Повреждения Баяна 27 января

Форум » I-ая эскадра Тихого океана » Повреждения Баяна 27 января » Ответить

Повреждения Баяна 27 января

realswat: Есть ли данные кроме Крестьянинова МК. то есть данные по раскладке калибров попаданий. Очень нужно для моей статьи по Цусиме... И попадания в Пересвет и Победу 28 июля? Нет статьи Мельникова в Гангуте :(

Ответов - 15

NMD: По-английски читаете? Американский атташе Мак-Кулли судя по всему водил дружбу с Виреном, описание повреждений крейсера занимает у него почти 4 страницы + схемка. Я это дело отсканил, перевести времени нет, ну там и так всё ясно. Мыла Вашего у меня нет, поэтому завтра выложу текст здесь а схемку тоже здесь через Мерлина...

NMD: А вот и обещанное описалово. И схемка, надеюсь не отстанет: The Bayan suffered most but even then was still in good condition for fighting, speed affected only very slightly and artillery undamaged. She had nine direct hits by heavy shells, but had over two thousand hits from fragments, mostly in funnels and upper works. All ships had many scars from fragments of shell either bursting aboard, or on striking water near them. Beginning with the Bayan, hit «a» was made by 8» or 6» HE* shell very near the water line on the taper of the 8» belt armor where it was about 5» thick, directly over submerged torpedo tube (See sketch No. 3). Armor plate was forced in slightly, but no bolts started and no leak resulted. A 12 pdr. gun just over impact was so damaged along the tube by fragments, that at the next shot 3’ of the muzzle part of tube was blown off. Hit «b» was on 3/8» steel plate forming outside of hammock nettings, and was made probably by a 12» shell, which burst immediately on impact, most of the fragments going outside and destroying a wooden whaleboat hanging at the davits just above. The plating outside was blown away for a distance of 8’ fore and aft, and the inner side of netting ruptured for a somewhat less distance. The hammocks in the nettings were blown out over the deck, some catching fire, but stopping most of the fragments getting through outer plating. A steel cutter placed on deck inside nettings, with the principal idea, as stated by Captain Viren,** of giving additional protection to engine room, but also reducing target above rail and giving better protection to boat itself, was struck by several fragments which penetrated port side of boat, but not the starboard or further side. The deck house amidship was not struck, though fragments struck higher up along funnels. At foot of main mast on upper deck was a small deck house of 1/4» * High explosive. ** Robert N. Viren (born 1856). steel, lined inside with a sort of thick linoleum, or other protection, between the steel plating and linoleum being an air space of about 3». In port side of deck house were two windows, in starboard side a door, and during the action a man was stationed inside making notes. A heavy shell probably 8» or 12», hit «c,» struck port side of deck house, just under window, making similar burst to «b,» blew a large hole in deck house and in deck underneath, wrecking inside, and tearing man to pieces. The military mast of 1/2» steel plates was scarred but not penetrated, and only one small fragment got through starboard side of deck house. The fuze of the shell was recovered between the lining and the plates on starboard side, and the man’s note book was picked up little injured. Most of the fragments fell outside, some getting through the deck, and one small fragment striking a box of ready ammunition in which were six cartridges for the 12 pdr. gun. The sides of box were penetrated and the fragment also pierced the case of one of the cartridges causing a low order of explosion which did not blow off cover of box or scatter the other cartridges, and causing none of them nor the shells to explode. Hit «d» was probably made by 6», about 16’ abaft after 6 inch gun on port side, and struck just below upper deck, and on outside plating of side which is recessed here to allow train of this 6 inch gun, and has a small glacis or gallery deck on the level of the main deck. A hole about 20» in diameter of irregular shape was blown in plating, and fragments coming inside cut up bulkheads in vicinity on port side, a very few pieces penetrating bulkhead amidships over engine room, bulkhead on starboard side practically undamaged. Outside of ship the plating in vicinity of impact was marked by numerous fragments and the gallery deck underneath penetrated by some of them. The after 6» gun was trained at the time about 30° forward of the beam, and the port left open. Fragments coming in through this port killed all the gun’s crew of five men, and ranging forward along the deck wounded 30 more. Hit «e» was very similar in character and position to «d» but 30’ further aft, and just outside captain’s office. This office was wrecked inside, and