Imperial Russian Navy – Broadside Ironclad built 1861-67, in service until 1885.
The Russian ironclad Petropavlovsk was ordered as a 58-gun wooden frigate by the Imperial Russian Navy in 1860 but converted under construction into a 22-gun armored frigate. Her story is very much the same as her sister Sevastopol. She was completed second, a historical early armoured ship of the Russian Navy. This post also digs into the very reason she was built in the first place, and differences with Sebastopol. She remained in the Baltic Fleet as flagship in the 1860s-1870s and until decommissioned in 1885 like Sevastopol, but not sold for scrap until 1892. This is the second entry on naval encyclopedia’s naval arms race study between the Russians and Ottomans leading up to the 1877 Balkan war.
Development
Two Empires
The conversion of a large frigate into a broadside ironclad taken by Russia was in part forced upon the admiralty. Technically, this was already a proven concept, as shown by the conversion of the 1859 Gloire, but it came from a serie of factors for Russia. A bit like the Italo-Austrian naval arms race leading to the battle of Lissa in 1866, not all navies embarked on the conversion, construction or orders of ironclads, which considerably disrupted naval traditions and we seen by some as a costly fad. An immediate threat was need to motivate such a move. Russia at that stage in 1959 was a land power with still nascent industries, and populations and assets in a developed area west of the Urals. And in the east an immense untamed wilderness populated scarcely by hostile nomads. It was the conquest of the American mainland in reverse, from west to east, but also southwards.
So after Peter the Great centuries before managed a solid maritime foothold in the Baltic, a push towards the Black sea under Catherine the great, and its consolidation saw the addition to the threat posed by both Sweden, after the Polish Commonwealth, of a much larger opponent in the Black sea, the Ottoman Empire. The conversion of the Crimean peninsula into a hub of arsenals, fortified bases and ports was seen as such from the “sublime gate” and this new southwards ambitions led to several clashes. In the backrgound was the preceived oppression from the “third rome” of Balkanic Christians under Ottoman Rule (which had a decisive chapter written in 1877) but the roots started a decade and a half earlier.
The battle of Navarino, one of the largest and most decisive naval battles in history, saw the Ottoman Empire facing a naval coalition reminiscent of the battle of Lepanto: Combined British, French, and Russian squadrons faced the battle fleet of admiral Amir Tahir, and won a decisive victory on 20 Oct 1827, on the benefit of Greek insurgents. Afterwards, the decline of the Ottoman Empire saw the Russians moving further towards the Balkans and in the black sea and the second major even of the time was the Battle of Sinop in 1853, in which a Russian fleet, using notably a new type of high explosive bombshells, annihilated the Turkish fleet. It was so crippling that the Ottoman Navy was no longer able to oppose the Russians afterwards.
This led to a strange twist of history, led by the British fearful of the loss of Balance in the region, fearing the fall of the Ottoman Empre and Russian rule in the middle-east. A collective of British and French forces, later joined by the Sardinians, defended the Ottomans in 1855, attacking Russia in what became the Crimean war. This was a shock for Russian that now clearly saw the West as a systematic opponent, and forced the Russian Navy to find new ways, this time to compete with the West directly, but had neither the finances nor industry to ensure such a growth. A policy of containment on one side, and new forces to defeat the Ottomans. The latter started to order ironclads, causing an arms race between the two. This will culminated eventually to a third chapter, the Russo-Ottoman war of 1877-78, after Sultan Abdul Amid came to power and decided to stop the shipbuilding program.
The naval arms race
The Crimean war allowed the Ottomans to restore a small fleet, and it was assumed the support of the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. Then Sultan Abdul Aziz decided to embark on a construction program of ironclads, adding to a fleet made of 7 ships of the line, 6 frigates, 4 corvettes, 9 smaller vessels. In 1863 four 6,400t broadside Ironclads were ordered at conce to Britain, the Osmanieh class referring to the founder of the Turkish Empire. Meanwhile the Russian Navy comprised five screw 131-guns 1st rank ships of the line, six screw 2-decker, 1st rank ships of the line, nine large screw frigates, 18 screw corvettes, eight screw sloops, a clear advantage as in addition most had deck mortars firing Paixhans bombs. But they lacked any Ironclad and news of the construction of the Osmanieh class percolated through the Russian naval attaché in London.
