Cruiser type "Chapaev." Part of 1. Design history

51

Cruiser "Kuibyshev", 1950

History The creation of the 68 cruisers is inextricably linked both with the evolution of Russian naval thought and with the growth of the industrial capabilities of the young USSR. To understand how their appearance and tactical-technical characteristics were formed, it is necessary to make at least a brief excursion into the history of Russian military shipbuilding.

The first Soviet shipbuilding programs, adopted in 1926, 1929 and 1933, were formed under the influence of the theory of the small sea war, which fully corresponded to the economic and shipbuilding capabilities of the Land of Soviets. The ships built before the revolution were being built, the battleships that were part of the RKKF were being modernized. However, the new construction was supposed to be limited to leaders, destroyers, submarines and other types of light ships, which in cooperation with aviation land-based were supposed to smash the enemy fleets that invaded the coastal waters of the USSR. It was assumed that light forces, capable of quickly concentrating at the right place and at the right time due to their high speed, would be able to deliver a combined strike in cooperation with aviation and ground artillery, i.e. at the same time attack the squadron of heavy enemy ships with diverse forces and thereby achieve success.

So that your own light forces do not "get stuck" in the destroyers and light cruisers of the enemy, the fleet it required a number of light cruisers capable of paving the way for their torpedo-bearing ships through the cover of an enemy squadron. Such cruisers had to be very fast for interaction with 37-40-node leaders such as Leningrad (project 1) and Angry (project 7) and possess sufficient firepower to quickly incapacitate enemy light cruisers. It was precisely such ships that the project 26 and 26 bis light cruisers considered by the author in the previous series of articles became.

However, back in 1931, I.V. Stalin at a meeting of the Defense Commission of the USSR SNK said:

“It is necessary to start building a large fleet from small ships. It is possible that in five years we will build battleships. ”


And, apparently, from those (or even earlier), he did not part with the dream of the ocean fleet. That is why in the spring of 1936 in the USSR the first program of “large marine shipbuilding” was developed, which included plans to create a powerful linear fleet. It must be said that this program was created in an atmosphere of strict (and not completely clear) secrecy: theorists of naval construction (such as M. A. Petrov) and the fleet command were not involved in its creation. In essence, all their participation in the development was reduced to a short meeting held by I.V. Stalin with the leadership of the UVMS and the commanders, in which Stalin asked questions:

“What kind of ships and with what weapons should be built? Which enemy will most likely have to meet these ships in a combat situation? ”


The answers of the commanders, of course, turned out to be completely different, otherwise it would have been difficult to expect: if the commander of the Pacific Fleet suggested concentrating on large ships (which were needed in his theater), the commander of the Black Sea Fleet wanted to build many torpedo boats along with cruisers and destroyers. Stalin's reaction was quite predictable: "You yourself do not know what you need."

But it should be noted that if the sailors did not know which ships they needed, they were eager to find out: by the beginning of 1936, the projects (of course, at the earliest stages - pre-sketch / sketch design) of three large artillery ships were worked out. Then it was assumed that RKKF would need two types of battleships: for closed and open sea theaters, therefore projects of battleships in 55 000 t (23 project “for TOF”) and 35 000 t (21 project “for KBF”) of standard displacement, and also heavy cruiser (project 22). Interestingly, the latter should have ultimatum, but still "cruising" characteristics - 18-19 thousand tons, 254-mm artillery of the main caliber and 130-mm universal guns, but the construction of small battleships in France ("Dunkirk") and in Germany (the Scharnhorst), our sailors were led astray. A heavy cruiser with 254-mm artillery would represent the top of the cruising “food pyramid” without turning into a battleship, but that is why he could not withstand the “Dunkirk” or “Scharnhorst”, which was extremely frustrating for the UVMS. As a result, the development task was almost immediately corrected: the cruiser displacement was allowed to be increased to 22 000 t and the installation of 250-mm, 280-mm and 305-mm artillery of the main caliber on it was worked out. Forced to orient the projected ships to a confrontation with small but battleships, both design teams, TsKBS-1 and KB-4, which carried out the preliminary elaboration of the heavy cruiser, went to 29 000 and 26 000 and standard displacement, respectively. Within these limits, the collectives obtained fairly high-speed (33 knots), moderately protected (up to 250 mm armor belts and up to 127 mm armored decks) ships with nine 305-mm guns in three towers. But they, of course, had already ceased to be heavy cruisers, representing small battleships or, perhaps, battle cruisers.

The program of “large marine shipbuilding” introduced its corrections into these views: although it was developed by Namorsi V.M. Orlov and his deputy, I.M. Ludry, but of course, the last word belonged to Joseph Vissarionovich. It is likely that precisely the cense of its development led to a number of frankly strange decisions in terms of the number and types of ships planned to be built and distributed to theaters. A total of 24 battleships were supposed to be built, including Type A 8 and Type B 16, Light Cruisers 20, 17 Leaders, 128 Destroyers, 90 Large, 164 Medium and 90 Small Submarines. At the same time, at the time of the formation of the “large marine shipbuilding” program I. Stalin considered it highly desirable for the USSR to enter into the system of international treaties, so it was decided to abandon further development of the battleship in 55 000 t, limiting it to ships in 35 000 t suitable for the "Washington" standard and becoming "type A battleships" of the new program.

