Mainly coastal or river action, to suppress coastal batteries and destroy enemy coastal objects.

Project Description

The characteristic features of the American turret monitors were: shallow draft, very low freeboard (only 60 - 90 centimeters), placement of a few heavy guns in rotating turrets with almost all-round fire, powerful armoring of the entire surface area (sides, deck, turrets). According to the official historiographer of the American Navy, Charles Boynton, the new project was the complete opposite of all previous types of warships (primarily due to the peculiarities of the movement “cutting or diving in the waves”), leveling the difference between a 100-gun ship and a two-gun rotating battery and marked a new era in the history of states. The monitors combined thick armor and large-caliber artillery with poor seaworthiness, low buoyancy and a short range, so the monitors were very good in combat and very poor in sailing itself. Most of the monitors were below the water level and ventilated through a tower, so newspapers of those years compared the monitors to elephants wading a river under water and receiving air from the atmosphere through their trunk. The reason for the popularity of monitors in the United States was the lack of need for Americans of that time to go on long sea voyages and use monitors for civil war in shallow coastal areas. However, European engineers sharply criticized the designs of American monitors due to poor seaworthiness and pointed out the need for an elevation above the surface of the water for navigation in the open sea, as well as good lighting and ventilation, so high-sided battleships began to be built in Europe. From the idea of ​​monitors, later designs of battleships inherited the consolidation of all artillery into several powerful firing points covered by armor of increased thickness instead of placing guns along the entire side, as well as the idea of ​​continuous armoring of the hull above the waterline.

The emergence of monitors

US Navy monitors

The American Navy, which first implemented the idea of ​​a monitor, built a significant number of ships of this class. Based on experience during the Civil War of 1861-1865, American admirals had long considered monitors to be the best warships; An additional factor was that the isolationist views prevailing at that time assumed that the main task of armored ships was coastal defense.

• USS Monitor is a single ship, the founder of the class.
• Type "Passaic" - the first serial monitors, 10 units
• Type "Canonicus" - improved version of the type "Passaic", 9 units
• USS Onondaga - single ship, first double-turret monitor
• USS Roanoke - single ship, three-turret monitor, rebuilt from a wooden screw frigate
• Type "Miantonomo" - serial double-tower monitors
• Type “Amphitrite” - “majorly modernized” (de facto built anew) monitors of the “Miantonomo” type in 1877-1896.

Monitors in battle

The first battle between battleships, namely the Monitor and the casemate Virginia (in Russian literature, the original name was fixed - Merrimack) took place on March 9, 1862 at the Hampton roadstead during the American Civil War. This battle lasted more than three hours and ended in a “draw”, because the explosive bombs fired by the Virginia’s cannons posed a significant danger only to wooden ships and caused virtually no harm to armored ships, and the Monitor’s cores flew out with a reduced initial speed from for the reduced powder charges provided for fear of rupture of the newest Dahlgren guns installed on it. If the ships had been prepared to fight each other, it is likely that the results of the duel would have been different.

The de facto stalemate of the battle did not prevent the northerners from declaring their victory, which seriously affected the assessment of this class of ships; Soon a large fleet of monitors was launched, which were more or less enlarged copies of their ancestor. Among them were ships for rivers and coastal areas, as well as seaworthy, and even ocean-going ones; many experts were inclined to believe that monitors would in the near future supplant all other types of warships.

Meanwhile, on the open sea, the monitors turned out to be very vulnerable: the first “Monitor” itself sank during a storm off Cape Hatteras, the other - while parked in the port from a wave that washed over its deck with open hatches. Naturally, even with minor excitement, there was no talk of any kind of combat monitoring by the monitor. In addition, the monitors had almost no reserve of buoyancy and sank to the bottom from the slightest hole in the underwater part, that is, they did not have survivability - the ability to remain on the surface of the water and continue the fight if damaged. The development of heavy guns capable of inflicting this damage despite their armor was only a matter of time, not to mention the mines and torpedoes that soon appeared.

Although, thanks to the combination of powerful armor and almost all-round fire from the main caliber guns, excellent ships for combat, the monitors turned out to be terrible from the point of view of peacetime service: the conditions for the crew on board were close to unbearable. Thus, the temperature in the engine room, enclosed inside an almost completely submerged iron hull, reached 62°C, while the ventilation hatches on the deck had to be kept closed even in slight waves, since the waves washed over the low side. The rest of the crew was also housed below the waterline, in conditions of insufficient ventilation, cramped conditions and darkness.

For a seaworthy battleship it turned out to be necessary to have a high side, even if not completely protected by armor, as well as extensive unarmored hull and deck superstructures to accommodate the crew and other purposes. As a result, the evolution of armored ships took a different path - instead of completely armored “invulnerable” monitors, they began to build ships that had a relatively narrow belt along the waterline and a large reserve of buoyancy, due to which they did not sink even when taking on board a large amount of water through holes from shells or torpedoes.

At the same time, monitors turned out to be a successful type of ship for operations on rivers and coastal waters. Their construction continued until World War II. Among the large marine monitors, we can note the English "Erebus" (1916, 8000 tons, 2 × 381 mm) and "Roberts" (1941, 9100 tons, 2 × 381 mm), as well as the Soviet "Khasan" (1942, 1900 tons, 6 ×130 mm). Also, to some extent, their development became an independent type of ship -

The first shots in the Great Patriotic War were fired by the anti-aircraft gunners of the Black Sea Fleet on June 22, 1341 at 3.15 am when repelling a fascist air raid on Sevastopol, and 45 minutes later the war began for the sailors of the Danube military flotilla: at 4 o’clock in the morning the Romanian artillery on the right bank of the Danube opened fire on Soviet ships stationed in the Izmail roadstead. It then included 6 armed gliders, 7 minesweepers, 22 armored boats and 5 monitors (“Udarny”, “Zheleznyakov”, “Zhemchuzhin”, “Martynov” and “Rostovtsev”).

