In this article, we will compare the capabilities of the battlecruisers Queen Mary and Seydlitz. Comparing their predecessors, we separated the description of each battle cruiser into a separate article, and then another article devoted to comparing them, but in the case of Seidlitz and Queen Mary, this is not necessary. The fact is that both of these ships were not built according to new projects, but represented a more or less deep modernization of their predecessors, the Moltke and the Lion. Therefore, we will not make detailed descriptions, but focus only on the differences from the battlecruisers of the previous series.
In 1909, German naval thought came close to the concept of a high-speed battleship. On March 8, 1909, the corvette-captain Vollerthun presented a memorandum to the Secretary of State of the Navy (in fact, the Minister of the Navy) Alfed von Tirpitz, which outlined his views on the development of the battlecruiser class. In this document, the corvette captain made a clear definition of the German and British approaches to the creation of battle cruisers. Vollertun noted the unsuitability of British ships for a linear battle - their heavy cannons and super speeds (26, 5-27 knots) were achieved thanks to the extreme weakening of armor (178 mm, according to the corvette captain), which is why the British battle cruisers could be hit by not even the largest guns, and - at a great distance. At the same time, the German battlecruisers were originally designed to participate in a general engagement as a fast wing. Describing the German and British ships of this class, Vollertun quite figuratively noted: "British battle cruisers oppose our cruising battleships."
Vollertun saw the further development of the battle cruisers in Germany as follows: ships of equal displacement should be built with battleships, which will have a higher speed due to a slight weakening of artillery, while the protection should remain at the same level. Or, you should create battle cruisers equal in strength and protection to battleships, for which a higher speed will be provided due to an increase in displacement. The corvette captain believed that a difference of 3, 5-4 knots for a battle cruiser would be quite enough (surprising, but a fact - later the famous British battleships "Queen Elizabeth" were built as if exactly according to Vollertoon's instructions).
At the same time, the memorandum noted that, starting with Von der Tann, German battle cruisers were built on slightly different principles - to achieve a higher speed than battleships, they had weakened artillery and protection. Vollertun considered it extremely necessary to switch to 305-mm guns (eight instead of ten 280-mm), but nevertheless noted that, taking into account not the most powerful booking of ships in other countries, 280-mm artillery may still be sufficient.
Alfred von Tirpitz did not at all share the opinion of the corvette captain. In his opinion, Germany had already found a suitable type of ship and nothing should have been changed. A slight weakening of weapons and armor for the sake of speed at the same displacement as the battleship - this is the ideal that should have been adhered to.
During the discussion of the project of a new battle cruiser, two very interesting innovations were proposed - the transition to three-gun (possibly 305-mm) turrets and a decrease in the height of the armored deck. The first proposal was quickly rejected - the specialists responsible for armaments did not consider the three-gun turrets to be suitable for the Kaiserlichmarin, but the second was discussed for quite a long time. The fact is that, as we said in the previous article, the armor belt of the German battlecruisers Moltke and Goeben was not uniform: it reached its greatest thickness (270 mm) only at a height of 1.8 m, and in normal displacement 0.6 m of this section was under water. Accordingly, above the waterline, the 270-mm section of the armor belt protruded only 1, 2 m. At the same time, the horizontal part of the armored deck was located 1, 6 m above the waterline, that is, 40 cm where the side of the battle cruiser was covered by only 200 mm armor … This created a certain vulnerability, and in addition, lowering the deck would save its weight (the bevels would become shorter). However, this would also have to put up with a decrease in the amount of reserved space, which was ultimately found unacceptable.
The option with four 305 mm twin-turrets was reviewed once again, but only with the aim of understanding whether such a placement would save weight compared to the five 280 mm turrets.
The savings, if it had arisen, were supposed to be used to strengthen protection, but it turned out that there was none - the individually large mass of 305-mm towers, combined with the need to "stretch" the upper deck to the stern, did not make the placement of eight 305-mm cannons any easier solution than ten 280mm. On this basis, the 305-mm artillery was finally abandoned.
When developing Seydlitz, von Tirpitz had to take into account another important aspect - in July 1909, von Bülow left the post of chancellor, and was replaced by von Bethmann-Hollweg, who was distinguished by a significantly greater propensity to save money, so there was no reason to expect a serious rise in the cost of the ship. However, von Tirpitz intended to receive, in addition to the appropriated amounts, another 750 thousand to a million marks by subscription (fundraising).
As a result of all of the above, we stopped at the ship with the performance characteristics "Moltke", but with a slightly increased reservation. The option of placing artillery in the center plane was considered.