Cruiser type "Chapaev." Part of 1. Design history


Accordingly, heavy cruisers were “reclassified” into “type B battleships”. On the one hand, it seems that such an approach fully corresponded to the wishes of the UVMS, who worked on the simultaneous construction of two types of battleships. But it should be noted that the “small” battleship UVMS with its 35 000 t displacement and 406-mm artillery of the main caliber was to be no less weak than any battleship of the world, and the “big” ship for the Pacific Ocean was created at all as the strongest battleship in the world . Now, instead, it was planned to create total 8 full-fledged battleships and as many 16 type B ships, which, possessing an 26-thousandth displacement and 305-mm main caliber, “hung” somewhere in the middle between a full-fledged battleship and a heavy cruiser. What tasks could they solve? Namorsi V.M. Orlov in the same 1936 wrote the following about them:

"The ship should be able to destroy all sorts of cruisers for many years, including Deutschland type ships (pocket battleships. Approx. Auth.)."


A little later, he put forward for them the requirement to fight battleships of the Scharnhorst type and Congo-class battlecruisers at favorable course angles and distances. However, in this form, the “battleship” part of the program raises many questions. In total in the world (if not to take into account exotic Spanish or Latin American dreadnoughts) there were only 12 relatively small battleships that could fight, and without much hope of success, the battleship type "B": 2 "Dunkirk", 4 "Julio Cesare, 2 Scharnhorst and Congo 4. Why was it necessary to "in response" build 16 own "twelve-inch" ships? Complete A-type battleships were supposed to have only 4 on the Black and Baltic seas - this would hardly be enough to withstand the fleet of any first-class maritime power. For example, by the time the Black Sea Four A-type battleships were commissioned, the Italian navy, which, as it was then thought, could easily enter the Black Sea with unfriendly targets, could have a much larger number of ships of this class. If initially UVMS for the Pacific Ocean intended the most powerful type of ships (battleship in 55 000 t), now there should not have been full-fledged battleships at all - only 6 ships of type “B”.

Thus, the implementation of the “large marine shipbuilding” program, although it was supposed to provide the Soviet Union with a mighty military fleet of 533 battleships in 1 million 307 thousand tons of total standard displacement, but did not ensure its domination in any of the four marine theaters. And this, in turn, meant that if the theory of the “small war” comes to an end, it is still too early to abandon the tactics of the combined strike. Even after the implementation of the 1936 shipbuilding program, the possibility of the appearance of enemy squadrons, which obviously surpass our fleet in the number of heavy ships, could not be excluded. In this case, the classic battle automatically led to defeat, and it remained to rely on the very same "strike with light forces in coastal areas."

The result was a bit strange: on the one hand, even after the adoption of the “large maritime shipbuilding” program, the cruisers of the 26 and 26-bis projects did not outlive themselves, because the tactical niche for their use remained. But, on the other hand, since it was now planned to create full-fledged squadrons in all four theaters (even for the Northern Fleet it was planned to build an 2 type B battleship), it became necessary to create a new type of light cruiser for the squadron service. And all these considerations found themselves in the 1936 shipbuilding program: from the 20 light cruisers destined for construction, the 15 should have been built according to the 26 project, and the remaining 5 - under the new escort squadron project that received the 28 number.

Thus, the UVMS leadership demanded, and the designers began to design the new cruiser, not because the 26 project turned out to be something wrong: actually, the creation of a new type of ship, which later became a light cruiser of the 68-K "Chapaev" project, began long before as a cruiser of the types "Kirov" or "Maxim Gorky" could demonstrate at least some flaws. But cruisers of the type "Kirov" were created in the framework of the paradigm of the "small sea war" and were not very suitable for escorting a squadron. Of course, speed never happens a lot, but for actions with their heavy ships, the 36 nodes of the 26 project looked redundant. But the additional speed nodes always come at the expense of some other elements, in the case of the 26 project - the refusal of the second command-distance point and so on. The task of the rapid elimination of light cruisers was no longer posed. Of course, it is nice to be able to quickly dismantle the enemy light cruiser on the frames and other parts of the hull set, but the main enemy of the “accompanying” cruiser was leaders and destroyers, and against them more rapid-fire artillery was needed than the 180-mm gun. In addition, the defense should be strengthened: while the “cruiser-raider” of the 26 project, with a concentrated or combined strike, had every opportunity to determine the distance of the battle and its course angle to the enemy, the light cruiser-defender should still be located between the attackers and their target, leaving the choice of battle / course angle to the enemy. Moreover, it should be assumed that if the light cruisers lead the attack of the enemy light forces, they will try to bind us with our battle, in this case it is important not to be distracted, but to destroy enemy destroyers without too much fear of 152-mm projectiles. And, besides, it is possible to break through the enemy leaders and destroyers on the “pistol” distances, from which their artillery, which has already grown to 138 mm (from the French), acquires significant armor penetration.


Counter Terminer "Le Terribl" and its 138-mm / 50 guns

In addition to protection and artillery, fuel reserves also required changes. The 26 project cruisers were built for operations in the restricted areas of the Black and Baltic Seas and should not have gone far from the coast in the Pacific Ocean, and therefore had a limited range: according to the project, sea miles with full (not maximum) fuel ( that in fact it will be somewhat higher, in 3, of course, they could not have known). At the same time, for the newest “A” type battleships, they planned to ensure the range in 000-1936 for miles and, of course, they could not accompany such ships of the 6000 cruiser.

Consequently, the domestic fleet needed a light cruiser of a different concept and another project. Thus began the history of the creation of the Chapaev-type cruisers, but before proceeding to its description, it is necessary to fully understand the question, how did it happen that the cruisers almost completely squeezed out the Kirov and Maxim Gorky-type ships from shipbuilding programs.

So, 26 June 1936, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution on the construction of the “Great Sea and Ocean Fleet”. But next year, 1937, this program has undergone significant adjustments. In the summer of 1937, the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs N.I. Yezhov announced:

"... the fascist conspiracy has a branch in the leadership of the Navy."