The history of the creation of Soviet river monitors opens with “Udarny”, designed for the Dnieper military flotilla back in the late 20s. Launched in 1931, she entered service three years later and was a powerful artillery ship armed with two 130 mm and four 45 mm guns, as well as four quad Maxim machine guns. “Udarny” was followed by “Active”, also intended for the Dnieper flotilla, but in 1933 transferred to the Amur. With a lower displacement (214 tons compared to 385 tons), diesel power (1300 hp compared to 1600 hp) and speed (8.9 knots compared to 11.6 knots), it was inferior to the Impact and in armament - instead of two 130 mm guns, it carried two 102 mm guns. But the armor protection on it was much more thorough: if on the Udarny only the guns and conning tower had 8-mm bulletproof armor, then on the Active there was a 20-mm armor belt and a 16-mm armored deck. Tests showed, however, that when moving, the monitor did not obey the rudder well, burrowed heavily with its nose, and the poor design of the conning tower, which rotated with the turret, made it difficult to control the ship.

Taking the “Active” as a basis, chief designer A. Baibakov designed a more advanced ship. To reduce the trim on the bow, the nine-sided all-round gun turret was moved to the stern. Above it was a conning tower, mounted on a fixed 750 mm pipe, around which a turret rotated, with two 102 mm guns. By increasing the elevation angle to 60°, these guns could fire at aircraft. Three 45-mm guns were placed in a two-gun bow and a single-gun aft turret. The anti-aircraft armament consisted of three quadruple "maxims". With a displacement of 230 tons, the draft of the monitor did not exceed 0.9 m. The armor was also improved: the side was protected with 16-20 mm armor.

The lead ship of the new Zheleznyakov series was laid down at the Leninskaya Kuznitsa plant in Kiev in the fall of 1934, twelve months later it was launched, and on November 6, 1936 it entered service. Behind him, the Dnieper flotilla included the same type “Zhemchuzhin”, “Levachev”, “Martynov”, “Flyagin” and “Rostovtsev”.

River monitor “Udarny”:

Launched in 1931, it entered service with the fleet in 1934. Displacement 385 tons, diesel power 1600 hp. s, speed 11.6 knots. Maximum length 53.6, width 11.1, draft 0.82 m. Reservation: deckhouse and gun shields 8 mm. Armament: two 130 mm guns, four 45 mm cannons, four quad Maximum machine guns. Served as a prototype for further series of Soviet river monitors.

During the Second Five-Year Plan, Soviet shipbuilders began designing ships for the lower reaches of the Amur and the Tatar Strait. The basis for these developments was the 1915 project - a heavy four-screw monitor with a displacement of 1400 tons, armed with six 120 mm guns. Three new monitors, laid down on April 18, 1936, were first named in honor of the heroes of the civil war - “Sibirtsev”, “Seryshev” and “Lazo”, and were later renamed “Khasan”, “Perekop” and “Sivash”. These were the most powerful river ships in the world: each displacement was 2400 tons, the total diesel power was 3600 hp. s., they could reach a speed of 15.1 knots. The armament of the heavy Amur monitors included six 130 mm, four 76 mm and six 45 mm guns. The thickness of the armor belt is 75 mm, the deck is 40 mm. The relatively high forecastle allowed the ships to withstand waves of up to 7 points, which was important when sailing in the turbulent Tatar Strait. The war slowed down the outfitting work, and these monitors practically went into operation after the end of hostilities.

In June 1940, the Danube Flotilla began to be created in Izmail. Its tasks included supporting the riverine flanks of ground forces and landing forces, landing tactical troops, ensuring mine defense of the Danube, crossing and transporting troops, and also fighting enemy river forces. It was decided to transfer five monitors from the Dnieper to the Danube - “Udarny”, “Zheleznyakov”, “Zhemchuzhin”, “Martynov” and “Rostovtsev”. These ships were among the first to enter the battle

with the enemy and acted together with ground units for almost a month, preventing the crossing of the river. But by mid-July 1941 it became clear: we had to leave...

On July 19, the Danube Flotilla broke through the fire of Romanian coastal batteries into the Black Sea and, under the cover of fleet ships, arrived in full force in Odessa. After this, the river ships, which made an unusual sea crossing for them, concentrated in Nikolaev and Kherson. They were quickly repaired and transferred to the Southern Bug and Dnieper. It was here, on the Lower Dnieper, that the Danube monitors “Zhemchuzhin”, “Martynov” and “Rostovtsev” as part of the Dnieper detachment of the Pinsk flotilla acted together with the same type “Flyagin” and “Levachev” to cover the crossings of Soviet troops south of Kyiv. They fought until the last shell. Once surrounded, they were blown up by their crews. On September 19, near Tendra near Odessa, the “Udarny” monitor died from a raid by enemy bombers...

Of all the Soviet-built monitors that took the first blow from the enemy hordes, the most amazing and happy fate befell the Zheleznyakov, which earned itself the fame of the “elusive monitor.” After leaving Izmail, “Zheleznyakov” took part in the defense of Nikolaev and Kherson, and made the transition to Sevastopol. After the disbandment of the Danube flotilla on November 20, 1941, he fought as part of the Azov flotilla until September 1942 and, breaking through the Kerch Strait blocked by the Germans, entered the stormy Black Sea and independently came to Poti. “I see the Poti harbor now,” recalled the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Admiral F. Oktyabrsky, “and in the far corner of it is the hero ship that has become a living legend of the Black Sea Fleet...”

