In this part of the series, we will look at the Svetlan artillery in comparison with the light cruisers of the leading naval powers.
Battleships and battle cruisers amaze the imagination with their size and power: this is probably why historians pay much more attention to large ships than to their smaller counterparts. It is not difficult to find detailed descriptions of the main caliber of any battleship, but with cruisers everything is much more confusing: information about their artillery systems is often incomplete or contradictory.
Russian light cruisers were supposed to be armed with 15 newest guns 130 mm / 55 mod. 1913 produced by the Obukhov plant. It was these guns that made up the anti-mine caliber of the Empress Maria-class dreadnoughts, and they had very impressive characteristics for their time. But … what? The problem is that this gun was produced in the Russian Empire, modernized in the USSR, and then a new 130-mm gun was created on its basis. At the same time, new ammunition was developed and … everything got confused, so today it is not so easy to figure out exactly what characteristics the original artillery system had and what kind of shells it fired.
So, for example, S. E. Vinogradov points out that
“The total weight of the equipped 130-mm projectile of the 1911 model was 35, 96 kg, of which 4, 9 kg fell on its TNT explosive charge … … To defeat surface targets, the 130-mm artillery system was equipped only with a high-explosive projectile 650 mm long (5 klb) with an armor-piercing "Makarov cap" and, in essence, was a high-explosive armor-piercing ammunition."
Everything seems to be clear. However, other sources report the presence of a second type of high-explosive projectile, designated as "high-explosive arr. 1911 (without a tip)." It would seem, well, what's wrong with that, one with a tip, the second without, but the problem is that the descriptions of this projectile are extremely strange. So, it is argued that this second projectile had the same weight as the projectile with a tip, despite the fact that, again, it is indicated that both projectiles weighed 33, 86 kg or 36, 86 kg.
Of course, we can assume that they decided to equip the 130-mm gun with two types of ammunition - one, as it were, semi-armor-piercing (with a tip), and the second purely high-explosive without a tip, then, with the same weight, a high-explosive one could receive a larger amount of explosive and all this looks reasonable. But the joke is that the sources indicating the presence of a second, "endless" projectile indicate for it a smaller amount of explosives in the projectile - 3, 9 kg versus 4, 71 kg!
But the sources do not have discrepancies in the fact that TNT was used as an explosive, that a powder charge weighing 11 kg was used for firing, and this charge gave the projectile an initial velocity of 823 m / s. By the way, this gives reason to assume that the mass of the projectile was still 35.96-36, 86 kg, because the lighter projectiles mod. 1928 had a speed of 861 m / s.
Difficulties arise when determining the firing range. The fact is that the maximum firing range also depends on the elevation angle (vertical guidance or HV), but it is unclear what HV the Svetlan guns would have.
It is more or less reliably known that according to the project, machines were supposed with a VN angle of 20 degrees, which ensured a maximum firing range of 16 364 m or almost 83 kbt. But in 1915, the Obukhov plant began to produce machines with an HV angle increased to 30 degrees, at which 130 mm / 55 guns would fire arr. 1911 g at a distance of 18 290 m or 98, 75 kbt.
According to the contract with the Revel plant, the first two cruisers - "Svetlana" and "Admiral Greig" were to go out for trials in July and October 1915, respectively. It can be assumed that if the construction was carried out within the established timeframes, the cruisers would still receive the old installations with a VN angle of 20 degrees. - we will accept them for further comparison. Although, in fact, the completion of the "Svetlana" ("Profintern") had installations with an elevation angle of 30 degrees.
The loading of the 130-mm Obukhov gun was separate and, most likely, with a cap. At the same time, the caps were stored (and, probably, transported to the guns) in special cases 104.5 cm long, which, as far as can be understood, were not cartridges. An interesting system for storing caps used on the "Svetlana": not only were the caps placed in a separate case for a shot, this case was placed in a steel and hermetically sealed case that could withstand the pressure of water when the cellar was flooded without deforming. Cases, in turn, were stored in special honeycomb racks.
Rate of fire 130 mm / 55 guns mod. 1913 was 5-8 rounds per minute, but the lifting mechanisms of the cruisers provided 15 rounds and 15 charges per minute.
Despite some ambiguities, it can be stated that a very powerful medium-caliber artillery system has entered service with the fleet - I must say, in operation it has proven itself to be a completely reliable weapon. Of course, it also had its drawbacks - the same cap loading cannot be attributed to the advantages of the gun, and good ballistic qualities were "bought" by the increased wear of the barrel, the resource of which was only 300 shots, which was especially sad due to the lack of lining.
What could the British and Germans oppose to this?
The German cruisers were armed with 3 main artillery systems:
1) 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 arr 1898, which was on ships of the Gazelle, Bremen, Königsberg and Dresden types.