As a result, the “purge” of the Navy’s ranks began, with the creators of the “large marine shipbuilding” program, Namorsi V.M. Orlov and his deputy I.M. Ludry, were repressed. We will not, of course, try to bring a verdict to the 1937-38 purges, this is a topic for a separate large study, we confine ourselves to stating that the shipbuilding program 1936, created by "pests", simply had to undergo a review. And so it happened: in August 1937, the USSR government issued a decree on the recycling of the shipbuilding program.

Without evaluating the repressions, we must admit that the shipbuilding program only won from the revision initiated by them. The number of battleships was reduced from 24 to 20, but now they were full-fledged battleships: designing an A-type battleship showed that the combination of 406-mm artillery and protection against an 406-mm projectile at a speed around 30 nodes could not fit into 35 or in 45 thousand tons. At the beginning of 1937, it became known that Germany and Japan will continue to lay ships in the 50-52 thousand tons of displacement in the future. In response, the government allowed the standard displacement of the Type A battleship to 55 — 57 thousand tons. At the same time, the type B battleship had already exceeded 32 tons in the design process, but still did not meet the requirements of customers. nor the views of the designers, so this project was declared wrecking. As a result, the UVMS leadership decided to build ships of type "A" with 406-mm artillery and displacement in 57 thousand tons for the Pacific Ocean and type-B battleships with the same protection, but with 356-mm guns and significantly smaller sizes for other theaters . Theoretically (without taking into account the economic possibilities of the country), this approach was much preferable to the battleships in 35 and 26 thousand tons of the previous program. Moreover, it very quickly became clear that the battleship “B” in its size tends to approach the type A battleship, not possessing its effectiveness, which at the beginning of 1938 from type B battalions was finally abandoned in favor of the strongest ship type "A", which was to be built for all maritime theaters.

But the changes were not limited to battleships alone: ​​it was proposed to include in the shipbuilding program new class ships that were not in the old one, namely, the 2 aircraft carrier and the 10 heavy cruisers. Accordingly, the updated program had two fundamental differences, which put the final cross on the further construction of the cruisers of the 26 and 26-bis project:

1. The developers of this program believed that its implementation would allow RKKF to have parity with potential opponents in each maritime theater. Thus, the situation in which the task of confronting the enemy formations of heavy ships would be assigned solely to the light forces of the fleet was no longer predicted. Accordingly, the tactical niche of the 26 and 26-bis cruisers of the project should have disappeared.



2. The program envisaged the construction of not only "classic" light, but also ultimatum-powerful heavy cruisers, which were to become the strongest in its class. Their displacement was planned at the level of 18-19 thousand tons (by initial estimate), the main caliber - 254-mm artillery, the reservation was supposed to protect from 203-mm projectiles, and all this was to develop speed in 34 node. The capabilities of heavy and light cruisers completely covered the whole range of tasks that could be assigned to a cruiser-class ship, and there was no need for an additional type of ships.

Thus, the RKKF was to receive the classic light and very powerful heavy cruisers in sufficient quantities, and the need for an “intermediate” ship, such as the cruisers of the 26 project, was no longer necessary. According to the new program, they were supposed to build just 6 units (in fact, the laid ships of the 26 and 26-bis projects), and on this their construction should have been stopped. However, the question of resuming the construction of Maxim Gorky-type cruisers was supposed to return once more, after testing the first ship of the series, but this did not happen.

Subsequently, the heavy cruisers evolved into the 69 “Kronstadt” project, suspiciously similar to the “pest” type B battleship, but this is a completely different story. As for the light cruisers "escort squadron", the history of their creation began in late August 1936, when Namorsi V.M. Orlov formulated the tasks for this type of ships:

1. Intelligence and patrol.

2. Fight light enemy forces while escorting a squadron.

3. Support attacks of their destroyers, submarines and torpedo boats.

4. Operations on the sea communications of the enemy and raid operations on its coast and ports.

5. Mine setting active minefields in the waters of the enemy.

The UVMS management demanded to “pack” the new ship (which passed according to the documents as “the 28 project”) into the standard displacement 7 500 t, i.e slightly more than the “allowed” displacement of the cruiser “Kirov”, which was planned for that at the level of 7170 t. At the same time, the sailors “ordered” a completely enchanting range - 9-10 thousand nautical miles. Sketch design of the ship should have been conducted (in parallel) by the designers of TsKBS-1 and the Leningrad Design Institute.

The new ship was designed on the basis of the cruisers of the 26 Ave. The length of the hull "Kirov" increased by 10 meters, width - per meter, while the theoretical drawing is almost the same as that of the cruiser project 26. Several increased the armor of the sides, traverses and barbets - from 50 to 75 mm, and the front of the tower - even to 100 mm, but they reduced the vertical armor of the conning tower from 150 to 100 mm and left the 50-mm armor deck as it was. Of course, the main innovations touched the main caliber: 180-mm guns gave way to six-inch guns, instead of three three-gun turrets MK-3-180 they planned to install four three-guns, thereby bringing the number of barrels to twelve. At the same time, the ranged anti-aircraft caliber was preserved in its “original” form - six one-gun 100-mm B-34 units, located as well as on the Kirov cruiser. But according to the project, the new ship was finally to receive rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns, albeit in very modest quantities: two “nests” (46-K) with quad 37-mm installations, and only 8 trunks. Their placement is of interest: on the fore and aft superstructure, so that both “nests” could shoot on either side, and one each at the bow or stern of the ship. The number of machine gun installations remained the same as on the Kirov - four, but they had to become paired, which is why the total number of 12,7-mm trunks doubled from four to eight as compared with the 26 project. As for the torpedo and aircraft armament, it remained unchanged: two 533-mm three-tube torpedo tubes and two KOR-2 aircraft.