This caused a shockwave at Moskow, leading to the decision of converting new ships in construction, three ships total: Two sister frigates of the Sevastopol class planned for the Baltic fleet (no yards existed in Crimea to build such ships) and a third, Petropavlovsk. Next would be the three Pervenetz class. The Ottoman Empire ordered the Assari Tewfik class and coast defence turret ships of the Lufti Djelil class, Avni Illah class casemate ironclads and others. This quickstarted a naval arms race.
Design of the class
Reordered under constrtuction as an ironclad, the original 58-guns wooden screw frigate was of the same class as the Sevastopol, but her plans were modified before reconstruction and she ended as a different ship, notably with a more powerful armament.
Hull and general design
Petropavlovsk was 300 feet (91.4 m) long between perpendiculars. Her beam was 50 feet 4 inches (15.3 m) for a draft of 22 feet 2 inches (6.8 m) forward, 24 feet (7.3 m) aft. She displaced 6,040 long tons (6,140 t), her hull modified at both ends, with a blunt iron ram at the bow. The poop was also redesigned. On sea trials later she was considered to be seaworthy. Her crew amounted 680 officers and enlisted men total. She shared the same hull with the Sevastopol class, but was lighter than the latter, which displaced 6,275 long tons (6,376 t).
Powerplant
Petropavlovsk was fitted with a horizontal return-connecting-rod steam engine(HRCR) from Baird Works, Saint Petersburg. This was a British venture there, and some parts were imported from Britain. This was the same powerplant as the one used on the Sevastopol class, fed by steam built up in eight(presumably) Rectangular boilers for a max. output of 2,805 ihp (2,092 kW) versus 3,090 ihp (2,300 kW) on the Sevastopol class. This power was passed onto a single shaft driving a single four-bladed propeller. On sea trials, she managed 2,805 indicated horsepower (2,092 kW) for 11.8 knots (21.9 km/h; 13.6 mph), and so she was slower than the Sevastopol class at 13 knots (24 km/h; 15 mph). She carried 375 long tons (381 t) of coal in her max configuration but her endurance under steam is unknown, just as the Sevastopol class vessels. This was less important as like the latter she was ship rigged, with three masts.
Protection
Her waterline belt was made of joint wrought-iron armor plates manufactured in England at the Brown & Co. shipyard. An English master was paid to do the tripand install the armor plates. This belt extended 5 feet 2 inches (1.6 m) below the waterline while being unequal in thickness, with 4.5 inches (114 mm) amidships backed by 10 inches (254 mm) of teak, then reduced to 3 inches (76 mm) backed by 6 inches (150 mm) of teak about 50 feet (15.2 m) from both ends. This left 200 ft amidship well protected, roughly at the level of her main battery. There was no armoured bulkheads, protected deck, but she had a 4-in thick conning tower. Like the Sevastopol class she had the same battery over the belt protected by 4.5 in (114 mm) plating.
Armament
The original wooden frigate was to sport 54 heavy 7.72-inch (196 mm) 60-pounder smoothbore gun plus four long 36-pounder smoothbores, but this was revised when converted to an ironclad. This became at completion in 1867, twenty 8-inch (203 mm) rifled guns in the lower deck, plus two 60-pounder guns on the upper deck as chase guns with pivot mounts for greater traverse. Later, another pair of 60-pounders were added on upper deck. In 1877, so a decade later when converted as training ship, this was changed again to a single 8-inch, one 6-inch (152 mm), ten 3.4-inch (86 mm) rifled guns.
⚙ specifications |
|
| Displacement | 6,040 long tons (6,137 t) |
| Dimensions | 300 ft x 50 ft 4 in x 24 ft (91.4 x 15.3 x 7.3 m) |
| Propulsion | HRCR engine, c6 rec. boilers 2,805 ihp (2,092 kW) |
| Speed | 11.85 knots |
| Range | Unknown, unlimited with sail |
| Armament | 20x 8-in RML, 2(4)x 60-pdr SB |
| Protection | Belt 3–4.5 in (76–114 mm), Battery 4.5 in (114 mm) |
| Crew | 680 |
Career of Petropavlovsk
Petropavlovsk was named for the siege of Petropavlovsk of the Crimean War. She was planned initially as seen above, as a 58-gun heavy frigate at the New Admiralty Shipyard, Saint Petersburg. On September 19, 1860, decision had been made indeed to build a second similar frigate as Sevastopol at the New Admiralty using state funds. Her keel was laid on September 9, 1861 in the presence of Admiral Krabbe, Administrator of the Naval Ministry, under the supervision of builder Captain A.A. Ivashchenko. The hull was constructed of oak, with some teak, Honduran wood, and pine, assembled “in accordance with the drawings” of the latest foreign and Russian frigates.
