No announcement yet.

T3, R1, Prng 108: Amiral Baudin Class (France) vs Ekaterina II Class (Russia)

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • marktwain
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    These two are pretty closely paired. I went with the French ship only because it had bigger guns.
    agreed. \too close to vote on. \the \Russian layout could deliver a fearsome forward bombardment- but the low mounts caused deck damage …….

    Leave a comment:

  • panther3485
    As above for me also. Couldn't have said it better.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mountain Man
    I voted for the French because the layout of the Russian warship limits it to fighting in narrow waters.

    The French vessel, OTH, can bring all guns on line for a broadside making her more useful in an actual fight.

    Additionally, at this stage of development, Russian warships tended to be large and somewhat clumsy owing to a lack of experience with deep water navies. The French, for example, had been fighting on the open oceans for far longer and had a better sense of what actually worked.

    Leave a comment:

  • Jose50
    These two are pretty closely paired. I went with the French ship only because it had bigger guns.

    Leave a comment:

  • T3, R1, Prng 108: Amiral Baudin Class (France) vs Ekaterina II Class (Russia)

    Amiral Baudin Class ironclad barbette battleship
    Ekaterina II Class ironclad barbette battleship
    In your opinion, which of these two warship types was most significant, influential and/or effective?
    Feel free to apply those criteria as you please, along with any others you think appropriate.
    Note: Suggestions for some additional criteria are at the foot of this post.

    According to the criteria as you see and apply them, please vote for your preferred candidate in the attached poll.
    If your chosen criteria are significantly different from those suggested, telling us what they are and why you used them would be helpful.

    121: Amiral Baudin Class

    The Amiral Baudin class was a type of ironclad battleship of the French Navy. The class comprised two ships; Amiral Baudin and Formidable. They were built to a design similar to that of Amiral Duperré, enlarged and designed from the start to use steam propulsion only. The steam engines were rated for up to 9,700shp (7,200 kW) and provided a maximum speed of 16 knots (30 km/h, 18mph).

    The original armament for this class was:
    3 x 370mm/28 Modele 1875; 4 x 163mm/30 Modele 1884 and 8 x 138mm/28 Modele 1881.
    6 x 450mm torpedo tubes were provided.

    After a refit in 1898, this became:
    2 x 370mm/28 Modele 1875; 4 x 163mm/30 Modele 1884 and 8 x 138mm/45 Modele 1887.
    4 x 450mm torpedo tubes. In addition:
    2 x 65mm (2.6in); 16 x 47/40 M1885; 6 x 37/20 M1885
    The refit included upgrading the masts with some armour, where a number of the additional small guns were carried.

    So far, I’ve not found much information relating to the armor of the ships’ hulls and superstructure except that a maximum of 450mm (18in) of armour was fitted in some area/s.
    Other Information found for these two ships has so far also been scant.
    This is what I have so far:

    Amiral Baudin

    Builder: Brest
    Launched: 5 June 1883
    Fate: Broken up in 1910


    Builder: Lorient
    Ordered: 13 December 1878
    Launched: 16 April 1885
    Fate: Broken up 1910
    In 1890, Formidable was used to experiment with captive balloons usage in the Navy. In May 1891, she became the flagship of the Mediterranean squadron. In 1898, she was transferred to the Atlantic squadron, based in Brest.

    If anyone has more information, please advise.

    General characteristics
    Displacement – 12,150 tonnes
    Length – 98m (322 ft)
    Beam – 21.2m (70ft)
    Draft – 7.9 m (26 ft)
    Power – Steam only, producing 9,700shp (7,200 kW)
    Armament (as built) – 3 x 370mm, 4 x 163mm, 8 x 138mm guns
    Complement – 650 officers and men

    Amiral Baudin class battleship. Interesting layout.