Estimated appearance of the 28 project cruiser

The power plant was supposed to completely duplicate the turbines and boilers designed for serial ships of the 26 project: the head Kirov received a power plant made in Italy, but other ships of this type had its upgraded version mastered by domestic production. With all the above “innovations”, the standard displacement of the cruiser was to reach 9 000 t, while the speed was hoped to remain at the level of 36 nodes, but the range, of course, turned out to be significantly lower than in the technical specification: instead of 9-10 thousand miles only 5,4 thousand miles

In general, it can be stated that the designers could not “put” the 28 cruiser into the original TK, and this was why its fate was in doubt. It is not known what decision the UVMC leadership would take, but then the 1937 just began the year ... The next stage in the creation of light Chapaev-type cruisers began after the sailors VM Orlov was removed from his post and arrested, and the program of the “large maritime shipbuilding industry” submitted to him was subjected to an audit in order to identify in it “wrecking” elements. Of course, the 28: 11 August 1937 cruiser at the meeting of the Defense Committee (CP) at the Council of People’s Commissars (SNK) of the USSR did not escape this fate, of course, was asked to work out the type of prospective light cruiser with different types of weapons, including nine 180 -mm, twelve, nine and six 152-mm guns, and also consider the feasibility of further building light cruisers of the 26-bis project instead of designing something new. Moreover, the revision of the TZ of the light cruiser was given only two days!

The “two days” did not meet, but on October 1, the 1937 of the Defense Committee adopted a decree on the design of the new ship, which had a number of significant differences from the 28 cruiser. The number of towers of the main caliber was reduced from four to three, so the cruiser had to get nine 152-mm guns. Six one-gun 100-mm guns were replaced by four tower "Sparky". The total number of 37-mm automaton stems increased from 8 to 12. The speed was allowed to decrease to 35 nodes, but the armor belt had to increase from 75 to 100 mm. The range was somewhat reduced: now the cruiser was required to pass the entire 4,5 thousand miles with the maximum fuel supply, but there was a slight nuance. Usually the range of the course was set for the full course and for the economic course - and with that, and with everything, everything is clear. If the full speed in this case represents the maximum speed of the ship, which he could maintain for a long time, then the economic stroke was the speed at which fuel consumption per mile of the way was minimal. However, the 4,5 range of thousands of miles was determined for a certain “cruising course” (it is often understood as such that it is economic speed, but apparently not in this case). The speed of economic progress for our cruisers was defined as 17-18 knots, but cruising for a new ship - for some reason 20 knots. The standard displacement was set in the same range as before: 8000 — 8300 t.

At the same time, the defense committee determined the following order of work for the cruiser: before October 5 of the current year, the leadership of the naval forces of the Red Army undertook to submit a tactical and technical assignment to the ship, on October 10 of the year the draft design was expected so that 1938 of August 31 could be laid new cruisers of this type. At the same time, a decision was made (presumably because of the danger of disrupting the work on the cruisers of the new project. Approx. Auth.) About laying the two cruisers of the 1938-bis project in the 26 year (the future Kalinin and Kaganovich).

Certainly, the Defense Committee took the characteristics of the new cruiser not from the ceiling, but at the proposals of the sailors. But still surprising is the fact that the defense committee approved (albeit partially) the performance characteristics of the ship for which there was no tactical and technical task!

However, already 29 October 1938, it was approved. The new head of the MS RKKA MV Viktorov set the following requirements for the new ship:

1. Actions in the squadron for the withdrawal of light forces in the attack.

2. Support ship patrol and intelligence.

3. Guarding the squadron from the attacks of the enemy light forces.

As you can see, the tasks of the new cruiser (soon his project was assigned the 68 number) were significantly reduced compared to the original TTT (tactical and technical requirements), on the basis of which the previous 28 project was developed. Interestingly, the ships of the 68 project were no longer intended to act on enemy communications: now the leadership of the Red Army MS saw them as a specialized cruiser for service during a squadron, and only.

As for the performance characteristics of the cruiser itself, they practically did not differ from those determined by the defense committee: all the same 3 * 3-152-mm guns and so on. The only innovation was only some refinement of anti-aircraft artillery. So, initially 100-mm guns were planned to be installed in installations BZ-14, similar to those intended for the battleships of the 23 project, but then it was decided that they were too heavy and would increase the displacement of the cruiser too much, which made the decision to design lightweight 100-mm installations. The composition of anti-aircraft guns was determined: twelve barrels were supposed to be placed in six paired installations. The standard displacement remained at the level of 8000 — 8300 t, the reservation of the sides and decks, respectively, 100 and 50 mm, but it provided a very powerful defense of artillery: the towers to 175 mm, and their barbets - 150 mm. It must be said that the sources available to the author do not indicate when exactly the decision was made to protect the artillery so strongly, so it cannot be ruled out that such defense figured it even in the decision of the defense committee until the appearance of the TTZ Viktorov.

The design of the new cruiser was entrusted to the chief designer of the 26 and 26-bis ships of the project AI Maslova (TsKB-17), obviously, it was the best choice of all. In March 1938, the draft was ready, but with two deviations from the original TTT. And if the reduction of the cruising range (4 500 miles not on cruising (20 nodes), but on the economic course (17 nodes) was acceptable, then the increase in the standard displacement to 9 450 t against the maximum allowed 8 300 t - no.

During the draft design of the light cruiser, the People's Commissariat of the Navy was created, which was to be responsible for the plans for building the USSR naval forces. It was there that the draft design of the new cruiser, but the deputy commander of the Navy, I.S., was sent for approval. Isakov considered that the project requires processing. The main complaint was that the cruiser project 68 was larger than their foreign "colleagues", but at the same time inferior to them in armament. Therefore, Isakov proposed two possible options for finalizing the project:

1. Installation of the fourth 152-mm tower, the weight was proposed to be compensated by reducing the thickness of the barbet booking and the conning tower (from 150 to 120 mm) and the frontal sheets of the main caliber towers (from 175 to 140 mm), reducing the economic range to 3 500 miles.