And indeed, Zheleznyakov traveled forty thousand kilometers during the war years. Its heroic crew destroyed 13 enemy artillery and mortar batteries; fought off 127 air attacks, during which 827 bombs were dropped on him; destroyed four battalions of enemy infantry, two ammunition depots; withstood repeated attacks from coastal artillery. The combat work of the “elusive monitor” was highly appreciated by Fleet Admiral I. Isakov in his famous work “The USSR Navy in the Patriotic War.”

River monitor "Zheleznyakov":

Laid down at the Leninskaya Kuznitsa plant in Kyiv on November 25, 1934, launched on November 22, 1935, and entered service on November 6, 1936. Displacement 230 tons, diesel power 280 hp. s, speed 8.8 knots. Maximum length 51.2, width 8.2, draft 0.88 m. Reservation: belt 20, deck 16 mm. Armament: two 102 mm guns, four 45 mm cannons and four machine guns. Subsequently, the armament was changed: the machine guns were removed, the number of 45-mm guns was reduced to three, and two additional 37-mm anti-aircraft guns were installed. A total of six units were built: “Zheleznyakov”, “Zhemchuzhin”, “Levacheo”, “Martynov”, “Flyagin” and “Rostovtsev”.

On August 23, 1944, Bucharest radio announced the overthrow and arrest of the reactionary fascist government of Antonescu. And already on August 26, the commander of the Romanian River Division arrived in Izmail to the commander of the recreated Danube Flotilla, Rear Admiral S.G. Gorshkov, with a message of readiness for joint action. In response to this, it was proposed to transfer all Romanian ships to the Izmail roadstead. The Romanian monitor “Ion Bratianu” was the first to be brought under escort of armored boats, and on August 29, the monitors “Alexandru Lahovari”, “Ardeal” and “Bessarabia” arrived from Galati, and the monitor “Bukovina” at that time was sitting aground near Silistria...

All ships were included in the Danube flotilla under new names - “Azov”, “Kerch”, “Berdyansk”, “Izmail” and “Mariupol”. Their history is very interesting. The first two were built in 1907 in Trieste by Romanian order, and the last three were built in Austria-Hungary on the eve of the First World War.

"Ardeal" under the name "Temesh" was commissioned in 1904. It was a river monitor with a displacement of 440 tons, with two triple expansion steam engines of 700 liters each. s, giving the ship a speed of up to 13 knots. Armor: belt 40, deck 25 and deckhouse 75 mm. The armament included two 120 mm and one 66 mm guns, as well as one 120 mm howitzer and three machine guns.

In November 1918, the monitor was interned and, according to a peace treaty, transferred to Romania, where it received the new name “Ardeal”.

The Bessarabia monitor, which was called “In” in the Austro-Hungarian fleet, was put into operation already during the First World War. It represented a further development of the Temes type ships. The displacement was 540 tons, the total power of the two steam engines was 1500-1700 liters. s., speed - about 13 knots. The increased displacement compared to the Temes made it possible to place two more 120-mm howitzers and three machine guns on the ship. Enlisted in the Romanian fleet since 1920.

The monitor “Bukovina” (“Sava”), the best of the monitors made in this empire, was also of Austro-Hungarian origin. The ship also ended up in Romania in 1920.

River monitor "Mariupol"

The former monitor of the Austro-Hungarian fleet "Sava", launched in Linz in 1915, in 1920, according to the peace treaty, was transferred to Romania, received the new name "Bukovina", in 1944 transferred to the Soviet fleet under the name "Mariupol". Displacement 580 tons, power of two triple expansion steam engines 1750 hp. s., speed ––––a 13.5 knots. Maximum length 62, width 10.3, draft 1.3 m. Reservation: belt 40, deck 25, deckhouse 50 mm. Armament: two 120 mm guns, two 120 mm howitzers, two 66 mm anti-aircraft guns, two 47 mm cannons, 7-8 machine guns. A total of two units were built: “Bosna” (Yugoslavian “Vardar”) and “Sava” (Romanian “Bukovina”).

Subsequently, included in the Soviet fleet, the former Romanian monitors, in particular those that received the names “Azov” and “Kerch”, at the final stage of the war, supported the landing of the 5th brigade of Yugoslav troops in the area of ​​​​the city of Opatovets with the fire of their guns.

As for Soviet-built monitors, many important events in the history of the Russian fleet are associated with them. Thus, in May 1940, development of a demagnetization system began at the Dnieper monitor “Levachev”, which was supposed to reliably protect ships from the danger of being blown up by magnetic mines. The unusual configuration of the monitor and the asymmetrical arrangement of large magnetic masses required the creation of a complex demagnetizing device to compensate for its magnetic field. The installation was installed by the beginning of December 1940, and on December 10 the ship made several tacks over two non-contact induction mines. Tests have shown that the demagnetizing device works successfully. On April 1, 1941, the demagnetization system on Levachev was handed over to the commission, which approved it as a standard model for monitors.

"Rostovtsev", scuttled by her crew in 1941, was raised at the end of the war, repaired and used as a training ship before being removed from the fleet lists.

The legendary “Zheleznyakov” returned to Izmail in 1944 with the Danube Flotilla, took part in the final battles and reached Budapest. And in 1967, excluded from the lists of the fleet, he was brought from the Izmail port to Kyiv, to Rybachy Island, and here the workers of the Kiev Leninskaya Kuznitsa plant, from whose stocks he left back in 1935, in their free time began restoration of the famous monitor. The ship, placed on a pedestal, now rises above the waters of the Dnieper as a symbol of the courage and heroism of Soviet sailors, as the main exhibit of the factory museum,

G. Smirnov, V. Smirnov.

If there were no special problems with river gunboats in the Soviet fleet during the war, then with seaworthy ships of this class in the RKKF the situation was very bad. Almost nothing remains of the huge coastal fleet that Russia created at the turn of the century - although coastal defense ships, which do not require powerful propulsion systems and high speed, usually become obsolete more slowly.