2) 105 mm / 45 SK L / 45 mod. 1906 - was installed on cruisers, starting with the Mainz type and up to the very end of the German enthusiasm for small calibers, that is, up to the Graudenz inclusive.
3) 150 mm / 45 SK L / 45 mod. 1906 - these guns were equipped with "Wiesbaden", "Pillau", "Konigsberg", in the course of modernization - "Graudenz". In addition, they were equipped with light minelayer cruisers "Brummer" and "Bremse"
The oldest 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 fired 16 kg armor-piercing and 17.4 kg high-explosive projectiles with an extremely moderate initial speed of 690 m / s, which is why the maximum range at an elevation angle of 30 degrees did not exceed 12 200 m (almost 66 kbt).
The 105-mm / 45 SK L / 45 was not too different from its "ancestor" - a barrel increased by 5 calibers and an increase in initial speed of only 20 m / s, while the ammunition remained the same. With the same maximum VN angle (30 degrees), the firing range of the updated artillery system did not exceed 12,700 m or 68, 5 kbt.
Unfortunately, the sources do not contain information about the content of explosives in the shells of the German 105-mm cannons. But the domestic 102-mm / 60 guns mod. 1911, which armed the famous "Noviks" was a high-explosive shell of a similar mass (17, 5 kg) containing 2.4 kg of explosives. Probably, it will not be a big mistake to assume that in terms of explosive content, the German 105-mm high-explosive shells were inferior to their Russian 130-mm "counterparts" by about two times.
On the other hand, 105-mm artillery significantly surpassed our 130-mm guns in rate of fire - mainly due to a unitary shot, because its mass (25, 5 kg) was less than that of the Obukhov 130-mm / 55 gun projectile alone. (36, 86 kg). Under ideal conditions, German guns could show 12-15 rounds per minute.
Thus, twice losing to the Russian cannon in the mass of the projectile and, probably, in the mass of the explosive in the projectile, the German 105-mm artillery systems were approximately twice as high in rate of fire. In firing range, the gain remained with the Russian gun, which fired almost a mile and a half further. All this indicated that the 105-mm German cruiser was categorically not recommended to bully the Svetlan. The same "Magdeburg", having standard armament of 12 105-mm guns and 6 guns in an onboard salvo, was significantly inferior in firepower to the Russian cruiser, which had 15 130-mm guns with 8 guns in an onboard salvo. The only situation where the German cruisers somehow equated with the Svetlana was a night battle at a short distance, where the rate of fire could be of decisive importance.
Realizing the inadequacy of the artillery armament of its cruisers, Germany turned to larger calibers - 150 mm / 45 SK L / 45.
This gun fired high-explosive and armor-piercing shells weighing 45.3 kg. The armor-piercing one contained 0, 99 kg of explosive, how much was in the high-explosive - alas, it is unknown. However, during the Second World War, high-explosive shells for this gun contained 3, 9-4, 09 kg of explosives. At the same time, the high-explosive shells of the earlier 150-mm / 40 SK L / 40 had no more than 3 kg of explosive: so it is quite possible to assume that the German 150-mm shells in their effect on the enemy were approximately equivalent to the domestic high-explosive shells mod. 1911, or even slightly inferior to them. The muzzle velocity of the 150 mm / 45 SK L / 45 shells was 835 m / s, but the information about the firing range is somewhat contradictory. The fact is that the Kaiserlichmarin widely used this gun, it was installed on various machines that had different elevation angles. Most likely, the VN angle of the German light cruisers was 22 degrees, which corresponded to the maximum firing range of 15,800 m (85, 3 kbt). Accordingly, in terms of firing range, the 150-mm cannons were only slightly superior to the Svetlana's artillery (83 kbt). In the rate of fire of the 150-mm / 45 SK L / 45, as expected, it was inferior to the 130-mm / 55 "obukhovka" - 5-7 shots. / min.
In general, we can say that in terms of their combat qualities, the German 150-mm and the Russian 130-mm artillery systems were quite comparable. The German gun had a heavier projectile, but this was not supported by an increased content of explosives, and in terms of range and rate of fire, the artillery systems were practically equal.
British cruising artillery for World War I was represented by:
1) 102 mm / 50 BL Mark VII mod. 1904, which were armed with scouts of the types "Bodicea" and "Bristol"
2) 102 mm / 45 QF Mark V mod. 1913 - Aretusa, Caroline, Calliope
3) 152 mm / 50 BL Mark XI mod. 1905 - cruisers of the type "Bristol", "Falmouth" (they are also called the type "Weymouth") and "Chatham"
4) 140 mm / 45 BL Mark I mod. 1913 - was put on only two light cruisers, "Chester" and the same type "Birkenhead"
5) 152/45 BL Mark XII arr. 1913 - all cruisers, starting with Aretuza.