2. Leaving the main caliber 3 * 3-152-mm, but at the expense of other articles of the load to find the economy of weight in 1500 t. GEM leave the same - thus achieving a speed increase.

One and a half months later, TsKB-17 presented a revised draft of the cruiser. The 4 tower of the main caliber was added, the barbets thickness was reduced to 120 mm, the speed was reduced by half a node (to 34,5 knots), and the standard displacement increased to 10 000 tons. Isakov was completely satisfied, his only demand was to return the X-NUMX-mm thickness of the barbet. In this form, the project 150 was submitted to the Committee of Defense at SNK. The last at the 68 meeting in June 29 approved the 1938 project without changes, and at the same time it has already put an end to the plans for the construction of Maxim Gorky-type cruisers:

"Allow the NKOP to make the laying of two light cruisers of the 26-bis project at the Amur shipyard in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, after which the construction of ships of this type should be stopped."


It is noteworthy that this decision was made before the end of the tests of the lead ship of the 26 project - the light cruiser Kirov. The fact once again testifies that the termination of the construction of the 26 and 26-bis project cruisers occurred due to the change of the fleet construction concept, and not because of the discovery of some flaws revealed during the testing and / or operation process.

At the beginning of December, 1938 of TsKB-17 presented a technical design of 68: the displacement increased again (to 10 624), while the speed of travel was to make up the 33,5 of the node. This was the result of a more accurate calculation of weights: at the stage of preliminary design, the weight characteristics of many units supplied by contractors were not known, and, moreover, in some cases, the designers specified their own calculations.



The Naval Shipbuilding Directorate, having reviewed the submitted draft, rendered the following verdict:

“The technical design of the CRL was developed on the basis of the draft design and the approved assignment fairly fully and satisfactorily; it can be approved for the release of working documentation on it in order to ensure the construction of ships for this project. The displacement of the foreign fleets somewhat larger than that of the foreign fleets is mainly due to the high demands placed on them in terms of the quality of artillery weapons and reservations.

In addition, the project contains a number of qualities that are not measured by conventional indicators, such as the number and caliber of guns, booking thickness, speed, etc. (requirements for cellars, artillery shelling angles, chemical protection, communications, saturation with electrical equipment, etc.). This allows us to conclude that the KRL Ave 69 will certainly be stronger than all the KRL foreign fleets armed with 152-mm artillery, and will be able to successfully fight also with lightly armored heavy cruisers of the "Washington" type ".


How justified was he? Let's try to figure it out in the next article.

To be continued ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avt
    +8
    14 September 2016 15: 29
    Still, Andrei launched a new series! laughing And with the seed for the next monograph, well, judging by the review of the ship program of large ships. We look forward to continuing - the previous cycle about 26,26 bis is quite a good Cruisers 68, 68K, 68 bis krasautsy!. I found them alive -68K on the Neva, and 68 bis in Sevastopol. ,, Zhdanova "in the roadstead, but without one main battery tower, and one near the wall before cutting .... alas.
    1. +7
      14 September 2016 16: 00
      Quote: avt
      Still, Andrei launched a new series!

      Net :))) Presumably the next article should be the last. Maximum (if I still dare to describe the post-war period) - the penultimate :)))
      And the series - it will be about the battle on July 28, here I will sneak up on him from afar :)))
      Quote: avt
      Found them alive -68K on the Neva, and 68 bis in Sevastopol

      Iehhh ... I was only in Sevastopol and in my deep childhood either "Moscow" or "Leningrad" was honored to see - the impression of a 6-year-old boy for the rest of his life ...
      1. avt
        +1
        14 September 2016 16: 32
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I was only in Sevastopol and in my deep childhood, whether "Moscow", or "Leningrad" was honored to see

        Yeah, these were also inspired in the raid, I saw, I don’t remember anyone - I need to look for pictures with a number. And we, then still schoolchildren, had a tour of project 61.
      2. +2
        14 September 2016 18: 05
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Iehhh ... I was only in Sevastopol and in my deep childhood either "Moscow" or "Leningrad" was honored to see - the impression of a 6-year-old boy for the rest of his life ...

        And they let me go to the quay wall in the South Bay as a kid. There then a row of 61 "singers" stood, you could almost touch it with your hand. And on the other side of the bay near the Sevmorzavod there was a rusty PKR Moscow under repair, Leningrad - in the roadstead. And in the 91st year they even allowed to take a walk on the deck of the MPK 1124. Eh, there were times ...
        1. +2
          15 September 2016 09: 53
          Quote: Alex_59
          And they let me go to the quay wall in the South Bay as a kid. There then a row of 61 "singers" stood

          This wall, Aleksey, is called the Mine Wharf, and there were often two guardsmen of the Krasny Kavkaz and Krasny Krym armored vehicles.
          1. +4
            15 September 2016 20: 29
            Quote: Serg65
            This wall, Alexey, is called Mine Quay

            Yes, now I know, then of course I was not interested. And the names of the BOD would not tell me anything then, I was 5-10 years old. As far as I understand, just during this period you served there? And they brought me for the summer, to the uncle who served in the Black Sea Fleet aviation, Colonel. At first in Oktyabrsky, in the MPI, then at the Verkhovna Rada in Omega Bay. Uncle died in 2012, did not live a bit before Sevastopol returned home, is now buried beyond the 5 kilometer. Here. I’m sitting, missing Sevastopol, I hope I’ll go again next year. You need to go to uncle, say that now he is at home, in Russia.
            1. +3
              16 September 2016 10: 39
              Quote: Alex_59
              As far as I understand, just during this period you served there?

