Military Review

Superman of the Land of Soviets: a large cruiser of the "X" project

66
In this article, we will consider the features of the Soviet naval and design ideas of the middle of the 1930-s on the example of the development of a large cruiser project "X"


It is well known that in the first half of 30-s, the leadership of the Red Army Naval Forces was forced to be content with the theories of a small naval war, within which it was not necessary to rely on more than light cruisers. But the country's success in industrialization gave hope for the creation of heavier ships, and therefore in the period 1934-1935. The Naval Forces Administration approved the creation of initiative projects for heavy ships.

In March, when our military-industrial complex was preparing for the laying of the first Soviet cruisers of the 1935 project, in the TsKBS-26 under the guidance of the chief of the corps department, A.I. Maslov and responsible executive design work V.P. Rimsky-Korsakov presented drawings with an explanatory note and a model of the big cruiser of the “Project X”. What was this ship?

His tasks included:

1) Autonomous offshore operations

2) Actions against enemy shores

3) Support light forces away from their bases

Immediately I would like to note the fundamental differences from the tasks set for the cruisers of Project 26 Kirov. The latter were created primarily for a combined (concentrated) strike, that is, for actions against superior enemy forces fleetbut the interruption of enemy communications was not at all given them priority, except in the form of ensuring the actions of submarines. At the same time, “Project X” marked a return to the classical theory of cruising in communications: however, the large cruiser was not an ordinary raider, since in addition to cruising operations, it was entrusted with the task of acting against the coast.


Big cruiser project "X"


It was assumed that the main opponent for the big cruiser of the project “X” would be the “Washington” cruisers, that is, the ships with a standard displacement in 10 000 and armed with 203-mm artillery. Accordingly, the "project" X "" was created so that these cruisers would become for him a "legitimate game." For this, the offensive and defensive capabilities of the large cruiser were balanced so that it had a free maneuvering zone (i.e., the gap between the minimum and maximum distance to the enemy, in which enemy projectiles penetrate neither the onboard nor deck armor of our ship) not less than 30 cables while the enemy cruisers would not have such a zone at all.

Main caliber artillery

Our designers rightly thought that it was impossible to create a balanced ship in the "ten thousandth" displacement, and that the "Washington" cruisers would have weak protection. Therefore, it was assumed that for confident and defeat at all distances it would be enough 220-mm or 225-mm artillery. But it was necessary to take into account that as long as the big cruiser “Project X” was being built, changes in international treaties and the appearance of cruisers with enhanced armor could be possible. Therefore, "for growth" took caliber 240-mm.

As for the number of such guns, then according to the author of this article, to ensure superiority over any “Washingtonian”, it would be enough to have 8-9 of such guns, but the designers proposed 12. The answer, obviously, lies in the fact that the creators of the “Project X” considered the presence of “pocket battleships” in Germany with 280-mm artillery. It was not possible to provide protection against their shells on a ship of reasonable (for a cruiser) displacement, therefore the battle of the big cruiser of the project “X” and the “pocket battleship” would be a battle of the “eggshell armed with hammers”. In the duel situation, none of these ships had free maneuvering zones. Consequently, it was necessary to supply the large cruiser with the maximum of firepower, and the ability to target at the enemy as quickly as possible. A dozen trunks of the main gauge ensured all this in the best possible way, including due to the possibility of shooting with a “double ledge”, i.e. give three four-gun salvo with small intervals in time and distance, waiting for the fall of the shells of the first salvo. Therefore, twelve 240-mm guns, in general, redundant against the "Washington" cruisers, can be considered quite adequate weapons.

The following characteristics of the future 240-mm artillery system were assumed:

Barrel Length - 60 caliber
Projectile / charge weight - 235 / 100 kg
The initial velocity of the projectile - 940 m / s
Rate of fire at an elevation angle of 10 hail - 5 rds / min.
Vertical guidance angles - from -5 to + 60 degrees
Ammo - 110 shots / barrel
Mass of the tower with armor - 584 t
Ball Diameter - 7 100 mm

Each gun was placed in a separate cradle. The design of the tower installation was made by the engineer of the design bureau of the Leningrad Metal Plant (the famous LMZ) R.N. Wulf

Flak

A very progressive decision was made to equip the big cruiser of the “Project X” with universal anti-aircraft artillery. Back in 1929, the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Office of the Navy conducted work on this topic, on the basis of which the weapon of caliber 130-mm was considered optimal. It was decided to put on the cruiser twelve such guns in six two-gun towers, three from each side. Other anti-aircraft weapons consisted of six 45-mm 21-K semi-automatic cannons and four 12,7-mm machine guns.



OMS

Fire control was supposed to be carried out with the help of four command-range posts (KDP), two for the main and universal caliber, the data of which could be processed in two central posts (fore and aft) and one located at the MPUAZ aft.

Torpedo and mine weapons

The designers of the large cruiser believed that in the conditions of increased artillery combat distances, heavy ships would not converge to a distance that would allow the use of torpedoes weapon. Therefore, the "project" X "" equipped with only two three-tube 533-mm torpedo tubes. Mines were not part of the cruiser’s standard armament, but the large cruiser could take an overload to 100 mines.

Other weapons

The real highlight of the "project" X ", distinguishing it from many other cruisers in the world. In part aviation the developers proceeded from the need for constant air watch at least one seaplane in the daytime. In their opinion, the seaplane, in addition to reconnaissance, could correct the cruiser’s artillery fire at maximum distances, as well as participate in repelling air attacks.

