Russian Novik - Grandfather of Modern Destroyers

[Istvan56]

No Russian ship did more to restored the honor of the Imperial Russian Navy than the destroyer Novik.  It set a world speed record, overnight caused the navies of the world to take notice of the Russian Navy again, was the first "universal destroyer," was the flagship of the Baltic Fleet destroyer division, single-handedly fought two brand spanking new German destroyers who were patterned after Novik and didn't lose a sailor, was there in every major action in the Baltic Sea, survived two Russian Revolutions and a civil war to become a training ship for future officers and finally died heroically trying to lead the Baltic Fleet to safety after the German invasion overran their operating area.  Finally, Novik was the direct father of 51 other destroyers in four sub-classes and several variants that served Mother Russia for some three decades and spawned copies even in the German Navy with the V-99 class of Torpedo-Zerstoryers.  Two of those sub-classes are in the Russian Destroyer Tree at Tier III and Tier IV.

 

So rather than reprint my entire thread on Shipcomrades.com on the the Novik I'm going to post the link here: http://shipcomrade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1029

[Matthewq4b]

Too bad it was as about as Russian as sauerkraut, German Designed built using German equipment to match RN DD specification requirements.  The only thing Russian about it was the location it was built.

 

[RedBear87]

Too bad it was as about as Russian as sauerkraut, German Designed built using German equipment to match RN DD specification requirements.  The only thing Russian about it was the location it was built.

Match what kind of RN DD specification? Contemporary British destroyers had one less gun and just two single torpedo tubes. The flotilla leaders matched the artillery armament, but they still had weaker torpedo armament, without mentioning the different tactical role.

 

In second lieu, the idea behind the Novik is genuinely Russian, the Germans were content with torpedo boats barely seaworthy enough for their role, the British were concerned with repelling torpedo attacks more than carrying them out, the Novik led the way to a larger destroyer capable of successfully fulfilling both roles.

[Xero_Snake]

An astonishing read of a detailed documentation. Though if only Gangut would have been on the same shoes as Novik's.

 

About Novik itself, it was clearly a Russian design, which would then influenced the rest of its WWI-era DDs. There was no evidence that it was American-built nor German-built. Try read the documentation above again.

[Matthewq4b]

The Russian Navy called for something radically different from any of the destroyers then being built in the world. First they decided they would actually achieve the Royal Navy's goal of a 38-39 knot destroyer with a ship that was more seaworthy, had both more guns and torpedoes than either of the two sub-classes of destroyers and would be capable of laying large number of naval mines from the stern at high speed.  The specific parameters were a 1200 ton (normal), 1500 tons (maximum) displacement meaning a larger destroyer than contemporary designs, what other navies would call a destroyer leader but what the Russians termed a "universal destroyer" type. A design contest was held and teams reached out to the best shipbuilders in the world. The top design would be built not in a foreign yard but in Russia using equipment from the company that designed it. The resulting prototype would be the basis for all future Imperial Russian destroyers for a generation

One of those contest designs is in World of Warships as the Tier II destroyer Storozhevoi. However, this destroyer is a paper ship as it was the loser in the contest. The winning design was chosen in 1909 and was by the German company of AG Vulcan - Stettin and became the Novik. The Novik went on to fulfill all of the design requirements. Novik's oil fired AEG-Vulcan boilers and steam turbine engines were capable of 38.2 knots (some reports say 38.3 knots) at 39,000 shp and averaged 36.86 knots on a three hour run during her sea trials in August, 1913. This set a world speed record for warships that was not beaten for years. Novik also had great endurance, capable of cruising 2,000 miles (3.7 km) at 21 knots.

 

 

 

She was German designed and built using German equipment to meet the  RN Destroyer goals.    Again the only thing Russian about the Novik was that it was assembled in Russia.  It was German designed and built with German equipment to meet RN destroyer requirements.

 

 

The question is did you read the article?

 

 

 

 

 

[RedBear87]

Speed is only one requirement, you said requirements. Novik's capacity exceeded anything the British had built or attempted to build up to that point (I believe the article is referring to Fisher's little failure, HMS Swift). Conversely one could say that it's much to the discredit of the Kaiserliche Marine that they didn't build similar destroyers despite having the technical capacity to do it.

[Matthewq4b]

Speed is only one requirement, you said requirements. Novik's capacity exceeded anything the British had built or attempted to build up to that point (I believe the article is referring to Fisher's little failure, HMS Swift). Conversely one could say that it's much to the discredit of the Kaiserliche Marine that they didn't build similar destroyers despite having the technical capacity to do it.