              In my opinion, in the mid-80s of the last century, the KChF was at the peak of its power, the quay walls were filled with ships. On the 1st barrel stood a handsome anti-ship missile "Leningrad", on the 2nd barrel along the KRU "Zhdanov" in the middle of the bay, on the 3rd (battleship) barrel the TAKRs were periodically changed, the beautiful "Slava" flew into the roadstead with a 20-key speed. ...... eeehhh what great times were !!!!!!!
              Quote: Alex_59
              Here. sitting, miss Sevastopol

              recourse the same feelings ....
      3. +1
        14 September 2016 20: 49
        I saw there, too, at the end of the 70s and "Moscow" and "Leningrad" and lived there in Sevastopol, I even saw the French destroyer, it was a thing ... and their sailors wandered around our shops in their berets with pom-poms, and tried buy something for francs ... just a full span, come on with a ruble ...
  2. +1
    14 September 2016 15: 43
    Thank you for taking on this topic. of course you can search on the Internet yourself, but for a long time the result is not so hot. at least you won’t get any pleasure. I admit that sometimes I do not agree with your conclusions, but nevertheless it is always interesting to know your point of view and how you justify it.
    1. +3
      14 September 2016 16: 06
      Quote: Andy
      Thank you for taking on this topic.

      You're welcome!
      Quote: Andy
      I admit that sometimes I do not agree with your conclusions

      So this is normal :)))
      Quote: Andy
      nevertheless, it is always interesting to know your point of view and how do you justify it.

      Thank! I try to provide the readers with the maximum amount of factology so that everyone can form a SUBSTANTIAL point of view on the issue raised. And if such a point of view does not coincide with mine - there are no problems :)))
      1. +1
        14 September 2016 21: 26
        Andrey - special thanks for parsing 68 hi
        It is to this series that I am especially partial - WONDERFUL SHIPS HAVE LEAVED, it's a pity, like DeMoin, Chapaev was late with time ... but the ships left excellent.
  3. +11
    14 September 2016 16: 46
    Andrey, you console me as always ... And then I open VO and here Kaptsov again with battleships ... and an armored guard. (By the way, he seems sincerely convinced that no one except him writes anything useful about ships ... ;-)).

    One thing is not clear when you are in time, I don’t always have time to read ... But I will always read yours, because in a case with good (often little-known) factology and most importantly systemically ... It is very nice to read. Yes, and to argue on the case, there is often something ... So bardzo dziękuję
    1. +2
      14 September 2016 18: 10
      Quote: Taoist
      One thing is not clear when you are in time, I don’t always have time to read ... But I will always read yours, because in a case with good (often little-known) factology and most importantly systemically ... It is very nice to read.

      Gold words! A quiet harbor on VO for thinkers about the affairs of our sea, even though I am a complete land explorer.
    2. 0
      14 September 2016 20: 50
      Wahahaha

      complained ran, eka contusilo
      Quote: Taoist
      Yes, and argue the case is often about what ...

      Only you do not know how to do it. As in this case, another meaningless comment with a complaint on Kaptsov and a phrase on many incomprehensible, incl. and me, language
    3. 0
      14 September 2016 20: 54
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, he seems sincerely convinced that no one but him writes anything useful about the ships ...

      How to know. I never said anything like that
      1. +6
        14 September 2016 21: 51
        "Anyone who checked in here can write something sensible about ships?" (c) O. Kaptsov

        wassat

        Well, as for "complaining", you overestimate yourself as usual ... For more than once smart people have already told you "If you don't see the point (you don't understand the language), then this does not mean that everyone around is the same ..."
        And I'm not ready to discuss "religious doctrines" with you, I'm an engineer, not a scholastic.
        1. +1
          15 September 2016 08: 39
          Taoist falls lower
          Quote: Taoist
          "Anyone who checked in here can write something sensible about ships?" (c) O. Kaptso

          And what scared to bring the full text of the comment

          In the comments annoying frequent mention of the names of the author. Most of the comments - slag, in the style of the author is wrong, put the cons, aee, the collapse of consciousness

          Anyone from the noted here can write something sensible about the ships? Facts, interesting figures, some illustrations proving the rightness of one or another side. Why score comments empty flood?


          And you, the Taoist - from these very people who leave 90% of empty meaningless comments - with childish threats to "put a minus" and becoming personal
          1. +4
            15 September 2016 08: 49
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And you, Taoist - from these same people who leave 90% of empty meaningless comments

            You have already left three such meaningless empty comments in the topic about the ships of the 68-K project, if that smile
            1. 0
              15 September 2016 09: 12
              I have 90% in the case, 10% - banter, this is normal
              and try again tell me what is wrong
              remember even our disputes - from dozens of interesting comments

              First, look at the first comment in the thread and understand everything. I did not remember about myself
              1. +2
                15 September 2016 09: 41
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                I have 90% in the case, 10% - banter, this is normal

                Willingly I believe that the way it is.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                remember even our disputes - from dozens of interesting comments

                Yes, you generally need to erect a monument to me, without me and a couple more people in VO, you would have died of boredom. But the fact that 90% of your opuses are slag comments is to blame, write better, without errors. And how does he take you seriously, after you write with the confidence of an expert that the Sd.Kfz.251 is the 251st armored vehicle of the Foshists? How so, huh? Well, you don't know, don't write, or write "I suppose that ..."
                1. +1
                  15 September 2016 10: 06
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Sd.Kfz.251 - this is 251-I for the account of the fascist armored vehicle?

                  Still say that the continuous numbering of the Arms Administration was conducted from the bald))
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  How serious is you?

                  how can you, who devoted a whole article to calculating the density of the hull in the underwater part

                  They then snarled at all questions for a long time, answering that for this, 5 had to study at institutes for years. Surrealism and absurdity, worse than Bosch
                  1. +2
                    15 September 2016 10: 50
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    how can you, who devoted a whole article to calculating the density of the hull in the underwater part

                    And I asked myself to be serious and write 90% of comments on the case? I'm not worried about this. And secondly, I immediately admitted my mistake, I agree, I wrote crap, I blunted it. It happened, and Einstein was dumb, probably, well, what can we do, we are all human. smile
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Then he snapped back all questions for a long time, answering that for this it took 5 years to study at institutes.

