As we said earlier, "Von der Tann" for its time turned out to be a wonderful ship, close to the standard of a battle cruiser. Therefore, it is not surprising that the next year (and German shipbuilders, in accordance with the "Law on the Fleet" laid down one large cruiser a year), the Germans did not come up with a new project, but followed the path of improving the previous one. But the opinions on which way the project should be improved were expressed quite interesting and in some ways even unexpected: it is interesting that they began to express themselves even before the foundation of Von der Tann.
So, on April 23, 1907, von Tirpitz announced (orally) that the new cruiser should become an enlarged Von der Tann. In response to this, the design bureau submitted a whole memorandum on May 2, 1907, which substantiated a slightly different vision of the new battle cruiser. I must say that G. Staff never claims that Tirpitz proposed to build a new cruiser with eight 305-mm cannons, but, judging by the arguments of his opponents, he meant just that.
The design bureau recognized that, within the allocated budget, it was quite possible to create a battle cruiser with eight of the latest 305-mm guns, but suggested not to do this. This was motivated as follows - although, without a doubt, the latest battleships require twelve-inch cannons, but the cruiser will have enough 280-mm, perhaps not quite optimal, but still quite suitable for battles with battleships. Instead of increasing the caliber, the number of guns should be increased - this will allow the "big" cruiser to fire at several targets at the same time, which is extremely important in a naval battle against superior British forces. Therefore, it was proposed to leave 280-mm guns on the new cruiser, but to increase their number to twelve. Reservation had to correspond to "Von der Tann", speed - not less than 24, 5 knots.
In response to this, the Imperial Naval Ministry replied that the arguments of the Design Bureau regarding the need to increase the number of barrels of the main caliber are impeccable (!), But nevertheless twelve guns are not needed for the sounded targets, ten is enough. At the same time, Admiral von Heeringen pointed out that 305-mm cannons on battleships did not appear on a whim, but because they best meet the tasks of squadron combat, and if so, then "large" cruisers should be armed with 305-mm cannons … The admiral also pointed out that recent calculations for one of the projects of a high-speed battleship armed with 10,280-mm guns showed that such a ship is possible in a displacement of 20,300-20,700 tons. Now it is possible to build a larger cruiser, so the additional displacement is quite can be spent on 305mm cannons.
In general, the Imperial Naval Ministry proposed to build a battle cruiser with 10 305-mm guns, located according to the "Dreadnought" scheme, while the protection had to correspond to the "Von der Tann", the speed - not less than 24, 5 knots.
As a result, on May 17, 1907, the final decisions on the future cruiser were made. We stopped at 10 280-mm guns, the same ones that were installed on the Von der Tann, the speed was to be from 24 to 24.5 knots, the displacement was to be no larger than that of a modern battleship, that is about 22,000 tons (this is how the newest dreadnoughts of the "Helgoland" type were seen then). At the meeting, in the presence of all interested persons, they also sketched a diagram of the location of the artillery of the future "large" cruiser.
Interestingly, even then there was concern about the linearly elevated placement of the aft towers - it was rightly noted that since they are located very close to each other, they can be disabled by a single successful hit.
The design of the cruiser showed that these innovations would require an increase in the Von der Tann's displacement by 3,600 tons, including 1,000 tons for an increase in the side height, 900 tons for an additional 280-mm turret and a corresponding lengthening of the citadel, 450 t - additional weight of machines and mechanisms, 230 t - other needs and 1,000 t - increase in the geometrical dimensions of the case so that all of the above could fit into it. However, this seemed excessive to von Tirpitz, since it went beyond the previously indicated 22,000 tons of displacement. In response to this, there was a small "riot of designers", who proposed to abandon all innovations altogether, and to build a "large" cruiser in the image and likeness of "Von der Tann". It was stated that it was impossible to "stuff" the required innovations into 22,000 tons, that the design bureaus were overloaded with work, that three Invincibles were built in England and did not lay new ones, apparently in anticipation of the test results of the first series of battle cruisers, and only Germany builds every year off-series large cruiser, with a new design each time.
Nevertheless, of course, the admirals insisted on their own, and the ship was built according to a new project. Normal (full) displacement of the battle cruiser Moltke was 22,979 (25,400) tons.
Artillery.
As we said earlier, the Von der Tann was equipped with eight 280 mm / 45 guns in four twin turrets. The project assumed the installation of ten such guns on the Moltka, but in fact the ship received more powerful 280-mm / 50 artillery systems. The Von der Tann cannons sent 302 kg of shells into flight with an initial speed of 850 m / s, while the Moltke cannons - 895 m / s. Without a doubt, the armor penetration of the Moltke's main caliber has increased, and the firing range could have increased in the same way. But alas, if the maximum elevation angle of the Von der Tann guns was 20 degrees, then the Moltke was 13 degrees. As a result, the firing range decreased from 18,900 m to 18,100 m and only in 1916, after increasing the elevation angle to 16 degrees. reached 19,100 m. Ammunition remained at the same level: Moltke had 81 shells for each gun against 82-83 at Von der Tann, but the total ammunition, due to the addition of a two-gun turret, of course, increased - from 660 up to 810 shells. Of course, all 10 guns of the Moltke's main caliber could fire on one side.