 

 

It was not just speed  for heavens sake, read the article already,   the requirements were  "a 38-39 knot destroyer with a ship that was more seaworthy, had both more guns and torpedoes than either of the two sub-classes of destroyers and would be capable of laying large number of naval mines from the stern at high speed"

 

 

 

Those were the RN's goals for a destroyer leader,  the Imperial Russian Navy asked for the same goals to be met this when this was put out to tender for their Universal  Destroyer class.

 

 The RN pioneered the idea of Destroyer leaders and by far we the ones to execute it on the largest scale with the pinnacle of this train of thought being the Tribal class DD's of 1937

 

 

The Kaiserliche Marine did not have a requirement for destroyer leaders nor did they ever really build any, They attempted to get the speed in a smaller package and could not do it due to the limitations of  equipment size and hull length, with displacement hulls length = speed.

The Novik was a German designed ship built using German equipment to match RN Destroyer Leader requirements.

Again the only thing Russian about it, is that it was assembled in a Russian ship yard.  

 

 

 

[RedBear87]

It was not just speed  for heavens sake, read the article already,   the requirements were  "a 38-39 knot destroyer with a ship that was more seaworthy, had both more guns and torpedoes than either of the two sub-classes of destroyers and would be capable of laying large number of naval mines from the stern at high speed"

You should learn to read yourself before telling others to read, the with conjunction in particular doesn't refer to the British requirements, it's the kind of ship that was supposed to fulfil also that speed requirement.

 

Novik was not a flotilla leaders, she was the only kind of destroyer built for the Imperial navy, nor the 1937 Tribals were destroyer leaders for that matter. The Marksmans were typical British flotilla leaders, they were built after Novik had been already completed yet compared to the Russian destroyer they carried half the number of torpedo tubes.

EDIT:

The Kaiserliche Marine did not have a requirement for destroyer leaders nor did they ever really build any,

You seem to make confusion between large destroyers and flotilla leaders, anyway the Germans built large destroyers starting with the B97, which was designed around the machinery of Novik, I think it was mentioned in the article. By the end of the war they were building the largest destroyers of the war with the Großes Torpedoboot 1916 class.

[Matthewq4b]

Do your research  the Tribals of 36  Not 37 (typo) were destroyer leaders and that's is exactly the role they filled in WWII.

 

 

There is no conjunction what the Russians asked for in the Novik is exactly what the RN initially asked for the with Swift proposal years prior. Costs ended up gutting the final product.

The German's were able to accomplish for the IRN what the RN had originally asked of the Swift and failed to achieve.

 

And you are gueing semantic here to try to make a failed point that the Novik was a home grown ship from home grown ideas, it was not simple as that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The B97 boat's were destroyers and were utilized as destroyers they were never intended to be or were built as destroyer leaders.  The concept of destroyers in the traditional sence did not fit in with German naval doctrine and until the B97's they had what were classed as sea going torpedo boats.  The Großes Torpedoboot 1916 class was again not used as a destroyer leader but was built to compete with the more heavily armed British DD' s, it's naval doctrine at the time was that of a heavily armed torpedo boat not as a destroyer leader.  So again the Germans never really built destroyer leaders.  It not just about size but what ships intended purpose was. They built ships that could be classified as destroyer leaders but were never utilized as such nor were ever intended to be such. Hence Germany never really built destroyer leaders.

 

The Russian Novik was intended to be used a Universal Destroyer and that also means filling the Destroyer Leader role as the Russians were broke and needed lower cost ships that could multitask.  They perfected the early Destroyer Leader but certainly did not invent it.

 None of this changes the fact that the only thing Russian about the ship was it was built in a Russian yard. It was not designed in Russia, it did not use Russian equipment, and it copied the RN doctrine for the original Swift proposal.

Get over it already.  The only thing Russian about the ship is it was built in a Russian shipyard

 

 

[Xero_Snake]

The boiler and steam turbine engine were German-made, but other than that, the criteria/idea behind the said modern destroyer project was still Russian in mind if you understand the design process, despite with a few technical helps.

The Black Sea battleship project - the Project GUK - also have one of the competing design done by a German engineer. Yet the project itself was held by the Russian Admiralty.

Are you trying to prove that the Russians were incompetent fools incapable of building, creating, designing or even developing anything on their own and only best at being a copycat? Even if they got no originality of their own and instead borrowed from others, even if they were a fraud, so what? Nobody is perfect.

 

​If you actually understand the concept of design process, don't bother to argue.

 

 

[RedBear87]

Do your research  the Tribals of 36  Not 37 (typo) were destroyer leaders and that's is exactly the role they filled in WWII.