                    You are lying, I didn’t make a mistake, I immediately admitted that I was mistaken. And did not argue about this.

                    And generally enough offtop to breed. About the foshists with numbering - in PM.
                    1. 0
                      20 September 2016 10: 21
                      What a long skirmish you have .. I quit reading at its beginning ....
    4. +1
      14 September 2016 22: 07
      Quote: Taoist
      And then I open VO and here Kaptsov again with battleships.

      And what? Also a topic :))) Perhaps I’ll write an article at the end of 68-k :)))
      Quote: Taoist
      One thing is not clear when you have time, but I don’t always have time to read ..

      Here, alas, everything is very simple. Some time ago, your humble servant joined the army of the unemployed in the Russian Federation. Dembel has not yet come out, so I ...
      Quote: Taoist
      Very nice to read. Yes, and argue the case is often something ...

      Thank you! drinks
      1. +4
        15 September 2016 17: 56
        I don’t know how many cadets of the Naval Schools completed their first practice on cruisers of projects 68-K and 68-bis. I did an internship at the Nevsky in the anti-aircraft division. At that time, the cruiser was commanded by Captain 2nd Rank Shurygin, the future commander of the Kuznetsov, and then the head of the personnel department of the Navy, Vice Admiral. It was he who saved the aircraft carrier for Russia.
  4. +2
    14 September 2016 17: 51
    Andrew!!!! Well, why are you jumping from topic to topic? I look forward to continuing the cycle about the battle in the Yellow Sea, and here another tasty topic pops up from you ... Do not spray your strength. Maybe it's better to finish off one thing. And let's be honest !!! What a reef that the USSR Fleet could not build unified ships !!! What is in Poltava-class EDB RIF? What is Orlanov class in the USSR is very different from each other?
    1. +2
      14 September 2016 21: 41
      And we always had strong unique patterns and problems with a large series ... for fine-tuning with a rasp ... ;-)
    2. +1
      14 September 2016 22: 10
      Quote: Nehist
      Andrew!!!! Well, why are you jumping from topic to topic?

      Nothing, I will conduct them in parallel, like the previous ones - an overview of the current state of the Navy and the cruiser, etc. 26 :)))
      Quote: Nehist
      And let's be honest !!! What a reef that the USSR Fleet could not build unified ships !!!

      Well, the 956 and 1134A and 1155 series, perhaps, will not agree with you :)
  5. +2
    14 September 2016 18: 11
    Plus good It is always interesting and informative to read an adequate author. And if many monographs look like small novels, then you, the namesake, manage to compose the articles so that it is completely readable for the site format and is completely analytical and objective. We look forward to continuing smile hi
    1. +3
      14 September 2016 22: 11
      Thank! We are trying :))) And the continuation will not rust :)
  6. +1
    14 September 2016 20: 50
    Interesting. During my school years I came across a book in the library, EMNIP, "Constructors of battleships", there was about the design of patrol boats of the "bad weather battalion", about the leaders, about the project 68, and, EMNIP, about the "kronstadts" and "unions". But, however, the tendencies here are more pompous ...
    PS: and of the classmates of pr. 68, in fact, only British cruisers like "Fiji" and American ones like "Cleveland" can be considered ...
  7. +3
    14 September 2016 20: 52
    Here it is always useful to read specialist materials.
    Although reading a heavyweight comes out ... well, I estimate so, by 57 thousand tons. Apart from the MZA and turbo gear units, wassat
    Although I had already seen enough of ships and steamers in front of my North, the silhouette of "A. Nevsky" on the roadstead of Severomorsk immediately awakened some deep, unconscious involvement in the naval sea. It is to the military.
    You look at this type of classic artillery cruiser, and as if all the ancestors before you, standing on the decks of caravels, galleons and barks, awaken in the soul.
    And then you serve, on the project 50 ... in appearance, well, one on one with the project 7U .... and again - deja vu.
    ...
    Honestly, even the stunning dimensions and contours of "Peter the Great", although they inspired panicky respect, did not awaken such romance in their souls like 68Bis.
    ...
    One request, Andrew.
    If possible, dispense with such a detailed analysis of many engineering problems and their solutions. It would be quite enough - ... from the enumeration of options we stopped at this ... because ....
    It was a long time ago, we can no longer understand the subtleties, and to load already ... ossified brains by the intricacies of shipbuilders and theoreticians - we can also skip the more substantial. To throw out a child, so to speak.
    ...
    I look forward to continuing. With enthusiasm.
    1. +3
      14 September 2016 21: 40
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      If possible, dispense with such a detailed analysis of many engineering problems and their solutions.


      I don’t agree ... this is the very tsimus ... The devil is known in detail ... I’m here as a techie who is interested in the very course of design thought, especially since what we now consider to be self-evident then didn’t seem at all like that ...
      1. 0
        14 September 2016 21: 44
        To me, as a techie, it also seemed strange how it was possible to lay on two similar bodies with DIFFERENT weapons.
        This is truly a mystery.
        But, the solution to this riddle is of interest, in my opinion, only to historians.
        But not for me. Now.
        And not for designers NOW. For some reason, I’m sure of that.
        Like a techie.
        ...
        Regards, Alexey.
        1. 0
          14 September 2016 21: 59
          Well, here we are just discussing the history of technology ... For example, here too many things are incomprehensible to me - but I want to understand ... but how do you understand if you don’t get into all these matters in detail?
          1. 0
            14 September 2016 22: 22
            I get it now.
            Only, I already understand .... somehow I don’t really want to.
            Life is not that it was in vain ..... a grandson is growing ... who will have to transfer his worldview ... Russian-German ... worldview and mentality.
            and he really wants this little man to know both Russia and Germany .... and equally love them.
            "How the Motherland is loved. How the Motherland is protected .... Kharlamov !!!!"
        2. 0
          15 September 2016 01: 13
          Quote: Bashibuzuk
          To me, as a techie, it also seemed strange how it was possible to lay on two similar bodies with DIFFERENT weapons.

