Peresvet-class battleship

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Peresvet at anchor, 1901
Class overview
NamePeresvet
Builders
Operators
Preceded byRostislav
Succeeded byPotemkin
SubclassesPobeda
Built1898–1903
In commission1901–22
Completed3
Lost2
Scrapped1
General characteristics
TypePre-dreadnought battleship
Displacement13,320–14,408 long tons (13,534–14,639 t)
Length434 ft 5 in (132.4 m)
Beam71 ft 6 in (21.8 m)
Draft26 ft 3 in (8.0 m)
Installed power
  • 14,500 ihp (10,813 kW)
  • 30
    Belleville boilers
Propulsion3 shafts, 3 Vertical triple-expansion steam engines
Speed18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
Range6,200 nmi (11,500 km; 7,100 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)
Complement27 officers, 744 men
Armament
Armor
  • Belt: 7–9 inches (178–229 mm)
  • Deck: 1.46–3 inches (37–76 mm)
  • Turrets: 9 inches (229 mm)

The Peresvet class was a group of three

Port Arthur from 1901 and 1903, respectively. All three ships were lost by the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05; Peresvet and Pobeda participated in the Battles of Port Arthur and the Yellow Sea and were sunk during the siege of Port Arthur. Oslyabya, the third ship, sailed to the Far East with the Second Pacific Squadron to relieve the Russian forces blockaded in Port Arthur and was sunk at the Battle of Tsushima
with the loss of over half her crew.

Peresvet and Pobeda were

Battle of Tsingtao in late 1914. She became a gunnery training ship in 1917. The ship was disarmed in 1922 to comply with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and probably scrapped
around that time.

Design and description

Brassey's Naval Annual
1902

After the humiliating Russian defeat during the

guerre de course (commerce-raiding) strategy was Russia's only effective means of attacking the British Empire or France if war broke out and built a series of fast, long-range, armored cruisers like Rossia and Rurik to implement his strategy.[1] The British responded by building the second-class battleships of the Centurion class to defeat the cruisers and the Russians countered with the three ships of the Peresvet class that were designed to support their armored cruisers. This role placed a premium on high speed and long range at the expense of heavy armament and armor.[2]

As was common with Russian ships of the time, changes were made while the ships were under construction. The most important was the revision of the

laid down over three years later.[3]

The Peresvet-class ships were 434 feet 5 inches (132.4 m)

double bottom and the hull was divided by 10 watertight transverse bulkheads; a centerline bulkhead divided the forward engine rooms. Each crew consisted of 27 officers and 744 enlisted men.[4]

The ships were powered by three

kilowatts (744 hp).[5]

Armament

Oslyabya leaving Revel, October 1904

The ships'

bow chaser. Each gun was provided with 220 rounds.[6] They fired shells that weighed 91 pounds (41.4 kg) with a muzzle velocity of 2,600 ft/s (792.5 m/s). They had a range of 12,602 yards (11,523 m) when fired at an elevation of +20°.[8]

Smaller guns were carried for close-range defense against

Canet Model 1891 guns. Of these guns, eight were mounted in embrasures in the hull, four on the main deck, four on the battery deck and the last four at the corners of the superstructure on the forecastle deck. The ships carried 300 rounds for each gun.[6] The gun had a muzzle velocity of 2,830 ft/s (862 m/s) with its 10.8-pound (4.91 kg) shells. It had a range of about 8,606 yards (7,869 m) at an elevation of +20°.[9] The smaller guns included twenty QF 47-millimeter (1.9 in) Hotchkiss guns in hull embrasures and on the superstructure. Each gun had 810 rounds provided.[10] They fired a 3.2-pound (1.5 kg) shell.[11] Eight 37-millimeter (1.5 in) Hotchkiss guns were positioned between the 47-millimeter guns on the forecastle deck.[12] They fired a 1.1-pound (0.50 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 1,540 ft/s (470 m/s).[13]

The Peresvet class had five 15-inch (381 mm)

anchorage in remote areas.[12]

The ships were fitted with Liuzhol stadiametric rangefinders that used the angle between two vertical points on an enemy ship, usually the waterline and the crow's nest, to estimate the range. The gunnery officer consulted his references to get the range and calculated the proper elevation and deflection required to hit the target. He transmitted his commands via a Geisler electro-mechanical fire-control transmission system to each gun or turret. Oslyabya and the rest of the Second Pacific Squadron were also fitted with Perepelkin telescopic sights for their guns, but their crews were not trained in how to use them.[14]