A small remark, the letter designations "BL" and "QF" in the name of the British guns indicate the way they are loaded: "BL" - separate-case or cap, "QF", respectively - unitary.
As it is easy to see, the English guns were much more modern than the German ones. However, "newer" does not mean "better" - the 102-mm / 50 BL Mark VII in its characteristics was considerably inferior to the 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 arr. 1898. While the German gun fired 16 kg of armor-piercing and 17, 4 kg high-explosive projectile, British high-explosive and semi-armor-piercing 102-mm projectiles had an equal weight of 14, 06 kg. Unfortunately, the author was never able to figure out the content of explosives in British shells, but with this size, it obviously could not be large - as we will see later, there is reason to believe that it was significantly lower than that of 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40. Due to separate loading, the rate of fire of the 102 mm / 50 BL Mark VII did not exceed 6-8 rds / min. and almost twice inferior to the German artillery system. The only indisputable superiority of the English gun was its high muzzle velocity - 873 m / s versus 690 m / s for the Germans. This could give the British an excellent gain in range, but alas - while the German machine provided 30 degrees of vertical guidance, the British - only 15 degrees, which made the 102-mm / 50 BL Mark VII range of some 10 610 m (just over 57 kbt) so that even here the "Englishwoman" was losing to the German gun by almost a mile.
The only advantage of the British gun can be considered a slightly better flatness and, accordingly, shooting accuracy, but in all other respects it was completely inferior to the older German artillery system. It is not surprising that the Germans, preparing their fleet against the British, their 105-mm artillery seemed to be quite sufficient.
The next British gun is the 102mm / 45 QF Mark V mod. 1913 became, so to speak, “correcting mistakes” 102-mm / 50 BL Mark VII.
The new gun used unitary shots, which increased the rate of fire to 10-15 rds / min, and the maximum elevation angle was increased to 20 degrees. But at the same time, the initial speed decreased to 728 m / s, which provided a maximum range of 12 660 m (68, 3 kbt), which corresponded to the German 105-mm guns SK L / 40 and SK L / 45, but did not exceed them. Mark V also received a high-explosive projectile weighted up to 15, 2 kg, but it contained only 820 grams of explosive! Therefore, it is absolutely possible to say that the British 102-mm cannon was outperformed by the domestic 102-mm / 60 "obukhovka" almost three times, and the 130-mm / 55 gun was outperformed by the Svetlana gun - six times, but here's how it correlated with the German 105-mm cannons. it is impossible, because the author does not have information on the content of explosives in their shells. We can only state that the newest British 102mm / 45 QF Mark V mod. 1913 was at best equal to the German 105-mm / 45 SK L / 45
The low fighting qualities of the British 102-mm guns caused an understandable desire of the British to have at least a couple of 152-mm guns on their scouts. And 152 mm / 50 BL Mark XI arr. 1905 fully met these expectations. This gun used 45, 3 kg semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive shells with 3, 4 and 6 kg explosives, respectively. In terms of their power, they left far behind absolutely all 102-mm and 105-mm shells, and the German 150-mm shells too. Of course, the power of the 152-mm British shell with 6 kg of explosives was superior to that of the Russian 130-mm shells with their 3, 9-4, 71 kg. BB.
The only thing that can be reproached with the British artillery system is the relatively short firing range. On light cruisers of the Bristol type, the HV angle of 152-mm / 50 BL Mark XI installations was only 13 degrees, on the rest - 15 degrees, which gave a firing range of 45, 36 kg for an SRVS projectile (unfortunately, the range is indicated only for this) at 10 240 m (55.3 kbt) and 13 085 m (70.7 kbt), respectively. Thus, the Bristols were unlucky, because they received the least long-range artillery system among all British and German cruisers, but the rest of the cruisers, for example, the Chatham type, were in no way inferior in range to any 105-mm German cruiser. However, both the Russian 130mm / 55 and the German 150mm / 45 guns with their 83-85 kbt maximum range had a great advantage over the 152mm / 50 BL Mark XI.
The rate of fire of the English gun was 5-7 rds / min and was, in general, typical for six-inch artillery systems. But on the whole, a gun of as much as 50 calibers was recognized by the British as too bulky for light cruisers. It should also be borne in mind that the British attempts to increase the length of their guns to 50 caliber in large-caliber artillery failed - the wire structure of the guns did not provide acceptable accuracy, and it is possible that the 152-mm / 50 BL Mark XI had similar problems.