          Well, how do you like the nuclear submarines 658, 659 and 675 projects created on the basis of the strong hull and mechanisms of the nuclear submarine 627 project? Or Novik destroyers from different factories?
    2. 0
      15 September 2016 22: 05
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Here it is always useful to read specialist materials.

      Thank you very much, but you flatter me - I'm just an amateur :) hi
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      One request, Andrew.
      If possible, dispense with such a detailed analysis of many engineering problems and their solutions.

      I always try to take into account the wishes of readers, but, unfortunately, I can’t do this. The fact is that for me the work on the article is somewhat secondary - I study the issue, filling in the gaps in my own knowledge, and then I just write about what I found so that people with similar interests can not shovel literature in searches the rivets you need :))) It turns out a very specific reading, but writing in another way is simply not interesting to me, but why then write at all?
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      I look forward to continuing.

      I will try not to disappoint! drinks
  8. +4
    14 September 2016 21: 26
    68 bis "Mikhail Kutuzov" is at the pier in Novorossiysk.

    Will you pass by - I advise you to go on an excursion, of course, the condition is not very good, but the spirit of history remains)))
  9. +1
    14 September 2016 22: 18
    Andrey, your articles are interesting and informative!
    Thank you!
    We look forward to continuing. hi
  10. +7
    14 September 2016 22: 50
    Andrey, you just pull this resource. Require royalties. In addition to you and Bongo, there is almost nobody to read, while you manage to write faster than I read :)
    Essentially: I have not read the article yet, but I approve :))
  11. +2
    15 September 2016 04: 04
    Thanks for starting a new cycle! We look forward to continuing.
  12. +5
    15 September 2016 10: 25
    hi Hello Andrey! As far as I remember, the "Chkalov" cruiser was initially designated as 68-I (foreign). The history of replacing the B-34 with the SM-2 is quite interesting. The origin of the letter "I" was the eternal Russian-Soviet-Russian problem associated with gunsmiths. When the leadership of the fleet and the government realized that the gunsmiths did not have time, within the framework of the 1939 Treaty on Friendship and Border with Germany, the USSR concluded a trade agreement. According to it, the German side expressed its readiness in exchange for raw materials to supply weapons for Soviet surface ships, including artillery turret mounts of calibers 380, 150, 105 mm. and PUS to them. However, the USSR bought only blueprints, as a result of the processing of the blueprints, the SM-2 appeared.
    Here is the second in series 68 cruiser "Chkalov" (since 1958 "Komsomolets")
  13. 0
    15 September 2016 17: 44
    [quoteAnd, apparently, from those (or even earlier) times, he did not part with the dream of the ocean fleet.] [/ quote]

    I think you're wrong. The fact is that with the adoption of the first program for the construction of the fleet, the young school took over, the construction debate went on in 1928-1929. Later, the old school recouped, and a program for building not an ocean fleet, but a linear fleet with the possibility of using it at distant frontiers appeared.
    The role of I.V. Stalin when making this decision was not very great.
  14. +3
    16 September 2016 09: 53
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    Against this background - trash training ship.

    There were a couple of interesting projects on the basis of 68-bis. I'm talking about pr. 70 with air defense systems and etc. 67 with anti-ship missiles. Moreover, the projects were just that time, as "Tiger" entered the Royal Navy. What they didn't do is a separate song, but the idea itself was not bad ...
  15. exo
    +2
    16 September 2016 10: 53
    Thank you Andrey! Articles of this level, on the resources, a little. I look forward to continuing :)))
    Brother, during his studies at VVMUPP, did an internship at "Murmansk"
  16. +1
    16 September 2016 22: 08
    Good article. And about the "illegally" repressed designers of warships I want to add, although this is not on the topic. In S. Balakin's book "Legendary Sevens", M, 2007 on page 114, the following is said about the projects of destroyers 7 and 7y: In November 1941, it was discovered that the holes in the flora of the fuel tanks were located not at the bottom, but higher due to mistakes of designers, as a result of which 20 tons of fuel accumulated at the bottom, which the pumps could not pick up. The already not too large supply of fuel has also decreased.
  17. +1
    17 September 2016 22: 13
    Many thanks to the author!
    And the article came out suitable and the facts are present.
    Separately, Mercier - for nostalgia: a full pennant bay on the barrels and I (in a small sail, sailor suit and in a real guise - held by my father's messenger), on my father’s shoulders ...
    Dad and uncle - in the "parade", with daggers and me "walk" along Grafskaya ...
    I won't even say anything about the power of the squadron, I should have seen the eyes of the women who accompanied the three of us with a "wet" look ...
    Eh ...
  18. 0
    18 September 2016 11: 19
    Thanks Andrew for the article, I look forward to continuing. I was in Novorossiysk I saw the handsome Kutuzov. I hope today they removed the rust and painted, otherwise it would be bitter to watch, even clean and paint yourself.
  19. 0
    29 October 2016 21: 52
    One question for the author of the article ... how many fighting !!! ships sank RKKF during WWII ???))
  20. 0
    3 October 2020 07: 33
    Cool. Well, about what, but about the ships, you describe it interestingly - even from the AltHistori website I liked your work.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"