Protection

The first two ships used

full load the effect was even greater and the belt was completely submerged. Oslyabya was even more overweight and only had 3 inches (76 mm) of her belt armor showing at normal load. The belt in both ships terminated in 7-inch transverse bulkheads, leaving the ends of the ships unprotected. The transverse bulkheads of the waterline belt in Pobeda were eliminated as the belt was extended to the ends of the ship with 4-inch armor plates. Above the waterline belt in all three ships was a shorter strake of armor that protected the middle of the ships. It was 188 feet (57.3 m) long and 4 inches thick. The ends of the upper belt were closed off by 4-inch angled transverse bulkheads.[15]

The sides of the gun turrets were 9 inches thick and 2.5 inches (64 mm) of armor protected their roofs; their supporting tubes were 8 inches (203 mm) thick. The face of the casemates for the 6-inch guns was five inches thick and their rears were protected by 2-inch (51 mm) armor plates. The casemates at each end of the ships were protected by 5-inch transverse bulkheads. Bulkheads 0.75 inches (19 mm) thick separated the 75-millimeter gun positions. Peresvet had two

mild steel; in Pobeda it was a chrome-nickel steel alloy.[15]

Ships

Construction data
Ship Builder[16]
Laid down[16]
Launched[16] Entered service[16] Cost[17]
Peresvet (Пересвет)
Baltic Works, Saint Petersburg
21 November 1895[Note 1] 19 May 1898 1901 10,540,000
rubles
Oslyabya (Ослябя)
New Admiralty Shipyard
, Saint Petersburg
21 November 1895 8 December 1898 1903 11,340,000 rubles
Pobeda (Победа) Baltic Works, Saint Petersburg 21 February 1899 10 May 1900 1902 10,050,000 rubles

Careers

Oslyabya leaving Bizerte, Tunisia, 1903

Peresvet, named after

scuttled in shallow water on the same day.[20]

Peresvet scuttled in Port Arthur

Construction of Oslyabya, named after

list destroyed her remaining stability and she sank just over an hour after the Japanese opened fire—the first modern battleship to be sunk solely by gunfire.[21] Sources differ on the exact number of casualties, but the lowest figure given is 471.[22][Note 2]

In Japanese service

Suwo at anchor, Yokosuka, 10 October 1908

The Japanese raised, repaired, and rearmed Peresvet and Pobeda. They incorporated the refurbished vessels into the Imperial Japanese Navy as Sagami and Suwo, respectively, and reclassified them as first-class

Port Said, Egypt, on 4 January 1917. The mines, laid by the German submarine SM U-73, sank Peresvet with the loss of 167 lives after she had caught fire.[25]

During World War I Suwo served as the flagship for the Japanese squadron during the

hulked, serving until being broken up at Kure in 1946.[24][28][29][Note 3]

Notes

  1. ^ All dates used in this article are New Style
  2. ^ Campbell says that 385 survivors were rescued by Russian destroyers, but 514 men went down with the ship, while Forczyk agrees with McLaughlin.[23]
  3. ^ Fukui Shinzo does not list her, however, in the authoritative Japanese Naval Vessels at the End of World War II.

Footnotes

  1. ^ McLaughlin 1999, pp. 44–45
  2. ^ McLaughlin 2003, p. 108
  3. ^ McLaughlin 2003, pp. 107, 109–110
  4. ^ McLaughlin 2003, pp. 107–110
  5. ^ McLaughlin 2003, pp. 107–108, 114
  6. ^ a b c McLaughlin 2003, pp. 107, 112
  7. ^ Friedman, pp. 256–257
  8. ^ Friedman, p. 260
  9. ^ Friedman, p. 264
  10. ^ McLaughlin 2003, pp. 112–113
  11. ^ Friedman, p. 118
  12. ^ a b McLaughlin 2003, p. 113
  13. ^ Friedman, p. 120
  14. ^ Forczyk, pp. 27–28, 57
  15. ^ a b McLaughlin 2003, pp. 113–114
  16. ^ a b c d McLaughlin 2003, p. 107
  17. ^ McLaughlin 2003, p. 112
  18. ^ a b c d McLaughlin 2003, p. 115
  19. ^ Forczyk, p. 43
  20. ^ McLaughlin 2003, pp. 115, 163–164
  21. ^ Forczyk, pp. 61–62
  22. ^ McLaughlin 2003, p. 168
  23. ^ Campbell 1978, p. 131
  24. ^ a b c Jentschura, Jung & Mickel, p. 20
  25. ^ Preston, p. 207
  26. ^ Stephenson, pp. 136, 162, 166
  27. ^ Preston, p. 186
  28. ^ Campbell 1979, p. 182
  29. ^ McLaughlin 2008, p. 49

References

External links