the bulkhead of thin sheet steel much cut up. In observing effects of these shells inside, the large fragments seemed to have very little velocity, while the small fragments had enormous velocities. One small fragment pierced the web of a deck beam over head, 1/4 inch thick, the hole of the size of one’s little finger, and in a direction almost at right angles to line of flight of shell at impact. Under the port quarter and just at water line, was a hit by a 6» AP* shell making a clean hole in ship’s plating** and bursting in an empty cofferdam extending inside along water line. Few of the fragments got through inner wall of cofferdam, the larger pieces lodging in it. As ship rolled, a small amount of water came in through this hole, but not enough to make it at all a source of uneasiness. Hit «g» was a plunging hit as Bayan turned near end of fight, and was made by either 6» or 8», more probably the former. This shell exploded on striking the stanchions forming rail of hatchway just abaft impact, and cut wooden deck up considerably, fragments marking all after part of ship, one very small piece getting in muzzle of after 8» gun. The gun was fired without injury, but a deep score followed line of rifling. Hit «h» was very near «g,» similar in character, and received almost at the same time. This burst on striking the deck, and though it may have been due to either 6», 8», or 12», it is most likely that it was 8». The turret and after part of ship were covered with marks from fragments, the deck was much torn up, and blown through, the cabin below considerably damaged, and the deck of cabin of one inch steel penetrated by several of the larger fragments. A trolley beam for ammunition supply under upper deck beams was cut cleanly in two. Hit «k» was a heavy shell coming from starboard side, just grazing top of funnel, bursting and blowing off funnel cover which went sailing off to leeward, blast and fragments from this shell coming down the funnel damaged the economizers of the Belleville boilers, but not very seriously, since they were repaired in three days. Funnels, tops, ventilators, boats, masts and all upper works were marked by fragments which usually penetrated outer casing only of funnels and were not repaired; some men in tops were wounded, and wireless system temporarily placed out of commission. * Armor piercing ** Marked «f» on sketch No. 3. In going out to action all boats were kept on board, and few preparations made for clearing ship beyond giving guns clear arc of fire. Placing the steel boats on deck had some very good points in its favor. The danger from fire was not increased, and being behind the rail, the size of target for HE shell was not increased, the boats gave some protection to parts of ship inboard of them , boats themselves were better protected, and those uninjured were ready for use if needed. Repairs on the hulls of steel boats damaged by fragments were effected with great expedition. Edges of holes were trimmed down, and small metal discs large enough to cover hole, with rubber washers inside were clamped close to skin on each side by a bolt through the center, and nut. The Bayan’s steam launch was struck by over 30 fragments and was in service next day. During the fight the Bayan used both HE and AP shell both furnished with bursting charges of pyroxyline (gun cotton?), and in the proportion, one AP to two HE. On impact of these shells very little smoke was given off from the explosion. The Japanese shells on explosion gave off a thick black smoke, explosion developed intense heat and they must have used some AP shells since one hit with that class was recorded. The Russian smokeless powder was in thin, narrow strips, giving a faint yellowish brown smoke on firing, and was considered very satisfactory, but many officers did not like their bursting charges, as giving off too little smoke for tracing hits, and explosive effect not sufficiently violent. Although having suffered much more than any other ship, Bayan was nowhere seriously damaged, and would have been able to put up as good a fight at the end as in the beginning. This ship was always in excellent condition, and always well handled. The losses in personnel of the fleet during the action of February 9 were 14 killed, five officers and 69 wounded, of which Bayan had nine killed and 35 wounded. On shore one man was killed in a battery not engaged, and five men were wounded in Electric and Golden Hill batteries. A number of 12» shells fired by the Japanese at the batteries fell in vicinity of the Old Town, three striking in the East Basin, one falling near head of dock, one striking the Kazan moored in East Basin but failing to explode, one striking water front of the town, another falling nearby in a garden but failing to explode, one falling on Peripolichnaya or Quail Hill, and quite a number in the harbor.

