Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ekaterina II, unique and ahead of her time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ekaterina II, unique and ahead of her time

    The Battleship, what an iconic vessel. Few ships have expressed power, sovereignty and influence so clearly and unmistakably. I know their time is passed as operational naval units, and new ships that replaced them (particularly the super carriers) are impressive too, but I am passionate about battleships (you never would have guessed ;-). The fact is that the story of battleships is pretty much finished, only the disposition of museums and artifacts remains open to new chapters. This completeness is attractive as a subject for analysis, like a dead language. The point of analyzing them, beyond the technical interest (enough in itself), is they were the penultimate method of power projection and strategic deterrence at the time, their construction coincided with the major international events of the times.

    Here is another interesting battleship, ahead of its time. :gunut:

    The Russian Ekaterina II laid down 1883, commissioned 1888. First of a class of four, Ekaterina was unique in having twin disappearing guns, three mounts with six 12”/30 BLR's and seven 5.9”/35 Krupp guns. The disappearing guns proved unsuccessful and were not repeated on the three sisters.

    When she was commissioned in 1888 Ekaterina II outgunned everything else afloat, the third ship Sinop (1889) was the first battleship with VTE engines, the last of the class Georgii Pobedonosets (1893) had nickel steel armor up to 16” thick, more powerful 12”/35 guns in conventional turrets, and even managed to drive SMS Goeben back to her base in WWI.

    Sinop plan view and Georgii Pobedonosets color post card
    Attached Files
    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 22 Oct 10,, 04:07.
    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  • #2
    Inboard views

    Here are some technical drawings of the ships, lower image shows the hooded barbette design of Chesma and Sinop
    Attached Files
    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 22 Oct 10,, 15:43.
    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

    Comment


    • #3
      Where are the guns? Oh they have disappeared - the Ekaterina II with her 12" guns in loading position below decks. ;) Imagine it is 1890 and you are a Turkish admiral with a squadron of heavy units inthe Black Sea, at war with Russia, looking through the binoculars at this ship, oh she is a cruiser with 6" guns, close and attack -- what the !
      Attached Files
      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 22 Oct 10,, 18:53.
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #4
        Another infusion of battleship

        Attached Files
        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks for the thread, I love the pre-Dreadnoughts. So many different designs as the limits and possibilities of new technologies were explored. Some of her contemporaries were still designed with sails.


          I have the Sinope as the lead ship (this could be wrong), with a launch date of 20 June, 1887, and a commission date of 1890. She was re-armed for WW1 with 4x8" and 8x6".

          The class was built for the Black Sea Fleet, and Sinope ended up disarmed by the Whites in 1917, damaged by British interventionists in 1919, and scrapped by the Soviets in 1922. Nothing listed for other ships of the class.

          I have their vital stats as:
          Displacement: 11,230 tons
          Dimensions: 339' x 69' x 28'9"
          Speed: 16.5 knots on 13,000 IHP
          Armament: 6x12" and 7x5.9"
          7x15" torpedo tubes, and could carry 100 mines

          Comment


          • #6
            It's amazing how people didn't figure out to put more than 4 large caliber guns on the same ship until HMS Dreadnought. Was that a technical limitation? Or just sort of followed what the Royal Navy did, like a tradition?
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #7
              Early steel battleships had a limited displacement to handle very heavy guns. As gun size continued to grow, they carried fewer. Also, they tended to have a sizable battery of intermediate calibre guns, which used up weight. Doing away with the intermediate battery, along with the leap in displacement, allowed modern battleships to carry 8-10 heavy guns. The record was HMS Agincourt (ordered by Brazil, then sold to Turkey, than taken over by the RN), which shipped 14x12" guns in 7 twin turrets.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                It's amazing how people didn't figure out to put more than 4 large caliber guns on the same ship until HMS Dreadnought. Was that a technical limitation? Or just sort of followed what the Royal Navy did, like a tradition?
                Actually, the Catherine II had six big guns, so did the German Brandenburg class (1893). But the Battle of the Yellow River in 1894 had people believing that medium quick fire guns would do most of the damage in a battleship action, since the big guns fired so slowly. The Battle Tsushima and faster firing big guns made the all big gun ship desirable and possible. An Italian, Cuniberti, proposed it in Jane's Naval Annual in 1903, and the US planned the South Carolina class in 1904 while the Japanese nearly built the Satsuma (ordered in 1904) with all big guns about the same time as HMS Dreadnought (1906) - the British ship was built very quickly by assembling parts from several other battleships then under construction, it took just over a year to complete - a record never matched. The Japanese and American ships both took until 1910 to complete.