But he was abandoned. As we noted earlier, it was no secret for the Germans that one successful hit could bring out two Moltke aft towers at once, and they considered that it was too dangerous to expose two bow towers to a similar risk. As a result, the Seydlitz turned out to be an enlarged copy of the Moltke, with the same artillery, increased armor and increased machine power in order to provide a speed increase of 1 knot. The normal displacement of the ship was 24,988 tons, which is 2,009 tons more than that of the Moltke. Let's see what it was spent on.
Armament
The Seidlitz's armament, both artillery and torpedo, exactly copied that of the ships of the previous type (ten 280-mm guns and a dozen 152-mm and 88-mm guns, as well as four 500-mm torpedo tubes), so we did not we will describe it in detail again. Anyone wishing to refresh their memory can do it in the appropriate section of the article “Battlecruisers rivalry. Moltke vs. Lyon. But it is necessary to correct the annoying mistake that crept into the description of the 280 mm / 45 guns - for them the initial projectile speed is 895 m / s, while the correct one is 877 m / s.
Reservation
The armor protection scheme is almost the same as that of Moltke, therefore, we will limit ourselves only to a description of the differences.
The thickness of the upper and lower armor belts was increased and amounted to (in parentheses - Moltke data) at a height of 1.8 m - 300 (270) mm, then over a length of 1.3 m to the bottom of the armor plate, it thinned to 150 (130) mm. The second, upper armor belt had a thickness of 230 (200) mm. Continuing to the stem, the upper armor belt gradually thinned to 120 and then 100 mm (120-100-80 mm).
The armored deck both in the horizontal part and on the bevels had 30 mm (25-50 mm). The forehead and rear wall of the towers were protected by 250 (230) mm armor, side walls - 200 (180) mm, an inclined sheet in the front of the roof - 100 (90) mm, the roof in its horizontal part - 70 (60) mm, flooring in the rear parts - 50-100 (50) mm. The barbets received 230 mm of armor (on the Moltke, only the barbets of the first and fifth turrets in the part facing the bow and stern, respectively) had such protection. At the same time, it was precisely these towers on the Seydlitz in the part of the barbette facing the conning tower (and the fourth tower) that had armor reduced to 200 mm. In other words, the barbets of the first and fifth turrets of the 280-mm Seydlitz guns had protection similar to the Moltke, the rest - 230 mm versus 200 mm. Below, opposite the 150 mm armor protection of the casemates, the Seydlitz barbets had a thickness of 100 (80) mm, then the same 30 mm as in the Moltke.
Power plant
In addition to the need to compensate for the more than two thousand ton increase in displacement, the German shipbuilders also wanted to increase the speed to 26.5 knots. (in comparison with 25, 5 knots "Moltke"). For this, a much more powerful power plant of 63,000 hp had to be installed. (against 52,000 hp Moltke). On trials, the Seydlitz reached a speed of 28.1 knots, with a maximum power of 89,738 hp. The normal fuel reserve, as on the Moltke, was 1,000 tons, but the maximum was much higher - 3,460-3,600 tons. Nevertheless, the Seydlitz's cruising range was quite comparable to that of the Moltke - for example, for a speed of 17 knots. it was calculated as 4,440 miles for the first ship and 4,230 miles for the second ship.
The Seydlitz was ordered for construction under the 1910 program, laid down on February 4, 1911, launched on March 30, 1912, and commissioned on May 22, 1913.
Queen Mary
Just like the German "Seydlitz", this ship was built according to the 1910 program, and was laid down just a month later - on March 6, 1911, launched 10 days earlier (March 20, 1912), but put into operation build 3 months later - in August 1913
Its design differences from the "Lion" and "Princess Royal", built according to the 1919 program, were, in general, minimal. What is noticeable is that the entire forecastle deck was 32 mm thick (the Lion's forecastle was thickened to 38 mm only in the area of the chimneys and the third tower of the main caliber). In addition, the bow superstructure received anti-fragmentation armor where the anti-mine weapons were located - but their total number was reduced from 16 to 14 and … that was all. Oh, yes, they also returned to the traditional placement of the officers' cabins in the stern - starting with the Dreadnought they were moved to the bow of the ship, which the officers of the Royal Navy did not like.
At the same time, the increase in displacement led to the need to increase the width of the hull by 152 mm while maintaining the same draft. To maintain speed while the displacement increased to 27,000 tons, the power plant capacity was increased from 70,000 to 75,000 hp. The British hoped that due to the more powerful chassis, the Queen Mary would be faster than its predecessors, but these calculations were not justified. On tests, the newest British battle cruiser developed 28, 17 knots with a power of 83,000 hp. the fuel reserve was 1,000 tons - normal and 3,700 tons of coal plus 1,170 tons of oil - the maximum, while the range of 17.4 knots was supposed to be 4,950 miles.