Maybe you should do your own research, there were destroyer flotilla composed exclusively of Tribals, like the 4th Destroyer Flotilla, what kind of leader leads other leaders? Were WWI-era destroyer leaders used in this way?

There is no conjunction .

Yeah, it's a preposition, my bad. It doesn't change much.

The B97 boat's were destroyers and were utilized as destroyers they were never intended to be or were built as destroyer leaders.  The concept of destroyers in the traditional sence did not fit in with German naval doctrine and until the B97's they had what were classed as sea going torpedo boats.  The Großes Torpedoboot 1916 class was again not used as a destroyer leader but was built to compete with the more heavily armed British DD' s, it's naval doctrine at the time was that of a heavily armed torpedo boat not as a destroyer leader.  So again the Germans never really built destroyer leaders.  It not just about size but what ships intended purpose was. They built ships that could be classified as destroyer leaders but were never utilized as such nor were ever intended to be such. Hence Germany never really built destroyer leaders.

Except B98 was the flagship of the 2nd torpedo boat flotilla, anyway what is a destroyer leader in your opinion? I think we will never get out of this mess without first defining that and I believe you're misusing the term, confusing it with "universal destroyer". Sure, the original concept behind Swift was similar to Novik, albeit Swift ended up being much under-armed besides being incapable of reaching her target speed, but Swift's eventual usage as destroyer leader is an afterthought, you don't have a destroyer leader when all of your destroyers are built to that design.

The Russian Novik was intended to be used a Universal Destroyer and that also means filling the Destroyer Leader role as the Russians were broke and needed lower cost ships that could multitask.

Many large destroyers are more expensive than many small destroyers combined with a few larger flotilla leaders.

None of this changes the fact that the only thing Russian about the ship was it was built in a Russian yard. It was not designed in Russia, it did not use Russian equipment, and it copied the RN doctrine for the original Swift proposal.

Get over it already.  The only thing Russian about the ship is it was built in a Russian shipyard

I don't honestly give a damn about your Russia shaming agenda, but the doctrine was the result of experience in the Russo-Japanese war, they didn't enter inside Fisher's head and copy his little guarded secrets.

[Matthewq4b]

The boiler and steam turbine engine were German-made, but other than that, the criteria/idea behind the said modern destroyer project was still Russian in mind if you understand the design process, despite with a few technical helps.

 

The Black Sea battleship project - the Project GUK - also have one of the competing design done by a German engineer. Yet the project itself was held by the Russian Admiralty.

 

Are you trying to prove that the Russians were incompetent fools incapable of building, creating, designing or even developing anything on their own and only best at being a copycat? Even if they got no originality of their own and instead borrowed from others, even if they were a fraud, so what? Nobody is perfect.

 

​If you actually understand the concept of design process, don't bother to argue.

 

 

 

 

That is a bit of a stretch to say the least  the concept was the RN's that Russians chose to emulate.  What is so hard about that for you to accept.  And there was far more German equipment aboard than just the Steam turbine and boilers.  Fire control was German as the Russians had no modern fire control systems in there ship in the era and this has been noted time and time again with how terribly inaccurate Russian  naval guns were due to their lack of modern fire control.  Most of the ships electrical systems were  Siemans AG,  in fact most all the ships sub systems were of German origin.  Again the German equipment was years beyond what the Russians had at the time. Russia was not a technical leader in the era and they knew it. This is part of the reason they went to Foreign ship design and builders for this class of ships.

 

 

  And I know far more than you would about the design process and construction of equipment having led design and construction teams on multi billion dollar projects.    The Russians went to world leaders of ship design cause they knew they did not have technical know how at home and wanted the best they could get.  it is not a slight just how it was. Just like how the current Russian navy contracted the French to build the Minstrel class helicopter carriers Russia did not have the  technical experience to accomplish the same at an equivalent cost.   This project was no different.   You are the one seems to lack a basic understanding on the design and construction process.

The Russians have never been the technical leader in Naval surface ships it's not an area they traditionally have exceled at. They know that and accept it. Why can't you ?

 

 

[Matthewq4b]

Maybe you should do your own research, there were destroyer flotilla composed exclusively of Tribals, like the 4th Destroyer Flotilla, what kind of leader leads other leaders? Were WWI-era destroyer leaders used in this way?

Yeah, it's a preposition, my bad. It doesn't change much.

