-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Also the Russians invented the round ironclad which changed naval warfare forever.
I would not want to be on that tub if the sea got a bit rough.
The Popovka?
Worst. Ship. Ever.
A ship designed to guard a river estuary whose engines were so weak it couldn't fight the river current. It's 11" guns fired well enough, provided the seas were calm. Any sort of wind, waves or chop and the whole damn ship would bob up and down, preventing loading or firing, making everyone seasick.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Also the Russians invented the round ironclad which changed naval warfare forever.
Didn't this spend its entire existence spinning uncontrollably and moving at about 1knot?
It would be interesting to see what would have happened if any of the Popovkas -- in either their orginal or upgraded forms -- ever fired their weapons in anger and actually entered combat. Alas, they are merely historical footnotes of naval vessels designed to guard river estuaries in places where no naval vessels were allowed per the Crimean peace treaty.
Last edited:
Not exactly... While the Popovka was a deeply flawed ship it wasn't that bad. The 'spinning uncontollably' is simply a myth which seemed to have come from a problem with the turret mounts, casuing the guns to turn on firing. This was elaborated to become the ship itself spines on firing. They were hard to steer and slow, but on the upside they were far better armed and armoured than anything else of that tonnage and draught. They were also noted as being a very stable firing platform.
How was the underwater protection on those coastal ships? Even setting aside torpedoes, artillery could and did hit below the waterline.
16" at the waterline and 14" below it plus 18" of teak, which the Russians considered equivilent to an additional 2" of steel. So fairly good for a ship of 3600 long tons.
So assuming that this is older armor with about half the strength of Krupp armor, that's the equivalent of 9 inches above and 8 inches below the waterline. That's not quite as strong as the thickest part of a dreadnought's armored belt but it's certainly better then the edges of the belt or the parts outside the belt. With 19th century ammo, I dont think even a 16 inch gun could penetrate that. And the deck wouldn't be vulnerable because plunging fire didn't exist yet. Although maybe repeated hits with explosive shells could just shake the ship to pieces.
Seems like a promising design to me. Man, history could have been so cool if there were tons of those things getting attacked by spar torpedoes!
I wonder if the design could have been made seaworthy by the simple addition of a centerboard and multiple rudders. Because if that tub was the least bit seaworthy, it would have been a monster. The spinning could have actually been an asset, with pre-dreadnoughts you want a large number of secondary guns to make up for poor accuracy with volume. So if that thing was ringed with 6 inch guns in casemate blisters you could just spin it around and fire each gun in sequence. And against a traditional ship, those 6 inch guns would have a good chance at hitting the unarmored bits while against this armored beast, nothing but heavy caliber guns at close range would matter.
Ranges until about 1900 when fire control started rapidly getting attention remained essentially Nelsonian, hence effective underwater hits were improbable due to shallow trajectory causing ricochets off water instead. All pre-dreads had terrible underwater protection with what subdivision there was being compromised by frequent insecure underwater piercings for piping etc., nor was there any TDS per se. They went down like flies in action.
If it's just wrought iron I doubt you even need 16-in to go through with 1880s forged steel shot.
The trouble with adding a longer centerboard was that it gives it a deeper draught, and one of the key design features of them was their very shallow draught. The shape made the rudders so ineffective that you had to steer with the engines in any sort of heavy weather.
The primary armament was a pair of 12" guns - so spinning was an issue, particularly given the difficulty of steering the ship. Sady a 'point the ship' method of aiming the guns would not have worked, although you have given me a lovely mental picture (think Leornardo's tank as a ship).
A centerboard is by definition retractable, so it doesn't give a deeper draught. They are typically used on very small sailboats that operate in shallow areas and might even launch from beaches without docks. I dont believe that 3000 ton vessels have ever used centerboards, but most 3000 ton vessels dont have the hydrodynamics of a one person sailboat.
I was talking more along the lines of what if the design had evolved into the 1890s and 1900s when pre-dreadnoughts emerged with large secondary batteries.
Fair enough. I have no idea if a centerboard of that size could be raised or lowered, but it could work...
Circular pre-dreadnoughts! Ringed with guns! Sail it into the middle of the enemy fleet and watch it cause havoc! Boom!
That's the problem. It doesn't sail. It kind of waddles at the mercy of the current, it's unreliable, it's unstable, and tended to make the crew ill from random movements of the waves. The fact it was never actually used or copied by another naval power shows how poorly the ship performed. At the end of the day, it was barely adequate, and there is a reason it is referred to possibly the worst ship ever designed.
The worst ship ever designed is based on incorrect information on its qualities from hostile contempory news reports. However, it was a deeply flawed design. So modifing my previous silliness:
Circular pre-drednoughts! Ringed with guns! Slowly wallow it into the middle of the enemy fleet and watch your sailors puke! Blurgh!
Circular pre-drednoughts! Ringed with guns! Slowly wallow it into the middle of the enemy fleet and watch your sailors puke! Blurgh!