In other words, by and large, "Queen Mary" became the third ship in the "Lion" series, but still she had one serious difference - despite the fact that the design of the 343-mm guns did not undergo changes, the feed mechanisms were designed for heavier 635 kg shells. And this significantly increased the capabilities of the ship.
Comparison
Both "Seydlitz" and "Queen Mary" continued the specific lines of development of the German and English types of battlecruisers. The Germans, having the opportunity to build a more expensive and larger ship, gave preference to protection. The increase in speed by 1 knot, most likely, is due to the fact that according to German data, British cruisers were built with the expectation of reaching 26, 5-27 knots, so that an increase in speed from 25.5 to 26.5 knots. looked perfectly justified. As for the Queen Mary, this battle cruiser, with cosmetic changes to the armor and the same (very high) speed, received even more powerful artillery.
As a result, "Seydlitz" and "Queen Mary" became "a step in place". In the last article we talked about the fact that the 270 mm section of the Moltke armored belt was penetrated by a 567-kg projectile of a 343-mm gun on about 62 cables. The Seydlitz was added 30 mm of armor, the Queen Mary received an additional 68 kg to each shell, and as a result, the Queen Mary shells could penetrate 300 mm of the Seidlitz armor at the same 62 kbt. What changed? Only the fact that behind the Moltke armored belt the vehicles, boilers and artillery cellars of the ship were protected by a 25 mm horizontal deck and 50 mm bevels, while at the Seydlitz both the horizontal part and bevels had only 30 mm. The upper armored belt and 230 mm barbets “did not hold” 343-mm shells at all imaginable battle distances.
On the one hand, life seemed to put everything in its place by itself. "Queen Mary" and "Seydlitz" met in the Battle of Jutland, and the first one died, having received 15-20 hits from shells of caliber 280-305 mm, and died terribly, with almost the entire crew. The second received 23 hits with a caliber of 305-381 mm and one torpedo, took over 5,000 tons of water, but still remained afloat, albeit in distress. As a result, the British battle cruiser "stuck" the label "eggshell armed with hammers", while the survivability of "Seydlitz" became the talk of the town …
Without a doubt, the German shipbuilders attached great importance to protection and survivability. But you need to understand that the losing score for the British in the battles of the battle cruisers predetermined only one property of the German ships, in fact, not directly related to their design. English ships, as a rule, exploded when ignited inside barbets and turret compartments, while German ships did not. The reason was that the German gunpowder burned evenly during the fire - the flame destroyed the entire crew of the tower, but the explosion did not occur, but the British gunpowder detonated.
If the charges of the Seydlitz's guns were equipped with British gunpowder, the ship would probably have died twice - in the battle at Dogger Bank, when at a distance of 84 kbt. A 343-mm projectile broke through a 230 mm barbet and ignited the charges in the turret, turret compartments and feed pipes. The transfer compartment team tried to escape by opening the door to the transfer compartment of the neighboring tower, but the fire “entered” with them, so that the fire engulfed the turret compartments of both towers.
The flame engulfed 6 tons of gunpowder, from both towers fountains of flame and hot gases burst out "as high as a house", as eyewitnesses described it, but … the explosion did not happen. Nevertheless, it is not known whether the catastrophe could have been avoided if the fire had reached the cellars, but the heroic act of the bilge foreman, Wilhelm Heidkamp, saved the situation. He burnt his hands, opening the hot valves of flooding the cellars, as a result of which the fire did not hit the cellars or the torpedo storage located nearby. "Seydlitz" did not die, but "got off" with "only" the death of 165 people. If the German battle cruiser had British gunpowder, then 6 tons in the turret compartments would detonate, and then no heroism would have had time to save the artillery cellars from the fiery hell.
But, fortunately for the Germans, their gunpowder was not prone to detonation, so the Seydlitz survived. And this somehow blurred the fact that as a result of just one hit from a distance of 84 kbt. the ship received severe damage, as a result of which two of the five main-caliber towers were disabled and 600 tons of water entered the hull. In other words, the second shell that hit the ship deprived it of at least 40% of its combat power.
The second time "Seydlitz" was to die in the Battle of Jutland, and, again, at the very beginning. And this time the first 343-mm projectile hitting the ship caused significant, but not critical damage, but the second (obviously an unlucky number for Seydlitz) from a distance of 71-75 kbt. pierced 230 mm armor belt and exploded during the passage of the armor. Shrapnel pierced 30 mm of the barbet's armor plate and ignited four charges in the reloading compartment. And again the crew suffered heavy losses (a significant part of the turret crew died in the fire) and again they had to drown the cellars. But the fire that broke out in the reloading compartment did not pass into the cellars (the result of modernization after the battle at Dogger Banks) and the ship, again, did not die.