Except B98 was the flagship of the 2nd torpedo boat flotilla, anyway what is a destroyer leader in your opinion? I think we will never get out of this mess without first defining that and I believe you're misusing the term, confusing it with "universal destroyer". Sure, the original concept behind Swift was similar to Novik, albeit Swift ended up being much under-armed besides being incapable of reaching her target speed, but Swift's eventual usage as destroyer leader is an afterthought, you don't have a destroyer leader when all of your destroyers are built to that design.

Many large destroyers are more expensive than many small destroyers combined with a few larger flotilla leaders.

I don't honestly give a damn about your Russia shaming agenda, but the doctrine was the result of experience in the Russo-Japanese war, they didn't enter inside Fisher's head and copy his little guarded secrets.

 

 

The WWII Tribals were flotilla leaders specifically convoy flotilla leaders.  Most of their work was leading convoy flotillas that was by far and away their biggest role in WWII. 

And ya preposition changes everything as you tried to take it out of context to prove a false point.

B98's were torpedo boat leaders NOT flotilla leaders they did not lead a flotilla of other ships they were lead ships for torpedo boats so not Destroyer leaders and never truly filled the role of a traditional destroyer. 

The Swifts design originally was an over sized Destroyer to do fleet scouting  since NO destroyer had ever been built like this previously it's role evolved as the utility of the ship was realized. The Russians caught on to this real quick and realized the role that Destroyers of this capability could fulfill.   Destroyers like this could do the duties of a lighter cruisers in a much more cost effective  package. They did not invent it just perfected it with the Novik type Destroyers.  You seem forget the Imperial Russia was not really industrialized at all until the latter part of the 19th century they were decades behind western Europe in terms of industrial capacity and technical know how at the time. There is a reason why they went out of country for these ships that were some most advanced ships of the era, they simply did not have the experience or technical know how at home especially when it came to steam turbines and high efficiency boilers.

This has nothing to do with Russia shaming it is about fact, and you guys seems to be butt hurt and trying to impose some sort of revisionist history here.

 

 

And none of this changes the fact that the only thing Russian about these ships is they were built in Russian ship yards.

[Xero_Snake]

I ask you a questions:

Are you an engineer/engineering student?

If so, how much do you know about design process?

Do you acknowledge design engineers are supposed to maintain neutrality and not by agenda bias, such as who takes the credits and who don't? As well as being politically neutral?

Do you know that even engineers have their dignities for help creating ideas and solutions for the customers/clients/employers/companies/projects?

 

I wasn't talking about equipment on board nor questioning their doctrine, I was referring to what the client wants for the project. Design engineers participated the project to compete their proposing designs, regardless of where they came from - as long as they were honored to help. The best design candidate signified that candidate got what the Admiralty wanted. That's a win-win for both the design engineer and the Admiralty, everyone has a fair share of credits.

 

Even if Novik was designed by a German engineer who've won the project and even has a foreign equipment on board just like Gangut has Zeiss rangefinder, the ideas and criteria implemented in the project is still Russian - that will never changed. Other countries even did the same, such as Japan for example.

 

Also, what if that said German engineer was a Russian? Who knew? There were a number of German populations in the Imperial Russia at that time.

 

Engineers are not salespersons or politician. If caught smearing a bad name on others, one will no longer entitled to be an engineer. It's like throwing their images and dignities away just to favor their biases, be it small name - big ego, one-sided bias, superiority complex and narcissism.

[Matthewq4b]

I ask you a questions:

Are you an engineer/engineering student?

If so, how much do you know about design process?

Do you acknowledge design engineers are supposed to maintain neutrality and not by agenda bias, such as who takes the credits and who don't? As well as being politically neutral?

Do you know that even engineers have their dignities for help creating ideas and solutions for the customers/clients/employers/companies/projects?

 

I wasn't talking about equipment on board nor questioning their doctrine, I was referring to what the client wants for the project. Design engineers participated the project to compete their proposing designs, regardless of where they came from - as long as they were honored to help. The best design candidate signified that candidate got what the Admiralty wanted. That's a win-win for both the design engineer and the Admiralty, everyone has a fair share of credits.

 

Even if Novik was designed by a German engineer who've won the project and even has a foreign equipment on board just like Gangut has Zeiss rangefinder, the ideas and criteria implemented in the project is still Russian - that will never changed. Other countries even did the same, such as Japan for example.

 

Also, what if that said German engineer was a Russian? Who knew? There were a number of German populations in the Imperial Russia at that time.

 

Engineers are not salespersons or politician. If caught smearing a bad name on others, one will no longer entitled to be an engineer. It's like throwing their images and dignities away just to favor their biases, be it small name - big ego, one-sided bias, superiority complex and narcissism.

 

 

 

Again deflection on the topic at hand.