The most powerful artillery coastal ships remained on the Black Sea throughout the war - gunboats of the Elpidifor type, in the Baltic - the very ancient (albeit powerful) gunboat "Red Banner" (formerly "Brave") built in 1895 and gunboats converted from soil-carrying scows of the NKVD Spetsgidrostroy. The last ships turned out to be very successful and reliable, they even carried armor - but still they were not specially built ships and were characterized by poor seaworthiness.

Gunboat "Red Banner", view of 1943

Gunboat "Selemdzha"

The only modern seaworthy coastal artillery ships were three monitors of the Hasan type, built for the lower reaches of the Amur and the Tatar Strait, but they entered service by the end of the war. Basically, Soviet “coastal” shipbuilding of the 1930s focused its attention on river artillery ships - monitors and armored boats.

Project 1124 armored boat

Only during the war years did the “skerry monitors” of Project 161 begin to be built - essentially, a seaworthy version of the river armored boats of Project 1124, with a displacement more than tripled, reinforced armor and anti-aircraft artillery. But their main weapon remained all those 76-mm cannons in the turrets of the T-34 tank, poorly suited for firing at sea targets. Only in 1945, Project 161 was replaced by the improved Project 186 with the same displacement, but 85-mm universal guns in special naval turrets with central aiming...

Project 161 seaworthy armored boat

Project 186 seaworthy armored boat

As a result, throughout the war and in all fleets, Uragan-class destroyers and even high-speed minesweepers, as well as old Novik-class destroyers, had to be used as gunboats for shelling the coast. Meanwhile, the main actions for surface ships during the war turned out to be actions against coastal targets. It is not surprising that by the end of the war the People's Commissariat of the Navy raised the issue of designing new ships of this class.

However, the opinions of the commission for the development of new types of ships, which worked in January-February 1945, were unexpectedly divided, and quite radically. The fact is that two subcommittees took up the development of proposals for coastal artillery ships. One of them was headed by Rear Admiral P.A. Trainin was at that time assistant to the chief of the Main Naval Staff, and before that chief of staff of the Volga Military Flotilla. The second was led by Vice Admiral P.S. Abankin, formerly commander of the Amur Military Flotilla.

Actually, officially Trainin’s subcommittee dealt with gunboats, monitors and armored boats - that is, primarily river vessels. Abankin's subcommittee dealt with coastal defense ships - monitors, gunboats and floating batteries. However, in fact, both subcommittees primarily focused on sea vessels, which by default also fell within the sphere of interests of the first.

Both subcommittees agreed that weakly protected gunboats were ineffective for operations against the coast, and that instead of them it was necessary to build strongly protected ships - monitors. Here the sailors fell into a terminological trap, because monitor means not just strong armor, but also a certain, rather rigid artillery armament scheme: a small number of very powerful guns located in one or two towers with maximum firing angles. However, since the time of the Russo-Japanese War, we have almost never built naval gunboats (“Elpidifors” were originally landing craft), and all large river artillery ships of special construction were traditionally called “monitors”. (And in general it’s even true - the same ships of the Zheleznyakov type had the classic design of Erickson’s “Monitor”: two guns in a turret with all-round firing and a conning tower above this turret).

Further opinions differed radically. Trainin's subcommittee considered that the British large-caliber monitors did not show themselves in any way during the Second World War, and therefore for the Baltic and the Black Sea an average monitor - a lightweight analogue of the Far Eastern "Hasan" - would be enough for us: displacement within 2500 tons, speed 15 knots, armament - - two twin universal 130-mm installations, four quadruple 45-mm and 25-mm anti-aircraft guns, as well as the ability to take barrage mines on board. Reservation: side 85 mm, deck 65 mm. In fact, it was an analogue of the Project 61 seaworthy gunboat developed back in the late 30s, but with the replacement of 152-mm guns with universal 130-mm guns (which gave the same weight per minute salvo), strengthening of the MZ, installation of radar and anti-submarine weapons.

Preliminary diagram of an average monitor presented by Trainin's commission

On the contrary, Abankin’s subcommittee considered that a 130-mm caliber for a coastal defense ship was extremely small, and British monitors performed excellently in the First World War. In the first case, she was absolutely right: naval guns have an advantage over land guns in firing range, but in the end their projectile, subjected to heavy loads, carries more metal and less explosives. As a result, a 130-mm naval shell turns out to be weaker than 122- and 152-mm corps artillery shells.

Pre-war project of a seaworthy gunboat pr. 61

Therefore, Abankin’s subcommittee considered it necessary to return to the 152-mm gunboat of Project 61, and also to begin developing a project for a large monitor for the Baltic, modeled on the British, but with a diesel power plant. The characteristics of the monitor were determined as follows: displacement 7500 tons, main dimensions 116 * 27 * 3.6 m, speed 16 knots with a cruising range of 16,000 miles. Artillery - two 305-mm guns in an armored turret with a maximum firing angle, as well as eight 85-mm and 45-mm anti-aircraft guns. Reservations: side 180 mm along the citadel and 50 mm at the ends, deck 100 mm along the citadel and 50 mm at the ends, crossbeams 200 mm at the bow and 180 mm at the stern. The conning tower had 300 mm walls, a 100 mm roof and a 25 mm floor.

