Rivers had no trouble maintaining twenty knots without wetting their forecastles. The thirty-knotters and gunboats made heavy weather. Ordered to reconnoitre, Arun accelerated to twenty-two knots without trouble, except for some spray."



"The CO of Teviot felt much the same way, but wanted more speed. Based on thirty-knotter experience, he assumed a service speed two knots below contract speed (which had been achieved with picked coal and stokers), bringing a River down to about twenty-three knots in reality.
At the end of the manoeuvres, all of the destroyers left Milford together. As the CO of Derwent put it, ‘… at 6pm the Arab and Flirt who were near me were taking in seas right over their 12pdr platforms. This ship had a little spray only. At 7pm all the destroyers except the big River class put back. We continued steaming 15 knots against it till 9:30.’ At that point Itchen (a River) shipped a very heavy sea which tore up the port section of her breakwater; she throttled back to twelve knots. According to her CO:

… whether by accepting slight damage we could have maintained a speed of 15 knots or more in that sea, without damage to the deck of the forecastle and the consequent flooding of the upper mess deck, I did not feel justified in attempting to prove, but… I feel sure that we could have overtaken any 30 knot destroyer in that sea. As it was, in the early part of the trip, we outdistanced a flotilla of 30 knot destroyers which also had orders to proceed 15 knots. This superiority I attribute entirely to the high forecastle.

Captains of thirty-knotters admitted that they were too wet. Thus the CO of Syren: ‘the present chart table is quite useless in a heavy sea, or when raining hard’. The CO of Falcon:

… when steaming at about 7 knots bows on to a heavy sea on morning of 15 August… only spray was apparently coming over the forecastle of the Blackwater [River class], [but] the forecastle and bridge of the Falcon were constantly swept by heavy seas … I found that it was impossible to steam more than 7 knots without damaging the vessel, whereas the Blackwater parting company (having ordered Falcon to steam to Falmouth for shelter), she increased speed and proceeded at (apparently) from 12 to 15 knots without difficulty."



"The draft reply (by the DNC and the E-in-C) pointed out that the sea speed of a River class destroyer with a clean bottom in fine weather, fully loaded, was 25.5 knots; a nominal thirty-knotter under the same conditions would make twenty-six knots, though with additions made since completion sea speed would probably be no more than twenty-five knots with enough coal on board to give them the same radius of action as a River."

QF написал:

#1277580
Добро пожаловать в реальность.

Это я видел.Вопрос в том,что длительное соревнование в условиях плохой видимости скорее всего не состоится.
Плюс все оценки даны без цифр.
Хорошая погода,среднее волнение-это простите не шкала ,
Сейчас вики пишет-"умеренное"-это 4 балла.
Зы:тогда в общем то имеет смысл усилить вооружение Камушкам до 2 6дм 4 120мм.Будет выдавать 24 уз,для ухода от 6кт хватит за глаза.

РыбаКит написал:

#1277581
Зона где можно поставить орудия.

Из-за объединения 1 и 2 трубы-примерно на месте нынешней рубки.

Отредактированно krysa (13.05.2018 10:01:00)

krysa написал:

#1277582
Из-за объединения 1 и 2 трубы-примерно на месте нынешней рубки.

Над котлами огда орудия очень старались не ставить.

krysa написал:

#1277587
Ну ой,у Жемчуга орудия 2 и 3 стоят над той самой второй группой котлов.

Рядом, по самому краешку, как я вам и нарисовал. Строго над котлами не ставили.

krysa написал:

#1277587
Да похоже теж 25-24 и осталось,если наш 27 узловый их обгонял.

На 25ти узлах.

РыбаКит написал:

#1277584
А прикиньте что осталось у япов.

20-23.

QF написал:

#1277595
Извините моряков Роял Нэви за их беспросветную глупость.

Хороший набросЪ,но нет.Моряки Ройал Нэви понаделали чудо оружия то ж вполне достаточно.
Вопрос в том,что при их сериях отдельные ошибки не занимали большого % относительно корабельного состава,поэтому были некритичны.
Хотя ЕМНИП кроме как у них броненосцы в шторм ни у кого со всей командой не тонули.

QF написал:

#1277595
А для изменения тамошней ситуации требуются корабли, при виде которых не только "собаки", но и "асамы" начнут отходить к Того. Вы же упорно предлагаете корабли для бегства от "собак". Зачем?

Я в общем то предлагаю обычный крейсер для лидирования ЭМ и борьбы с чужими.Вполне логично предполагаю,что лидеру нужно не только количественное,но и качественное превосходство в артиллерии,а вооружение миноносным калибром считаю недостаточным.
Ну не выстрелили особо в боротьбе с ЭМ в дальнейшем ни Дидоны,ни Атланты.
107мм же современных в у РИФ я не наблюдаю.Добавляем вместо 120мм Канэ новую пушку ПМК?Калибра 107мм?

QF написал:

#1277595
Цифры выделены шрифтом.

Скорости,а не волнения.

Отредактированно krysa (13.05.2018 10:46:38)