coastal artillery batteries and warships in the narrow confines of the Turkish Straits. This put a premium on forward-facing guns because ships might not be able to turn to bring their broadsides to bear on the enemy. Three gun mounts, two forward and one in the rear, were settled upon relatively early in the design process, but the number of guns and the choice between turrets or barbettes was the subject of much debate. The Russians had been impressed by the performance of the barbette-mounted disappearing guns of during the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882 and began to seriously consider the use of this type of installation in their new battleships. The lighter weight of barbettes versus turrets allowed for the addition of several guns, but it was later realized that they could be deleted in exchange for twin gun mounts in the barbettes for very little cost in weight. Construction had already begun when the armor scheme was revised after a visit to France by two naval constructors. Upon their return they argued for a complete waterline armor belt to preserve the ship's buoyancy and speed if it was hit fore and aft. The original armor scheme was very close to British practice, with a short, very thick waterline belt that covered the machinery and magazines, but left the ends unprotected other than by an armored deck. Their suggestions were incorporated in the ships, but the armor scheme had to be drastically revised to cater for the complete armor belt. The maximum thickness was reduced from to and the belt reduced to at the bow and stern with a strake on the upper side of the ram bow. The middle redoubt was shortened from a length about to , just enough to cover the ammunition hoists and the funnel uptakes to save weight. Even so, the design displacement increased to , which increased draft by . Originally only three ships were going to be built in the class, but Georgii Pobedonosets was built to a modified Ekaterina II design when a more modern design could not be prepared in a timely manner after Sinop was launched. She mainly differed from her half-sisters in her armor layout and composition. General characteristics The Ekaterina II-class ships were long at the waterline and long overall. They had a beam of and a draft of . They were significantly overweight and displaced at