The medium caliber was represented by the same 150mm / 45 cannons that were installed on the Von der Tann. Their ammunition load included 50 armor-piercing and 100 high-explosive 45, 3 kg shells, which these guns were capable of sending into flight with an initial speed of 835 m / s at a distance of 13,500 (73 cab.), And after modernization, the firing range increased to 16,800 m (91 cab.). The only difference was the number of these guns: the Von der Tann carried 10 150 mm / 45 guns, while the Moltke carried two more.
The anti-mine caliber was represented by a dozen 88 mm / 45 guns, firing shells weighing 10, 5 kg with an initial speed of 750 m / s at 10 700 m (58 cab.). The Von der Tann was equipped with the same guns, but there were sixteen of them on the first German battle cruiser.
As for the torpedo armament, the Moltke had four 500-mm torpedo tubes (on the Von der Tann - 450-mm), two of them were located in the bow and stern pins, two more - in front of the bow 280-mm cruiser towers. The total ammunition load was 11 torpedoes.
Reservation.
The booking scheme of the battle cruiser Moltke largely repeated that of the Von der Tann, although there were some differences. In addition, the sources, alas, do not contain some information about "Von der Tann", while they do about "Moltke".
The basis of the Moltke's armor was made up of two armor belts. The lower one had a height of 3,100 mm. From the top edge and along the length of 1,800 mm, the belt was 270 mm thick, and on the remaining 1,300 mm it gradually thinned to 130 mm. At the same time, the 270 mm section went under the waterline by 40 (according to other sources - by 60 cm) and, accordingly, rose above the water by only 1, 2 - 1, 4 m. The difference from the "Von der Tann" was that that, apparently, the "thick" section of the armor belt at the Moltke was higher (1.8 m versus 1, 22 or 1.57 m), while its thickness exceeded that of the Von der Tann by 20 mm (270 mm versus 250 mm), but along the lower edge the Moltke belt “lost” the same 20 mm (130 mm versus 150 mm).
On top of the lower armor belt, the upper one was located - this one had a height of 3,150 mm and the same thickness of 200 mm along its entire length. The difference from the "Von der Tann" here is that opposite the "traverse" towers of the main caliber, the armored belt "Moltke" did not have an increase in thickness to 225 mm.
Accordingly, along the entire length of the citadel, the Moltke board was protected in height by 6,250 mm, and the first 3,150 mm had a thickness of 200 mm, then 1,800 mm - 270 mm and the lower 1, 3 m gradually thinned from 270 mm to 130 mm. The citadel covered not only the engine and boiler rooms, but also the feed pipes and cellars of the main caliber towers, including the bow and stern towers, but still the stern tower was not completely covered. Outside the citadel, the side was armored in the same way, but had lightweight protection - 120 mm (closer to the stem - 100 mm) in the bow and 100 mm in the stern, while the thickness of 100-120 mm of armor plates was reduced to 80 mm to the upper edge. At the same time, the last 3 meters of the stern remained unarmored, but there were 100 mm traverses, closing the 100 mm armor belt. On top of the citadel (but not along its entire length) there were casemates of 150-mm guns, which, like the "Von der Tann", were armored with 150 mm armor plates. There are no exact data on the traverses, judging by the descriptions of G. Staff, they had a variable thickness from 140 to 200 mm.
The armored deck "Moltke" had the same thickness of armor (25 mm in the horizontal part and 50 mm bevels), but in shape was slightly different from the "Von der Tann": the horizontal part occupied a large area, and the bevels were located at a large angle (not 30, and 37 deg). As a result, the barbets of all the Moltke towers "got up" on the horizontal section of the armored deck, but a larger angle of inclination of the bevels relative to the deck and a smaller one relative to the vertical protection led to less armor resistance from the impact of shells during flat firing. However, the changes here were insignificant, if not negligible. We also note that the horizontal part of the armored deck ran at a height of 1.6 m above the waterline.
The indicated armored deck defended the Moltke within the citadel, but, as follows from the description of G. Staff, it ended not reaching 12 m before the end of 270 mm of the armor belt in the stern. From here to the stern, at a height of 45 cm below the waterline, there was a horizontal armored deck without bevels. It had a thickness of 40 mm in the region of 270 mm of the armor belt and 80 mm further. In the bow of the citadel, the armored deck ran at the waterline at a height of 50 mm, curving downward closer to the stem.
Above the armored deck at Von der Tann, only decks in the area of the casemates were armored (or they simply had an increased thickness - 25 mm each). As far as can be understood, on the Moltke it was the same, except that the "ceiling" of the casemate was still 35 mm.