One of the reconstructions of the “big monitor” project of the Abankin commission. Where its characteristics come from is unknown

However, suddenly the People's Commissariat of the Navy decided that the version of the large monitor of the Abankin commission... was too small. And it’s even clear why. After all, in the Baltic there were ships of this class, noticeably superior in armament - Swedish and Finnish coastal defense battleships. Three Swedish battleships of the Sverige type, with a standard displacement of about 7000 tons and a turbine power plant, each carried four 283 mm guns, a 200 mm belt and a deck of up to 45 mm, and in addition developed a speed of up to 23 knots. The Finnish Ilmarinen and Vainemäinen, with a standard displacement of 3900 tons and a diesel-electric power plant, carried four 254 mm guns, but a much lower speed (only 16 knots) and much weaker armor - 55 mm side and only 20 mm deck ; in fact, these were not battleships, but large gunboats. True, the first of them was blown up by a mine in October 1941, but the second was considered by Baltic sailors throughout the war as the largest naval enemy - it was not for nothing that in 1944 the Baltic Fleet aviation was so actively hunting for it.

Swedish coastal defense battleships

Finnish battleship "Vainemäinen" (Soviet "Vyborg")

Therefore, on April 20, People's Commissar of the Navy N.G. Kuznetsov approved his own operational-tactical assignment for the design of a sea monitor with a standard displacement of 9000–11000 tons and a draft of up to 5.7 m. The main caliber was to consist of two turrets with two 220 mm guns each (170 rounds per barrel); it was also proposed to calculate an option with two three-gun turrets - like on the Project 82 cruiser. The universal caliber consisted of six twin stabilized 100-mm installations with bottom ammunition supply (250 rounds per barrel), as well as four to six quad 45-mm anti-aircraft guns .

The citadel's armor was designed to protect against 250 kg high-explosive bombs and 152 mm armor-piercing shells from a distance of up to 45 cables, and the extremities - from 152 mm high-explosive shells. The power plant had to be developed in two versions - turbine and diesel. It was supposed to provide the ship with a full speed of 24 knots, although it was proposed to calculate options with a speed of 22, 20 and 18 knots. It is characteristic that a speed above 24 knots was not envisaged - this required a significant increase in the power of the power plant, which led to an increase in the ship's displacement. Cruising speed (long-term) is 18 knots, economical speed is 14 knots.

In fact, it was a cruising-class ship, so it was especially noted that it should carry communications and fire control equipment according to the light cruiser scheme. Posts and fire control systems had to provide the ability to simultaneously fire 220-mm caliber at one visible or invisible sea or coastal target, with the ability to control fire independently from each tower at a visible target while moving and at an invisible target from an anchor. The 100-mm universal caliber was supposed to fire concentratedly with one side on one target or separately with each installation on its own air or sea target, 45-mm machine guns - concentrated with the entire side on one target or with each installation separately on its own. Anti-submarine weapons should also be provided - 4 bomb throwers and 2 bomb releasers.

It is quite obvious that this project had nothing to do with the recommendations of the Abankin subcommittee and was intended to counter the fast Swedish battleships. Moreover, the confrontation is “asymmetrical”. Obviously, it was impossible to provide protection against a 283-mm projectile, however, the armor of the Swedish ship did not protect against a 220-mm projectile in any way: at those distances where it stopped piercing the belt, it had long since fallen at a high angle and easily pierced the deck.

Swedish 283 mm gun mod. 1912 (actually manufactured since 1917) had a range of 105 cables and a rate of fire of 3-4 rounds per minute, its projectile weighed 305 kg. The estimated firing range of the 220-mm SM-40 gun (which is only in the design stage) was 265 cables, the rate of fire was up to 6 rounds per minute, and the projectile weight was 176 kg. That is, the Swedish battleship produced 3660-4880 kg of metal per minute, and its “competitor” - 4220 kg (or 6330 kg in the six-gun version) with a significantly greater range and accuracy.

“The results of the calculation of the main elements of the monitor carried out on your order by the Navy Shipbuilding Directorate (in four versions):

I -- 220 mm, side 150, deck 75 mm
II -- 305 mm, side 150, deck 75 mm
III -- 305 mm, side 250, deck 125 mm
IV -- 406 mm, side 250, deck 125 mm

Due to the refusal of the Artillery Directorate to urgently inform the Shipbuilding Directorate of the weight data for 12’’ and 16’’ gun mounts required for calculations, the Shipbuilding Directorate calculated and accepted the following estimated weights of turret mounts of these calibers:

12’’ two-gun turret (walls 150 mm, roof 75 mm) -- 900–950 tons
The same with walls 250 and roof 125 mm - 1100 tons
16’’ two-gun turret (walls 250 mm, roof 125 mm) -- 1600 tons

Calculations were performed as a first approximation
The Naval Administration was given the task to the Artillery Naval Research Institute to calculate the data of the tower installations to clarify the calculations.”

Isachenkov’s report was accompanied by the following table with comparative elements of the developed “monitor” options. It is especially noticeable from it that ships with 305 mm and 406 mm guns were considered not fast - 15–16 knots instead of 22–24.