In the summer of 1862, Rear Admiral S.S. Lesovsky submitted a design to the Naval Ministry for her conversion (as Sevastopol) into low-sided three-turreted battery ironclad but this was not accepted and in late 1862, she was to be converted as a classic broadside ironclad instead with a full armor belt. Plans were redrawn by the frigate builders, who sent a delegation to visited shipyards in England and France in 1862 and gather experience. But the final design would see both differ from each other. The iron belt running along the waterline had the usual thickness seen on British and French warships, the thickest possible with the foundry techniques of the time, at 114.3 mm, and on a 254 mm teak lining for buffering impacts to the wooden hull.
It was also tapered down 15.25 m from the stems with plates of 102mm, 89mm, and 75 mm on a lighter, 152 mm teak lining. This belt was made of six rows of plates 5.36 m high, extended to the gun deck and covering both side below the waterline, down to 1.3-1.4 m below the waterline. Above the main belt a casemate had a row of 114.3 mm thick iron plates up to the upper deck. There was a conning tower, 102 mm or 4-inches thick.
But differences were many: Sevastopol had 14 gun ports, Petropavlovsk had 13. Both saw the lower edge of their ports 2.3 meters above water. Displacement differed also between the two by almost 900 tons. Both also had their sail rig reduced. Petropavlovsk had her hull frame already assembled on slipway increased. Her rams reinforced with armor plates also differed in design slightly. Like her sister, the steam engines were manufactured in Russia and similar to the one installed on Tsarevich and the frigate Oleg. But Sevastopol engine came from the Izhora Shipyards, while Petropavlovsk’s which nominally developed the same 800 hp come from Byrd’s heirs co. They also differed in propellers since her sister had a two-bladed lifting one, while Petropavlovsk had a non-lifting four-bladed propeller.
So after being reordered as a 22-gun armored frigate on 29 October 1861 while under construction, Petropavlovsk was launched much later on 15 August 1865, commissioned on 1 August 1867, after seven years in the works. At the time, Broadside ironclads started to be replaced already by central battery ships and turret ships. Total cost had been 1,278,748 rubles for the hull and 498,320 rubles for her powerplant. Her design displacement was 20t heavier, at 6,040 tons with an actual displacement of 6,010 tons.
At full speed her prow raised large waves, treaching in some case the hawse holes at 5 feet. However speed was disappointing as even when using both steam and sail she only panaged to reach 11.8 knots, far less than her sister. This was blamed on Maudslay-designed frigate’s engine, based on the frigate Oleg’s one of 1860, an older and inferior design of lower size, and power compared to modern engines.
Petropavlovsk’s career resembled her sister’s, as after she became flagship of the Baltic sea, in the 1o70s, both frigates formed the combat core of the Baltic Fleet, its only armored squadron. Squadron commander Vice-Admiral G.I. Butakov, wanted searchlights installed on Petropavlovsk for the 1873 campaign, and in 1874, the first anti-torpedo battery of ten 87mm rifled guns was installed on her decks. After 10 years of service in the Baltic Sea, Petropavlovsk was sent to the Mediterranean and the Black sea.
The Russo-Turkish War of 1877 found Petropavlovsk theren, but she did not took part in any combat operations against the Turkish fleet. At that stage indeed she had been partially disarmed to act as gunner’s training ship. She was removed from the lists on October 11, 1886, sold for scrap in May 1887 but remained mothballed in the black sea fleet until January 4, 1892. The term used on the Navy’s list was “frigate”, regardless of her armour. She was essentally doomed, like most French ironclads, by her wooden hull. Wooden ships remained in the French navy’s inventory until the end of the 19th century. But in case of a battle they would have been put on fire wirh ease under the impact of modern explosive shells. This was notably underlined by the Russian newpaper Morskoy Sbornik. Still, both Peropalvlosk and Sevastopol were the important first step in the Russian armoured fleet.
Read More/Src
Books
Chesneau, Roger & Kolesnik, Eugene M., eds. (1979). Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1860–1905. Greenwich, UK: Conway Maritime Press.
“Russian Ironclad Frigates Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk”. Warship International. VII (4)
Silverstone, Paul H. (1984). Directory of the World’s Capital Ships. New York: Hippocrene Books.
Treadea, John; Sozaev, Eduard (2010). Russian Warships in the Age of Sail, 1696–1860: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. Seaforth Publishing.
Watts, Anthony J. (1990). The Imperial Russian Navy. London: Arms and Armour.