The thickness of the armor of the conning tower reached 350 mm, but was not uniform, the side walls were 300 mm, the rear - 250 mm, the roof - 80 mm. The protection of the towers exactly matched the "Fon der Tann", frontal plates and rear wall 230 mm, side walls 180 mm, inclined sheet in front of the roof 90 mm, horizontal part of the roof 60 mm, flooring in the rear of the tower 50 mm. But the booking of barbets had some differences. In the outer turrets of both battle cruisers, half of the barbet, facing the bow and stern, respectively, had 230 mm of armor, the rest of the barbet - 170 mm. The Von der Tann traverse towers had 200 mm barbets up to a 25 mm deck, and below it - only 30 mm. Towers "Moltke" up to 35 mm deck had the same 200 mm, but lower - to the "floor" of the casemate, ie. where the side was protected by 150 mm of armor, the thickness of the barbet was 80 mm from the side of the nearest side and 40 mm from the side of the opposite side.
The Von der Tann was equipped with a 30 mm thick anti-torpedo armored bulkhead. "Moltke" received the same, but in the area of the artillery cellars its thickness increased to 50 mm.
In general, the Moltke's booking was somewhat more rational and powerful than that of the Von der Tann.
Power plant.
The Moltke was equipped with machines and boilers capable of developing a rated power of 52,000 hp, while it was assumed that a speed of 25.5 knots would be reached. On tests, the power was significantly exceeded and amounted to 85 782 hp, while the speed reached 28, 074 knots. The maximum recorded speed was 28.4 knots (at what power - alas, it is not reported). During the six-hour run, the battle cruiser's average speed was 27.25 knots.
Coal stock was 1,000 tons in normal and 2,848 tons at full displacement. Unfortunately, tests of the Moltke for economic speed (12 knots) were not carried out, but it can be assumed that they were quite equivalent to the same type of Goeben, whose cruising range was determined from the test results both by calculation and at a speed:
27, 2 knots - 1,570 miles;
20 knots - 3,200 miles;
17 knots - 4,230 miles;
12 knots - 5,460 miles.
An interesting point - the author of this article for a long time did not understand why the bottom of the German battle cruisers in the stem area was "cut off", as it were, forming something that most of all resembles an icebreaker stem. As it turned out, this sharp "rise" to the stem served one and only purpose - to provide better turnability of the ships when shifting the rudders.
Moltke was built according to the 1908 program and was laid down in April 1909, launched on April 7, 1910, and commissioned on September 30, 1911 - a very outstanding result, even if we do not take into account the 2.5-month strike of the shipyard workers (4 August - October 20, 1910), during which no construction work was carried out on the battle cruiser. The next battle cruiser in Germany - "Goeben" was created already under the program of 1909, and was a ship of the same type "Moltke". The Goeben was laid down on August 28, 1909, launched on February 28, 1911, and commissioned on July 2, 1912.
What about Germany's second and third battle cruisers? Without a doubt, the Germans had powerful and well-protected ships. But, oddly enough, it is much more difficult to assess the Moltke project than the Von der Tann that preceded it. On the one hand, everything seems to be simple. In previous articles, we compared the "Von der Tann" and the British "Indefatigable", and came to a clear, undeniable advantage of the "Von der Tann" over the English battle cruiser. But it should be understood that such a comparison, in general, is not entirely correct. The fact is that the Von der Tann was laid down on March 21, 1908, almost a year before the Indefatigable, whose laying took place on February 23, 1909. the series should be compared not with Von der Tann, but with Moltke, which was launched some 2 months after the Indefatigable.
Of course, comparing "Indefatigable" and "Moltke" is even somehow indecent, as if evaluating the chances of a twelve-year-old fighter against an Olympic boxing champion. It can only be stated that the German naval and design thought colossally ahead of the British in the creation of battle cruisers. And how can we not recall the boastful words of D. Fisher, expressed by him in a letter to Lord Asher, dated September 1908:
"I have Philip Watts, who in the new" Indefatigable "will make you take water in your mouth when you see the ship, and the Germans - to gnash your teeth."
Taking into account the fact that the Germans immediately after the Indefatigable and long before New Zealand and Australia laid down battle cruisers, which were almost 4,400 tons heavier than the British, had ten very powerful 280-mm guns, superior in armor penetration to the English 305 -mm / 45 guns and, at the same speed, possessed an armor belt of 200-270 mm where the British had only 102-152 mm, then the German sailors could gnash their teeth only so as not to laugh out loud.
Of course, England almost never aspired to build ships “having no analogues in the world”, preferring relative cheapness and mass construction to high individual performance characteristics, but, oddly enough, at the time of the laying of Moltke and Goeben, and the number of the British was not so hot. By the time the Goeben was laid, the British had 3 Invincible-class battlecruisers in service and one (Indefatigable) under construction, while the Germans had three battlecruisers under construction.
But on the other hand, shortly after the Goeben was laid, the construction of the second generation of battle cruisers began in England - in November 1909, the Lion was laid with 343-mm guns and 229 mm armor belt. And this was a completely different enemy.