                The Battle of the Yalu River Sept 17 1894, This one sided battleship engagement didn't demonstrate the effectiveness of battleships, some observers believed it showed their ineffectiveness. The fact was the newer, faster Japanese ships badly out gunned the Chinese in medium quickfire guns, which at the ranges involved were decisive, also the Japanese ships performed very well, while the Chinese ships were badly prepared and lead. The Chinese had two German built predreadnoughts, which were underweight export versions at just short of 8000 tons, still they had 12” guns and 14” armor, were less than 10 years old and were among the fastest ships in their fleet at over 15 knots, both survived the battle. Their Japanese adversaries had two newer armored cruisers, less than 3 years old about half the displacement as the center of their fleet. The number of ships on each side was almost equal, the Japanese had twelve warships, the Chinese had thirteen, but besides the two battleships, all the Chinese ships were under 3000 tons, and several ships could only make 6 knots, with only six ships over 2000 tons. Smallest Chinese ships were two tiny 16 knot torpedo boats of ~100 tons, and nearly half of their ships could not make over 10 knots. The Japanese had seven ships of around 4000 tons and four more over 2000 tons, their slowest ship made 8 knots, and overall they were much faster with only four ships capable of less than 14 knots, they also had two powerful cruisers which could make about 20 knots. The Japanese had a flying squadron of four powerful ships which were about 3-4 knots faster than the fastest Chinese ship. The Chinese ships had a 19:11 advantage in heavy guns, but were much weaker in quick fire (QF) guns at 25:90. The Chinese ships collectively carried eight 12” guns, three 10.2” guns and twelve 8.2” guns, fifteen 6” guns, ten 4.7” guns in their fleet, against the Japanese fleet's three 12.6” guns four 10.2” guns, four 9.4” , thirty one 6” guns, and fifty nine 4.7" QF guns. The Japanese preponderance of fast firing and accurate 4.7” guns did tremendous damage to upper works and exposed personnel like bridge and gun crews. The Chinese leadership had done much to weaken the Chinese fleet, corruption, theft and extreme discipline problems; including food stored in the guns, stolen guns and concrete filled shells, had made the ships unfit for battle. A number of foolish battle decisions were made by the Chinese admiral Ru Chang (see his biography in People of the Battleship section) and his subordinates, which made the outcome inevitable. Beyond the excellent preparation, leadership and superior discipline, the Japanese had superior ships, which were on average much newer, faster, heavier and better armed. The battle started with the Japanese ship steaming in line ahead with their lighter vessels kept back from the action. The Chinese deployed in a line abreast formation which exposed their light units and masked their heavy ones, the situation deteriorated rapidly from this inauspicious beginning. Ru Chang ordered his flagship, the battleship Dingyuan to fire ahead with it midships wing turrets, which demolished his ship's superstructure, knocking down the bridge and wounding or killing his entire flag staff, he was badly wounded and unable to command from this point. His orders were never changed to react to the Japanese tactics, though a few foreign advisers on several ships did help to save those ships, and inflict significance damage on the Japanese. The Japanese decimated the Chinese fleet, sinking five ships and badly damaging three more with 850 men killed and 350 wounded. The Japanese achieved this victory at a cost of four ships damaged, 180 dead and 200 wounded. The wounded Chinese fleet eventually retreated to Port Arthur and Weihai harbors where they were destroyed by Japanese siege artillery. This battle was a major step towards Japan's becoming a world power. It was a setback in many battleship circles, convincing some leaders that the battleship was not useful, realistically no ship is effective if it is badly used. A few newspapers of the time, particularly German, claimed a Chinese victory, but in general this was colored by the fact that their countries had supplied the Chinese fleet with ships and armaments. The French interpretation strengthened their belief that cruisers and torpedo boats would be able to defeat battleships in the their Jeune Ecole policy. Most battleship navies took great interest in the damage and subsequent repair work, with observers from most of the battleship building nations visiting ships from both sides and reporting their findings to their design bureaus. It was generally found that the heavy armor was performing as well as expected, and that QF medium guns were very effective at disabling warships and deciding battles. It is noteworthy that the Japanese victors acquired battleships as quickly as they could following this action, vowing never go into battle “naked” again, they also had many problems with their big French guns. The the Japanese won the war and the Chinese navy never commissioned another battleship.
                Last edited by USSWisconsin; 16 Apr 11,, 07:17.
                sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tzimisces View Post
                  Thanks for the thread, I love the pre-Dreadnoughts. So many different designs as the limits and possibilities of new technologies were explored. Some of her contemporaries were still designed with sails.


                  I have the Sinope as the lead ship (this could be wrong), with a launch date of 20 June, 1887, and a commission date of 1890. She was re-armed for WW1 with 4x8" and 8x6".

                  The class was built for the Black Sea Fleet, and Sinope ended up disarmed by the Whites in 1917, damaged by British interventionists in 1919, and scrapped by the Soviets in 1922. Nothing listed for other ships of the class.

                  I have their vital stats as:
                  Displacement: 11,230 tons
                  Dimensions: 339' x 69' x 28'9"
                  Speed: 16.5 knots on 13,000 IHP
                  Armament: 6x12" and 7x5.9"
                  7x15" torpedo tubes, and could carry 100 mines
                  My pleasure, thanks for your interest - in my favorite subject.