At the same time, Seydlitz's artillery, apparently, did not inflict significant damage on the British. It so happened that at the beginning of the Battle of Jutland, Seydlitz had to fight the Queen Mary and, as far as can be judged, this duel was by no means in favor of the German ship. Officially, Seydlitz achieved four, or perhaps five, hits from 280-mm shells to Queen Mary, but it is possible that these hits were significantly higher. The fact is that sources usually report four hits on Queen Mary from Seidlitz and three from Derflinger, but this adds up to only seven hits, but the same sources claim that Queen Mary 15-20 shells were hit, and except for the two above-mentioned battlecruisers, no one fired at it. At the same time, until its very death, the Queen Mary did not give the impression of a wrecked, or even badly damaged ship - it was imperceptible that the 280-mm shells of the Seydlitz somehow affected its combat capability. At the same time, the number of hits "Queen Mary" in "Seydlitz" is known for sure - 4 shells. And the effect of them turned out to be very tangible.
The first projectile pierced the side under the conning tower and disabled the bow control panel, severely destroying the unarmored side structures and making a 3 by 3 m hole in the head deck. Water entered the hull through this hole, which (until the end of the battle) flooded the central post Seydlitz”and the cellars. Not fatal, of course, but little pleasant.
The second projectile - we have already described its actions. Seydlitz was saved from death by two things - gunpowder not prone to detonation and the modernization of the reloading compartments, which protects against the penetration of fire into the cellars (as you can understand, one of the two armored deflectors was always closed - from the reloading compartment to the feed pipe, or from the same compartment into the cellar). But in any case, one of the towers was completely disabled, and a significant part of its crew perished. It is also noteworthy that in order to defeat the vehicles and boilers of the German battle cruiser, the British projectile had to overcome exactly the same armor - 230 mm side plus 30 mm bevel of the armored deck.
The third shell - strictly speaking, did not hit the ship at all, but exploded in the water near the side. But the explosive contained in it was enough to cause a divergence of the seams of the hull plating for 11 meters. As a result, the front external coal bunkers and additional bunkers of the XIII compartment, as well as the roll tanks, were flooded.
The fourth projectile - as far as can be understood, the projectile hit the joint of the 230 mm plate of the upper belt and the 150 mm casemate, knocking out 150 mm gun No. 6 from the starboard side. The shell caused great destruction inside the ship, many of the bulkheads were pierced by shrapnel.
The Queen Mary was eventually destroyed, but how? The concentration of fire from two battle cruisers, and, according to eyewitnesses, most likely the British battle cruiser was destroyed by the 305-mm shells of the Derflinger. And they were much heavier (405 kg versus 302) and had significantly better armor penetration compared to the Seidlitz shells. And whether such a result was achieved if Seydlitz continued to shoot alone with Queen Mary is rather difficult to say.
Although, of course, anything is possible. As we said earlier, the artillery of the Lion-class battle cruisers was very poorly protected from 280 rounds - the 102-127-152 mm armor opposite the barbets of the towers did not represent any reliable protection. An anecdotal case describes the Husbands: in the battle at Dogger Bank, 127 mm armor of the "Lion" was pierced from a distance of 88 kbt. 280-mm projectile … after it, having fallen into the water at 4, 6 m from the side of the ship, ricocheted and hit the armor plate. And, strictly speaking, the 203 mm barbets of the Queen Mary towers, in principle, were also quite penetrable by the Seidlitz shells.
The conclusions from the above are as follows: we have already written that the armor of the Lion and Moltke did not provide protection for these ships from the effects of 280-mm and 343-mm shells of their opponents. Without a doubt, the Moltke was much better protected than the Lion, but still the number of its vulnerabilities for British 343 mm shells was greater than that of the Lion for 280 mm, and besides, the heavier shells had better out-of-order impact. All this led to the fact that the British took the lead as their battlecruisers, because, other things being equal (crew training), the Lyon had a higher chance of inflicting heavy damage on the enemy.
With a pair of Queen Mary and Seydlitz, nothing has changed. It is known that the sword has priority over the shield, and therefore even a slight increase in the firepower of the British battle cruiser fully counterbalanced the very decent increase in the protection of the German ship. As in the case of the Moltke and Lyon, the Queen Mary proved to be stronger than the Seydlitz - a one-on-one battle with this ship was deadly for the German battle cruiser, although not hopeless.
To be continued!