When developing 152/45 BL Mark XII arr. 1913 the British returned to 45 calibers. The shells remained the same (they are not looking for good), the initial speed decreased by 42 m / s and amounted to 853 m / s. But the VN angle remained the same - only 15 degrees, so that the maximum firing range even slightly decreased, amounting, according to various data, from 12 344 to 12 800 m (66, 6-69 kbt).
Later, already in the years of the First World War, this deficiency was eradicated during modernization, when the gun machines were given a VN angle of 20 and even 30 degrees, which made it possible to shoot at 14 320 and 17 145 m, respectively (77 and 92, 5 kbt), but this happened later, and we are comparing the guns at the time the ships entered service.
It is interesting that, having a predilection for 102-mm and 152-mm calibers, the British quite unexpectedly adopted an intermediate 140-mm gun for their two cruisers. But this is quite understandable: the fact is that, although the 6-inch guns were superior to the 102-mm / 105-mm guns in almost everything, they had one very bad drawback - a relatively low rate of fire. And the point here is not at all in the tabular data showing 5-7 rounds per minute versus 10-15. The fact is that the projectile (i.e. those who are responsible for loading the projectile, the charges, respectively, provide the charging ones) usually have two naval guns. And in order for the 152-mm cannon to fire 6 rounds per minute, it is necessary that the projectile take the projectile (and it does not lie directly at the cannon) and load the gun with it every 20 seconds. Let's remember now that the six-inch shell weighed over 45 kg, put ourselves in the place of the shell and think how many minutes we can work out at this pace?
In fact, the rate of fire is not such an important indicator in the battle of cruisers (if we are not talking about "dagger" fire in the night), because the need to adjust the sight significantly reduces the rate of fire. But the rate of fire is very important when repelling an attack from destroyers, and this is one of the obligatory tasks of a light cruiser. Therefore, an attempt to switch to a projectile of sufficient power to fight cruisers, but at the same time less heavy than a six-inch one, was certainly of great interest to the British.
In this regard, the 140 mm / 45 BL Mark I arr. 1913 g turned out to be very similar to the domestic 130-mm / 55 "obukhovka" - the mass of the projectile is 37, 2 kg versus 36, 86 kg, the muzzle velocity - 850 m / s versus 823 m / s. But the "Englishwoman" loses in terms of explosive content (2.4 kg versus 3, 9-4, 71 kg) and, oddly enough, again in firing range - solely due to the fact that the British for some reason limited the elevation angles to only 15 degrees. Unfortunately, the firing range of 140 mm / 45 BL Mark I at such an elevation angle is not given, but even at 25 degrees, the gun fired at 14 630 m, i.e. by almost 79 kbt., which was still less than the Russian 130-mm / 55 with its 83 kbt at a VN angle of 20 degrees. Obviously, the loss of the English artillery system at 15 degrees VN was measured in miles.
As for the light cruisers of Austria-Hungary "Admiral Spaun", their armament was 100 mm / 50 K10 and K11 mod. 1910, produced by the famous Skoda factories. These guns were capable of sending 13, 75 kg of a projectile with an initial speed of 880 m / s at a range of 11 000 m (59, 4 kbt) - obviously, they could have continued, but the angle of the HV of the Austro-Hungarian 100-mm installations was limited to only 14 degrees. Unfortunately, the author did not find information on the content of explosives in the Austro-Hungarian shells. The guns had a unitary loading, the rate of fire is indicated as 8-10 rds / min. This is noticeably less than what was shown by the British 102-mm and German 105-mm guns with a unitary shot, but there is some suspicion that where the Germans and the British indicated the maximum possible rate of fire, which can only be developed in greenhouse-range conditions, then Austria -the Hungarians have brought realistic indicators attainable on a ship.
Apparently, the 100-mm gun of the Skoda company can be considered approximately equivalent to the British 102-mm / 45 QF Mark V and, possibly, slightly inferior to the German 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 and 105-mm / 45 SK L / 45 artillery systems.
Concluding our review, we state that in terms of the aggregate characteristics, the Russian 130-mm / 55 artillery system significantly surpassed all 100-mm, 102-mm and 105-mm British, German and Austro-Hungarian cannons, surpassed the British 140-mm cannon, was approximately equivalent to the German 150-mm cannon and was inferior to the English 152-mm cannons in the power of the projectile, winning in the firing range.
Here, however, an attentive reader may have a question - why the comparison did not take into account such a factor as armor penetration? The answer is very simple - for battles between light cruisers during the First World War, armor-piercing shells would not be the best choice. It was much easier and faster to smash the unarmored parts of light ships, crushing the openly standing artillery, mowing down its calculations and thus bringing the enemy ship into an incapacitated state, than "sticking" the enemy with armor-piercing projectiles capable of penetrating its unarmored sides and flying away without exploding, in the hope of "Golden" hit.