A series of river monitors of the “Storm” (“Shkval”) type consisted of 7 units (“Storm”, “Vyuga”, “Hurricane”, “Shkval”, “Whirlwind”, “Smerch”, “Typhoon”) was built at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg and was put into service in 1909 as part of the Amur River Flotilla. During the First World War, the ships were partially damaged or understaffed. In 1927, “Storm”, “Vyuga”, “Uragan”, “Shkval” were restored and renamed “Lenin”, “Sverdlov”, “Trotsky” (Red East) and “Sun Yat-Sen”. The Vikhr monitor was converted into the Amur hydroaviation floating base. In 1932, “Smerch” and “Typhoon” were restored and renamed “Triandafilov” (Kirov) and “Vostretsov” (Dzerzhinsky). In 1932-1933 "Amur" was converted into a monitor and renamed "Far Eastern Komsomolets". All ships were decommissioned in 1958. Performance characteristics of the ship: standard displacement - 964 tons, total displacement - 1000 tons; length – 71 m, width – 12.8 m; draft – 1.4 m; speed – 11 knots; power plants – 4 diesel engines; power – 1.9 – 2.9 thousand hp; fuel reserve – 103 tons of diesel fuel; cruising range - 3 thousand miles; crew - 120 - 140 people. Reservation: side – 76 – 38 mm; deck – 19 mm; towers – 76 mm; traverses – 9.4 mm; cutting – 51 mm. Armament (Lenin, Krasny Vostok and Sun Yat-Sen): 4x2 - 120 mm guns; 2x1 – 45-mm anti-aircraft guns; 4-6x1 - 12.7 mm machine gun. Armament (“Kirov”, “Dzerzhinsky” and “Far Eastern Komsomolets”): 4x1 – 130 mm guns; 2x1 – 37-mm anti-aircraft guns; 4 – 12.7 mm machine guns and 5 – 7.62 mm machine guns. Armament (Sverdlov): 4x1 – 152 mm guns; 2x1 – 37-mm anti-aircraft guns; 4x1 – 12.7 mm machine gun.

The monitor was built at shipyard No. 300 in Kyiv and entered service in 1932. It was part of the Danube flotilla. The ship sank in 1941. Performance characteristics of the ship: standard displacement - 367 tons, full displacement - 387 tons; length – 54 m, width – 11 m; draft – 0.8 m; speed – 12 knots; power plants – 2 diesel engines; power – 800 hp; fuel reserve - 20 tons of diesel fuel; cruising range - 1.6 thousand miles; crew - 86 people. Reservation: side – 7.2 – 4.6 mm; deck – 12 – 6 mm; towers – 12 mm; barbettes and cutting - 7.2 mm. Armament: 2x1 - 130 mm guns; 2x2 – 45-mm anti-aircraft guns; 4x4 - 7.62 mm machine gun.

The monitor was built at plant No. 300 in Kiev and entered service in 1934. It was part of the Amur flotilla. In 1938-1941. the ship has undergone modernization. Removed from service in 1953. Performance characteristics of the ship: standard displacement - 250 tons, total displacement - 314 tons; length – 51 m, width – 8.2 m; draft – 1 m; speed – 13 knots; power plants – 2 diesel engines; power – 480 hp; fuel reserve - 20.5 tons of diesel fuel; cruising range - 2.7 thousand miles; crew - 68 people. Reservation: side – 30 – 16 mm; deck – 16 – 4 mm; towers – 12 mm; traverses – 8-4 mm; cutting – 30 mm. Armament: 1x1 - 102 mm gun; 2x2 – 45-mm anti-aircraft guns; 1x3 – 37 mm anti-aircraft gun; 3x1 – 12.7 mm machine gun.

The series of river monitors of the “Zheleznyakov” type (SB-37) consisted of 6 units (“Zheleznyakov”, “Zhemchuzhin”, “Levachev”, “Martynov”, “Rostovtsev”, “Flyagin”) and was built in 1934-1936. at the shipyard No. 300 in Kyiv. The ships served as part of the Dnieper, Danube and Azov flotillas.

The monitors “Zhemchuzhin”, “Levachev”, “Martynov”, “Rostovtsev” and “Flyagin” were lost in 1941. “Rostovtsev” was raised in 1945, restored as a training ship and scrapped in 1955. “Zheleznyakov” was erected as a monument in Kyiv in 1967. Performance characteristics of the ship: standard displacement – ​​230 tons, full displacement – ​​260 tons; length – 51.2 m, width – 8.2 m; draft – 0.9 m; speed - 8.3 knots; power plants – 2 diesel engines; power – 280 hp; fuel reserve - 22 tons of diesel fuel; cruising range - 3.7 thousand miles; crew - 78 people. Reservation: side –16 – 4 mm; deck – 4 mm; towers and deckhouse – 16 -30 mm; traverses – 4 mm. Armament: 1x2 - 102 mm gun; 1x2 and 1x1 – 45 mm anti-aircraft gun; 2x1 – 37-mm anti-aircraft guns; 3x1 – 12.7 mm machine gun.

The series of nautical monitors of the “Hasan” type consisted of 3 units (“Sibirtsev”, “Seryshev”, “Lazo”) and were laid down in 1936 at the Gorky plant No. 112. In 1939, the ships were transported in sections to Khabarovsk and completed at plant No. 368. In 1940, the monitors were renamed “Hasan”, “Perekop” and “Sivash”, respectively. The monitors had icebreaking bow formations and could go out to sea at seas of up to 7 points. The ships served as part of the Pacific Flotilla and were decommissioned in 1960. Performance characteristics of the ship: standard displacement - 1.7 thousand tons, total displacement - 1.9 thousand tons; length – 88 m, width – 11 m; height – 21 m; draft – 3 m; speed - 15.4 knots; power plants – 4 diesel engines; power – 3.2 thousand hp; fuel reserve - 171 tons of diesel fuel; cruising range - 5.5 thousand miles; crew – 250 people. Reservation: side –75 – 37 mm; deck – 40 – 20 mm; towers and deckhouse – 100 mm; traverses – 25 mm. Armament: 3x2 - 130 mm guns; 2x2 – 76 mm guns; 3x2 – 45 mm anti-aircraft guns; 5x2 – 12.7 mm machine gun; 29 min.

river monitors of the Zheleznyakov type (project SB-37)

Construction and service

Total information

Booking

Armament

Built ships

Project SB-37 - a series of 6 Soviet river monitors “Zheleznyakov”, “Flyagin”, “Martynov”, “Zhemchuzhin”, “Levachev”, “Rostovtsev”, built in the USSR in 1934-1936 specifically for operations on rivers Pripyat, Danube, Dnieper. Chief designers M. M. Boyko, A. B. Baibakov. All ships were built at the Leninskaya Kuznitsa plant (factory No. 300) in Kyiv. The ships took an active part in the battles of the Great Patriotic War. And one of them, the Zheleznyakov monitor, became legendary.

