each broadside. The ship also could carry 50 mines. Armour The ship's armour scheme was based on that of Navarin although it used nickel steel rather than the compound armour of the older ship. The maximum thickness of the waterline armour belt was over the machinery spaces which reduced to 12 inches abreast the magazines. It covered of the ship's length and was high. It tapered to a thickness of at the bottom edge. The upper of the belt was intended to be above the waterline, but the ship was significantly overweight and the entire belt was submerged at normal load. The belt terminated in and transverse bulkheads, fore and aft, respectively. The casemate was above the belt, thick on all sides, long and high, and protected the six-inch guns. The sides of the turrets were thick and their roofs were thick. Above the casemate, the bases of the turrets were protected by 10 inches of armour; inside the casemate, only five inches of armour protected them. The conning tower's sides were nine inches thick. The armour deck connected to the top of the waterline belt and was 2.5 inches thick above the belt, but fore and aft of the belt it was thick. Construction The MTK rushed Gangut No. 2 into production and, contrary to established practice, ordered structural steel and armour before the project was properly authorized. Construction began on , 1891 in the wooden shed of the Franco-Russian Works in Saint Petersburg. On she was officially named Sissoi Veliky to commemorate the victory in the Battle of Hogland which coincided with the day of St. Sisoes the Great of Egypt in the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar. The ship was formally laid down on , 1892. The management of the construction was flawed from the start: the stem and sternposts, rudder frame, and propeller shaft brackets were not ordered in time, and the late discovery of this omission substantially delayed progress. Verkhovsky, having no time to place orders with reliable foreign suppliers, contracted the job to local plants already known for poor discipline and quality that were already loaded down with other Navy jobs. The industrial capacity of the Saint Petersburg area could not sustain even the modest rate of naval rearmament that the government was willing to finance. In April 1893 minor grievances evolved in a full-scale conflict between Verkhovsky and the board of the Alexandrovsky Steel