    Formidable in Algiers, 1899


    144: Ekaterina II Class

    The Ekaterina II class were four battleships built for the Imperial Russian Navy in the 1880s. They were Ekaterina II, Chesma, Sinop and Georgii Pobedonosets. These were the first battleships built for the Black Sea Fleet. Their design was highly unusual in having the main guns on three barbettes grouped in a triangle around a central armored redoubt, two side-by-side forward and one on the centerline aft. This was intended to maximize their firepower forward, both when operating in the narrow waters of the Bosphorus and when ramming.

    Construction was slow because they were the largest warships built until then in the Black Sea, and the shipyards had to be upgraded to handle them. Originally only three ships were going to be built but Georgii Pobedonosets was built to a modified Ekaterina II design when a more modern design could not be prepared in a timely manner after Sinop was launched. She mainly differed from her half-sisters in her armor layout and composition.

    The Ekaterina II-class battleships were intended to support an amphibious assault on the Bosphorus and to oppose any attempt of the British Mediterranean Fleet to force the Bosphorus and enter the Black Sea. This meant that they would have to engage Turkish coastal artillery batteries and warships in the narrow confines of the Turkish Straits. This put a premium on forward-facing guns because ships might not be able to turn to bring their broadsides to bear on the enemy. The armament settled on was: 3 pairs of 12in (305mm) guns in the barbettes; 7 x 6in (152mm); 8 x 47mm (1.9in) 5-barrel revolving Hotchkiss guns; 4 x 37mm (1.5in) 5-barrel revolving Hotchkiss and 7 x 14in (356mm) torpedo tubes.
    Armour distribution was as follows: Waterline belt – 8-16in (203-406mm); Redoubt – 12in (300mm); Decks – 2 - 2.5in (51-64mm); Gun shields – 2-3in (51-76mm); Conning tower – 8-9in (203-229mm).

    The hulls were subdivided by one centerline longitudinal bulkhead, extending from frames 17 to 65, and ten transverse watertight bulkheads. They also had a complete double bottom. The only known stability figure is from Sinop in 1908 which had a metacentric height of 4 feet (1.2 m).
    Power output varied somewhat and ranged from 8,500 to 10,500 indicated horsepower (6,338 to 7,830 kW). On trials, the ships had top speeds of about 15–16 knots (28–30 km/h; 17–18 mph).

    They carried 900 long tons (914t) of coal at full load that provided a range of 2,800 nautical miles (5,186 km; 3,222 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) and 1,367 nautical miles (2,532 km; 1,573 mi) at a speed of 14.5 knots (26.9 km/h; 16.7 mph).

    The fourth ship, Georgii Pobedonosets, was only a “half sister” to the first three and numerous details vary. For example, this includes the type of armor used over at least some areas, which included steel instead of iron. Also, for all ships there is some variation in the details of their careers but 3 out of the 4 were still in some sort of use during the WW1 period. (Please check main article and links if you’d like more information.) Overall, there seems little doubt that these ships were a very important part of the Russian fleet during their periods of service.

    General characteristics
    Displacement – 11,050–11,396 long tons (11,227-11,579t)
    Length – 339ft 3in (103.4m)
    Beam – 68ft 11in (21.01m)
    Draft – 27.92-28.83ft (8.51-8.79m)
    Power – 2 shaft vertical compound or triple-expansion steam engines w/14 or16 boilers
    Armament (primary) – 3 x twin 12in (305mm); 7 x 6in (152mm) guns
    Complement – 633-642 officers and men

    Ekaterina II class diagram. An even more interesting layout!


    Georgii Pobedonosets at Sevastopol


    Both types are ironclad barbette battleships, serving around the same time.
    Which of them will get your vote?

    Suggested additional criteria you might wish to consider, along with any others you deem appropriate.
    (Note: Some of these could be considered already covered by Significant, Influential and Effective)

    Which warship type ...
    • was the best?
    • was the greatest?
    • was the most widely used?
    • had the greatest longevity in service?
    • was the most versatile?
    • represented the best value for the cost/effort invested ("bang for the buck" in today's language)?
    • was the easiest to operate?
    Any other criteria you have applied (please tell us what they were).

    Last edited by panther3485; 18 Sep 19, 09:53.

Latest Topics