 

 

And who told you that crap ?  Obviously you have no clue.  You better believe we have bias, Bias for and the projects/products or companies we work for.  Obviously you have no clue how things work it the real world, go drop that mantra at a job interview and see how quick you get hired.  More crap taught in schools that has no place in the real world.

 

 

And regardless if the IRN decided to follow, and that what it was follow the lead of the HMS Swift. Get over it already.   The idea was not a Russian invention it was refinement of the RN's planned doctrine and use for the HMS swift.  Holy crap what about that can't you understand.

 

 

This changes nothing. the only thing Russian about the ship was that is was built in Russia.  It is not like this was joint project between the Russians and a German ship building firm the whole design process and base equipment selection and construction methodology was contracted out,  the Russians contributed nothing in desgn except basic parameters, and those were more less the same as the parameters the RN laid out with the Swift concept. The Russians invented nothing they just were able to execute the concept properly.

 

And yes there were large numbers of Germans in Russia at the time as were French, Swiss, and Brits. and do you know what this was ?   They were consulting with and helping Russia industrialize the bulk of them were Germans.  You seem to failing at history too.  This not much Different than Japan using the Britain's vast Naval experience doctrine and ship building to modernize their navy.  The Brits gave the Japanese the foundation of which they built the IJN.

 

 

And seriously you know nothing.  Engineers can and have to be all these things your ignorance on this is astounding,  if your are consulting on design submissions and there are one's that are crap, you say they are crap and not worth the paper they are submitted on, And when you are submitting projects you are a salesman and a politician  you are selling your proposal, and if a civilly funded project you better believe your being a politician either promising  local job creation, locally supplied, material, or in todays world the positive environmental aspect your firm can deliver,  so the funding Gov't or Gov't Dept  will select your bid/submission over the competition and be able to give it an edge to the reviewing authority.

 

 

You obviously have no clue how things work in the real world so quit while you are ahead and keep yourself from looking like a complete fool.

 

 

 

[Xero_Snake]

 

 

 

 

And who told you that crap ?  Obviously you have no clue.  You better believe we have bias, Bias for and the projects/products or companies we work for.  Obviously you have no clue how things work it the real world, go drop that mantra at a job interview and see how quick you get hired.  More crap taught in schools that has no place in the real world.
 

This changes nothing. the only thing Russian about the ship was that is was built in Russia.  It is not like this was joint project between the Russians and a German ship building firm the whole design process and base equipment selection and construction methodology was contracted out,  the Russians contributed nothing in desgn except basic parameters, and those were more less the same as the parameters the RN laid out with the Swift concept. The Russians invented nothing they just were able to execute the concept properly.

 

And yes there were large numbers of Germans in Russia at the time as were French, Swiss, and Brits. and do you know what this was ?   They were consulting with and helping Russia industrialize the bulk of them were Germans.  You seem to failing at history too.  This not much Different than Japan using the Britain's vast Naval experience doctrine and ship building to modernize their navy.  The Brits gave the Japanese the foundation of which they built the IJN.

 

And seriously you know nothing.  Engineers can and have to be all these things your ignorance on this is astounding,  if your are consulting on design submissions and there are one's that are crap, you say they are crap and not worth the paper they are submitted on, And when you are submitting projects you are a salesman and a politician  you are selling your proposal, and if a civilly funded project you better believe your being a politician either promising  local job creation, locally supplied, material, or in todays world the positive environmental aspect your firm can deliver,  so the funding Gov't or Gov't Dept  will select your bid/submission over the competition and be able to give it an edge to the reviewing authority.

 

 

 

You obviously have no clue how things work in the real world so quit while you are ahead and keep yourself from looking like a complete fool.

 

I would like to thank you for the well-deserved lecture, as well as proving that you refuse to be judged by my standards of a lowly pleb. Yet, I'm still learning from mistakes anyways, so there's no hard feelings. Of course, engineers need to learn everything including economies, politics, laws, ethics, managements etc. to gain necessary skills to be "persuasive" to employers, companies, institutions and government bodies in career as far as I concern. I'm maybe lacking some of the real-life experiences, but I'm no fool like what you described here. For now, I still don't consider myself as a full fledged engineer just yet. So I don't have the right to act like I know-it-all, not trying to be smart-[edited]here. But still, a lifelong learning never stops. So don't need to be too harsh in choices of words. And by the way, I don't like the way you talk. People would turn you away with the tone like this.

 

But hey, I knew many do the same when it comes to joint venture projects and businesses, as I'm no strangers to this before I came here. Not the type of person who just sit on couches everyday, cause I do walk outside the house exploring my surroundings whenever I wish with curiosity.