                  Catherine II was the first and lead ship commissioned in 1888, Sinop, her near sister was commissioned in 1889 (along with Chesma - a third ship). Catherine II was the only one with 12"/30 guns (the others had 12"/35's), and the only one with disappearing gun mounts (they were not successful). The fourth and last ship, Georgii Pobedonosets (1893), had turrets instead of barbettes like the other three.

                  Ekaterina II Laid down Екатерина at Nikolayev in 1883, launched 1886, commissioned 1888,Decommissioned 1906, sunk as target 1914
                  Chesma Laid down at Sevastopol in Че ма 1883, launched 1886, commissioned 1889. Decommissioned 1907, sunk as target 1912 . Had 12”/35 guns.
                  Sinop («Синоп») Laid down at Sevastopol in 1883, launched 1887, commissioned 1889.First large ship with VTE engines. Destroyed by British troops at Sevastopol 1919, BU c. 1930 Had 12”/35 guns.
                  Georgii Pobedonosets («Георгий Победоносец») Laid down at Sevastopol in 1891, launched 1892, commissioned 1893, 12”/35 guns. Had nickel steel armor with a new layout a near sister to the others. She had the distinction of chasing off the Turkish flagged modern battlecruiser SMS Goeben which was shelling Sevastopol in 1914. Captured by White Army 1919, interned by France at Bizerte, returned to Soviet Russia in 1924 and sold for BU.


                  The Agincourt was an awesome ship, so long, so many turrets, and she was at Jutland. I really like her, she was nearly a battlecruiser armor wise, but not fast enough. Interesting story too.
                  Last edited by USSWisconsin; 16 Apr 11,, 07:14.
                  sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                  If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Good info about the Yalu battle. There were so few naval battles in this period of rapid change that conclusions were drawn way out of proportion to their actual significance. Intermediate batteries being one, and the ram bow being another.
                    I like the Charles Martel, and her exaggerated tumblehome hull.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      That is a great picture, I find the six French psuedo sisters to be a facinating period for the battleship. I'd love to spend a week exploring each one - perhaps a scratch built model would be the way.


                      The Pseudo class – six battleships which could operate together as a squadron, but were not sisters or even very similar, Brennus, Charles Martel, Carnot, Jaureguiberry, Massena, Bouvet. The Hoche was a seventh ship in the one ship string, but it had such poor seakeeping that it was unable to operate with the others. These ships were a testing ground for new technologies and ideas, and though they were not very successful in themselves, they did pioneer many new technologies which would be considered essential a few decades later. Some of the features introduced were electric powered hoists, pumps and ventilation, water tube boilers, and high velocity breech-loading guns.

                      The tumblehome made boat handling very challenging on these ships. Look at all those fixtures to get them down the slope and into the water.
                      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 16 Apr 11,, 22:22.
                      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A few plebeian questions USSWisconsin

                        When did submarines emerge as a genuine threat to Battleships? And before Aircraft Carriers, was the only way to sink a Battleship to have a similar Battleship of comparable size?

                        Cheers
                        "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Submarines began to sink battleships in the first world war, many years before the aircraft was considered to be a threat to battleships. While General Mitchell sunk surplus battleships with aircraft in the 1920's, no one in authority believed battleships could be sunk by aircraft if they were defended. Taranto and then Pearl Harbor demonstrated that carrier aircraft could sink battleships. Force Z (HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales) were sunk by Japanese aircraft while maneuvering and fighting in 1941.

                          Torpedoes and mines always posed a threat to battleships, but until WWI, battleships at sea were relatively safe from anything but another battleship.
                          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 17 Apr 11,, 06:51.
                          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I would add that surface launched torpedoes were seen as a bigger threat at sea than sub launched torpedoes.
                            The authorities were absolutely correct regarding Mitchell, even well into WW2. Mitchell didn't argue for planes killing ships, he argued for heavy bombers killing ships, which was a pipe dream until guided bombs.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tzimisces View Post
                              I would add that surface launched torpedoes were seen as a bigger threat at sea than sub launched torpedoes.
                              The authorities were absolutely correct regarding Mitchell, even well into WW2. Mitchell didn't argue for planes killing ships, he argued for heavy bombers killing ships, which was a pipe dream until guided bombs.
                              Agreed, torpedo boats were the first significant torpedo threat starting in the late 19th century, destroyers were the evolutionary form of these early craft. Some cruisers also carried torpedoes, and many of the WWII Japanese cruisers carried the giant 24" Long Lance type, which were exceedingly effective. Battleship torpedoes were never very effective, and were removed from most battleships before WWII.

                              The German Fritz - X was the first effective guided bomb, sinking the RM Roma in 1943 with a single hit.

                              The destruction of Yamato and Musashi by USN carrier aircraft proved beyond a doubt that any battleship could be sunk by aircraft. Only aircover from fighters could protect a battleship from attack aircraft.

                              The modern SAM came along to late to have an important part in the battleship story. The USS Mississippi was converted to a missile test ship, with SAM's but was never involved in combat in this configuration. The reactivated Iowa's did carry MANPADS (Stingers) as a last ditch defense against aircraft.
                              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X