General information

Ships of the Zheleznyakov type (project SB-37) belong to the class of monitors - flat-bottomed, low-sided ships with powerful artillery weapons. Designed to suppress coastal batteries, destroy enemy coastal installations, crossings, bridges and landing troops. The monitors' coverage area is rivers, lakes and coastal sea zones. The characteristic features of the monitors were: flat bottom, shallow draft, very low freeboard (only 60-90 cm), placement of a few heavy guns in rotating turrets with almost all-round fire, armoring of the entire surface area (sides, deck, turrets).

History of creation

Due to the aggravation of the situation in Europe in the early 30s, the USSR decided to create the Dnieper military flotilla to counter the Polish Pinsk flotilla. At the same time, the need arose to strengthen the flotilla with well-armed ships with a low draft for operations in the Pripyat River.

Predecessors

In 1930-1932 in Kyiv, at the Leninskaya Kuznitsa plant, the “Udarny” monitor was built by order of SB-12 (designers: A. B. Baibakov, M. M. Boyko). "Udarny" was armed with two long-range 130-mm naval guns, located in half-turrets in a linear-elevated pattern, with a characteristic silhouette. Having become the flagship of the Dnieper military flotilla, the monitor had a powerful, impressive appearance, more typical of naval ships.

But the bulletproof armor, deep draft and high silhouette made the ship poorly suited for the intended theater of military operations - the upper reaches of the Pripyat River. Therefore, despite the excellent external design, the concept of such a monitor was not further developed on the Dnieper, and the design of river ships took a different path.

The formation of the appearance of future “Dnieper” monitors was influenced by many factors, among which the main ones were: the planned theater of military operations (Pripyat River) required a small draft and a hull length of no more than 45 m; the alleged enemy - 6 Polish monitors with guns of 75-100 mm caliber - forced the use of anti-ballistic armor for at least the most important ship posts; a collision in a head-on battle with an enemy flotilla determined the placement of artillery with the possibility of simultaneous firing of all guns at the bow or stern;

The distance from naval supply bases dictated the use of ammunition unified with the army; the diverse nature of the tasks being solved (the defeat of enemy armored river ships, field fortifications, area open and even air targets) required the installation of fairly rapid-fire guns with balanced ballistic characteristics and a wide range of ammunition.

As a result of these, sometimes mutually exclusive, requirements, a compromise appeared - the “Active” monitor (order SB-30, designer A.L. Nikolaenko), built in 1934 at the same Lenin Forge. A special feature of the project was the connection in one (single) superstructure of a two-gun main caliber turret, rotating 360°, and on its roof a conning tower (also known as a chassis).

In the course of a somewhat belated interdepartmental struggle (the main caliber turret was already made of metal), the monitor nevertheless received 102-mm naval guns as the main caliber, and not 107-mm army-style guns, as proposed by the Artillery Directorate of the Red Army. Due to the aggravation of the political situation in the Far East, the unfinished “Active” was transported in parts to the Amur and assembled in Khabarovsk at the plant named after. Kirov (plant No. 368).

Operation revealed a number of design shortcomings of the monitor: while moving, it buried its nose, did not obey the rudder well, and finally, it was difficult to control the ship from the wheelhouse rotating with the turret.

Taking this experience into account, the ship-mechanical design bureau of the Leninskaya Kuznitsa plant developed an improved design for the SB-37 order (chief designer M.M. Boyko, designers A.B. Baibakov, Lavrov, Ostroushchenko, Filer, Epstein).

Prerequisites for creation

The monitors of the SB-37 project were specially designed for the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Pripyat, and in general were quite consistent with their region in size and, most importantly, in draft. Naturally, when creating them, they proceeded from the fact that on the other side of the border, near Poland, by that time there were also six monitors. With half the displacement, Polish ships carried 3 75 mm guns or 3 100 mm howitzers. The very fact of using howitzers as the main caliber suggests that the Poles saw the main purpose of their monitors as assisting troops, and not fighting Soviet ships. We can say that these ships were more suitable for conducting military operations on the Pripyat River than domestic ones. With commissioning in 1936-37. six monitors of the Zheleznyakov type, the Soviet command considered that the Dnieper flotilla had finally received the necessary combat stability.

Design

During the design process, great tension arose in the relationship between designers and clients. The fact is that back at the beginning of the 20th century, when designing Amur tower gunboats, proposals arose to arm them not with naval artillery, but with field artillery. There were two main arguments in favor of this. Firstly, the flat trajectory did not allow hitting targets on reverse slopes, and the steep banks characteristic of most rivers made it very difficult to select firing positions, especially closed ones. Under these conditions, the presence of howitzers on ships significantly expanded the scope of use of naval artillery. Secondly, river ships with naval artillery had to create their own ammunition supply system, often duplicating the army one. However, this issue was not seriously considered at that time. On the one hand, the specifics of the Amur with its vast reaches and low-lying islands did not introduce any significant restrictions on the use of naval artillery. On the other hand, the army at that time did not have worthy analogues for 152 mm and 120 mm naval guns, and their supply system in the Far East itself largely depended on river transport routes. When designing the “Udarny”, the question of arming the field artillery river monitor was raised again, but this time the army team was unable to offer anything worthy. But when the caliber was reduced to 102 mm, a completely reasonable idea arose to install modernized 107-mm field guns of the 1910-1930 model on ships. At the same time, although the use of separate cartridge loading could reduce the rate of fire, it simplified the supply of monitors with ammunition from army warehouses.