realswat: Для NMD: большое спасибо документ по-моему уникальный. А есть ли еще такие доклады? И кстати как говорится, «ищут давно но не могут найти» - отчеты английскихъ наблюдателей в оригинале? По 28 июля. по Цусиме. Были ли наблюдатели в бою 1 августа? Может, в Америке это легче найти...

invisible: NMD пишет: цитата A 12 pdr. gun just over impact was so damaged along the tube by fragments, that at the next shot 3’ of the muzzle part of tube was blown off. Странно, откуда у Баяна 12-дюймовки? Или это в других единицах измерения? Должно быть 6».

realswat: Для invisible: 12-фунтовые - 76-мм

wind_up_bird: Для realswat , в журанале «Цитадель» № 1 за 1998 г. есть статья «Разбор боя 28 июля 1904 года и исследование причин неудачи действий 1-й Тихоокеанской эскадры» перепечатка из «Морского Сборника» № 3 за 1917 г. а сама статья написана на основании «Заключение следственной Комиссии по делу о бое 28 июля» , полюс к статье даны фотографии повреждений «Цесаревича» . С уважением , В.

realswat: Для wind_up_bird: этот текст есть у меня. Спасибо.

NMD: Для realswat: Здравствуйте, извините не сразу ответил, у меня на работе сумасшедший дом... realswat пишет: цитатадокумент по-моему уникальный. А есть ли еще такие доклады? Американский только он один был опубликован, остальные -- в Армейском архиве, что несколько далеко... Английские доклады кажется до сих пор не опубликованы, да и откуда англичанам было знать о состоянии русских кораблей? Правда в Джейне за 1906-07гг. напечатали с дюжину фоток подьёма затопленной 1ТОЭ в ПА. Я отснял старой цифровухой, поэтому качество -- не очень. Если Шишов не выложит -- напишите, я перешлю. Остаётся искать по ссылкам. Например, Кэмпбелл обильно цитирует цусимский рапорт Пэкингхэма, да и Корбетт тоже ссылается на него и Джексона, хотя по русским кораблям он всё-же использует русские источники, всем нам знакомые... Что ещё? Трубридж уже в сети.

vvy: NMD пишет: цитатаЕсли Шишов не выложит -- напишите, я перешлю. Если не трудно: vic358@zaoproxy.ru.

rkbob: Всем привет, NMD пишет: цитатаТрубридж уже в сети. ГДЕ????, поделитесь тайной. С увжением Владимир.

realswat: NMD пишет: цитатада и Корбетт тоже ссылается на него и Джексона, хотя по русским кораблям он всё-же использует русские источники, всем нам знакомые... Интересно было бы именно оригинальные рапорты, а не обработка Кэмпбелла. И повреждения японских кораблей в этих рапортах. И кстати - Кэмпбелл только по Цусиме писал, или про 28 июля у него тоже есть работа? Кэмпбелл есть у меня. А вот Корбетта нету :(((( NMD пишет: цитатаЕсли Шишов не выложит -- напишите, я перешлю. Был бы признателен - danilov_a@zelnet.ru

NMD: Приветствую всех. rkbob пишет: цитатаГДЕ????, поделитесь тайной. http://www.tsushima.ru/bi...rjw_doc_chemulpo_trub.htm Давно уже лежит, правда только «Кафешантанное» Чемульпо ((c) Abacus). Там же кстати и газетное заявление Бейли по этому поводу. Для vvy: Для realswat: Хорошо, попробую вечером из дому, или с работы завтра.

Gunsmith: Для realswat: Здравствуйте, realswat. Realswat 18.01.2005 в 16:59 сообщил: ›И кстати как говорится, «ищут давно но не могут найти» - отчеты английскихъ наблюдателей в оригинале? По 28 июля. по Цусиме. Тут в феврале прошлого года был небольшой разговор про «цусимский» отчёт Пэкинхема: Отчёт Пэкинхема Странно, что не заметили... ›Были ли наблюдатели в бою 1 августа? Нет. С наилучшими пожеланиями: Александр.

realswat: Для Gunsmith: заметил! только ссылочка не открывается :(

Gunsmith: Для realswat: Отправил архивчик на danilov_a@zelnet.ru.

полная версия страницы