Description of design

general view of the SB-37 project monitors

The silhouette of the ship was dominated by the main caliber turret - an armored nine-sided one (the forehead of the turret with gun embrasures was made of two sheets of armor, hence the “extra” edge).

The tower was a rotating iron structure covered with armor, through which passed an armored cabin, protected by a cap of 8 vertical armor plates, integral with the rotating structure. A rangefinder cabin was attached to the rear wall, in which a 9-foot DM-3 rangefinder was placed on a stand Barr and Stroud, from among those purchased before the revolution. It was possible to get into the rangefinder room only through a hole from the main caliber turret. The height of the tower itself is 2.76 m, along the roof of the rangefinder cabin - 3.92 m. From the front to the rear wall of the tower - 3.75 m.

Compared to the SB-30 order, the turret was slightly shifted towards the stern, but at full speed the ship still buried its bow. A boom (7.5 m) and a crane winch were attached to the right wall of the tower; a ladder to the navigation bridge ran along the left wall. An armored rangefinder post was fixedly fixed on the aft wall - an armored cabin with dimensions of 1.17x2.15x3.65 m, additionally supported by two slopes.

The octagonal conning tower, 2.0 m high, was fixedly mounted on a 750 mm pipe, rigidly fixed to the bottom of the ship and passing through the main caliber turret. There was a ladder inside the pipe, with the help of which, through manholes cut in the pipe, one could get from the wheelhouse to the main caliber tower or to the hold.

A U-shaped navigation bridge was attached to the roof of the main caliber turret, which could be accessed from the deck via a ladder on the left side of the turret or through the side doors of the conning tower and further along a ladder in the pipe. In turn, a signal bridge was equipped on the roof of the conning tower (on the port side) and a 60 cm searchlight was installed in the center.

Longitudinal section of the SB-37 project

Plan diagram of the hold of the SB-37 project

Cross section of the SB-37 project

Layout of the 6th compartment of the SB-37 project

The conning tower had doors on the sides and five large embrasures covered by double-leaf armored flaps with viewing slots. The signal bridge could be reached from the navigation bridge via a ladder on the rear wall of the cabin. The foremast with a tops platform was attached to the same wall.

The round machine gun turrets had a rectangular hatch in the roof. Four armored doors covered the embrasure, which made it possible to fire from a 7.62 mm M-1 machine gun at an elevation of up to 80°.

On one of the monitors in July 1939, the hexagonal turret of an armored car (without a cap) with a 37-mm Hotchkiss cannon is clearly visible as a rear machine-gun turret.

In addition, from the notes on the explication of the general view drawing of the SB-37 order monitor dated June 5, 1936, it is clear that the possibility of installing 12.7-mm DShK machine guns in the turrets was being explored. But this option was abandoned due to the small size of the already manufactured turrets.

Modernization and refurbishment

During the operation of the monitor, it became clear that neither the 40-K universal turret installations nor the M-1 anti-aircraft gun turrets could fully provide the ship's air defense.

Therefore, in 1939, the air defense was modernized; instead of the openly mounted 7.62 mm Maxim machine gun, an M-4 machine gun mount (4x7.62 mm Maxim machine gun), called at that time an “integrated anti-aircraft installation,” was installed.

The installation was mounted openly on a stand, always behind the main caliber turret and always on the starboard side.

The installation point on the deck was determined on each monitor individually, and varied from the 54th to the 66th frame.

The ammunition load of the 7.62 mm machine guns was 3,000 rounds per barrel.

In 1940, the 40-K bow turret with one gun was replaced with a similar 41-K. The designers managed to squeeze two 21-K guns into the 41-K turret instead of one.

During repairs in Poti in 1943-1944. on the Zheleznyakov monitor, instead of the removed Maxims, 2 27-mm anti-aircraft guns and 3 12.7 mm Vickers machine guns were installed

List of ships

Name	Place of construction	Pawned	Launched	Commissioned	Fate
"Zheleznyakov"		November 25, 1934	November 22, 1935	October 27, 1936	On July 10, 1967, it was installed in the Sailors' Park on the Dnieper embankment in Kyiv as a memorial monument.
"Flyagin"	shipyard "Leninskaya Kuznitsa", Kyiv	July 31, 1934	1935	December 30, 1936	On the night of September 18-19, 1941, it was blown up by the crew in the Darnitsa area due to the impossibility of breaking through to the lower reaches of the Dnieper.
"Martynov"	shipyard "Leninskaya Kuznitsa", Kyiv	July 31, 1934	1935	December 8, 1936	On September 18, 1941, it was blown up by the crew in the area of ​​the Konskaya River, 4 km above Blagoveshchensk due to the impossibility of breaking through to the lower reaches of the Dnieper.
"Pearls"	shipyard "Leninskaya Kuznitsa", Kyiv	July 31, 1934	1935	November 27, 1936	On August 12, 1941 it was blown up by the crew due to extensive damage received during the battle.
"Levachev"	shipyard "Leninskaya Kuznitsa", Kyiv	July 31, 1934	1935	October 27, 1936	On the night of September 18-19, 1941, it was blown up by the crew in the area of ​​the village. Desenki near Kiev due to the impossibility of breaking through to the lower reaches of the Dnieper.
"Rostovtsev" Ships of the USSR Navy on the eve and during the Great Patriotic War Grigoriev V.V. And the ships stormed Berlin. - M.: Military Publishing House, 1984. Gallery