In order to ensure the requirement of constant duty, it was necessary to equip the cruiser 9 (NINTH) with seaplanes, of which eight were located in the hangar inside the hull, and the ninth - on the only catapult of the ship. But, as if this was not enough, there was a place on the upper deck for another two or three aircraft, that is, the total number of the air group could reach twelve cars!



The project offered an unusual but very ingenious system for lifting seaplanes: with the help of a feed apron. The latter was a large tent, lowered from a cruiser into the water and towed directly behind the ship or next to it, depending on the design. The seaplane that had landed on the water had to “go out” on the lowered “apron” - thus, the speeds of the aircraft and the cruiser were equalized, and then the seaplane was lifted by an ordinary crane. All this, in theory, should have allowed the big cruiser to lift seaplanes on board, without reducing the course.

However, the numerous air group is not everything, because besides the planes, the big cruiser of the “Project X” had to be completed with two submarines! More precisely, these were submersible torpedo boats developed at TsKBS-1 under the leadership of Brzezinski V.L. in 1934-1935 Two options were proposed: "Flea-1" had a surface displacement of 52 t, underwater - 92 t; "Flea-2" - respectively 35,3 and 74 t.

The speed of both “Fleas” should have been 30-35 nodes in the surface and 4 nodes - in the submerged position. Data about the range of the course is extremely contradictory. So, for “Fleas-2” it is indicated that she could go at full speed for one hour (i.e. at 35 speed of knots, go 35 miles), but right there she had a range of surface speed with full speed - 110 miles. Submerged full speed range - 11 miles; 7,5 nodes speed (??? obvious typo, maybe - 1,5 node?) - 25 miles.

Armament - 2 450-mm torpedoes and one 12-, 7-mm machine gun, crew - 3 man, autonomy - no more than 3-5 days.

The author of this article could not find the images “Fleas-1” and “Fleas-2”, there is only the appearance of the launching device of these boats.



The designers didn’t decide where exactly the submarines should be placed, two options were offered - in the stern (on the automatic release devices presented above) or in the middle of the hull along with the boats

Superman of the Land of Soviets: a large cruiser of the "X" project

There is also the appearance of "Fleas-400"

But this ship, being the ideological heir of the “Bloch” for the big cruiser of the project “X”, was developed later, in 1939 by all the same Brzezinski VL, but ... no longer in TsKBS-1, but in OSTEHBYURO NKVD.

Reservation

As mentioned above, the reservation was supposed to provide a zone of free maneuvering in 30 cables against any “203-mm” cruiser. The basis for the calculations was adopted 203-mm British gun, because the developers considered it the best in the world at that time. According to the armor penetration formulas, to ensure the required level of protection, 115 mm vertical and 75 mm horizontal armor were sufficient. Accordingly, the cruiser was to receive a citadel from 115 mm of armor belt and traverses, on the upper edges of which an 75 mm mm armored formwork was placed. The citadel protected the engine and boiler rooms, as well as the cellars of the main caliber. In addition, some additional protection provided a large thickness of the sides and upper deck above the citadel - 25 mm.

The front plate of the towers of the main caliber should have been 150 mm, the side walls - 100 mm, the roof - 75 mm, barbety - 115 mm. Universal caliber towers and barbettes were defended with 50 mm armor.

The cruiser had two armored felling, and their upper tier had walls 152 mm, lower tiers - 75 mm, roof -100 mm



Power plant

Of course, it was proposed to equip the large cruiser with the most advanced, as it seemed, power plant. At this time, the Soviet fleet became interested in the idea of ​​steam-turbine installations with high steam parameters. In 1935, the destroyer Experienced was laid (as an experimental ship). His power plant in size and mass should be the same as that used on the destroyers of the project 7, but at the same time exceed its power by 45%. It was assumed that with such an ES a new destroyer would develop an 43 node

The grounds for optimism seemed to be. Experiments in this area were conducted by the American firm General Electric, the Italian Ansaldo, and others. In England, the Thornycroft built the destroyer Acheron with an experimental power plant in 1930. "Passionate" direct-flow boilers and Germany. Something similar was supposed for the big cruiser of the “Project X” - the power of its power plant was to make phenomenal 210 HP, with which the ship’s speed reached 000 nodes.

It was assumed that direct-flow boilers will provide phenomenal economic speed - 25 nodes, but the range is known only that at full speed it had to be 900 miles. Obviously, it would have been much more economical.

Despite the presence of a single pipe, the cruiser provided for the echelon arrangement of mechanisms operating on two propellers.



Housing

As is known, “length runs” - the longer the body, the easier it is to provide it with high speed. The length of the big cruiser “Project X” was 233,6 m, width - 22,3 m., Draft - 6,6 m. The ship’s standard displacement was to be 15 518 t. The weight of the cruiser is given in the Appendix.

What can you say about the project "X"? Alas, the enumeration of its shortcomings will take almost more space than the description of the ship itself.

The main caliber of a large cruiser with its 235 kg projectile with an initial speed of 940 m / s is obviously resurfaced. Let us not recall the 240-mm guns of the French battleships of the Danton type (220 kg and 800 m / s) - this is still a development of the beginning of the century, but installed on the Finnish coastal defense battleships 254-mm / 45 of the Befors gun of the 1929 g model fired 225 kg projectile with an initial speed of 850 m / s.

The maximum angle of the vertical pickup was supposed to be as much as 60 hail, but why are 240-mm guns? Not the planes of them were going to shoot, and in this case (walking for a walk!), An elevation angle of at least 75 degrees would be required. The only reasonable reason for such a request could be the desire to ensure the possibility of hanging fire on shore objects. But such angles of vertical alignment made the tower extremely complicated, so the game was not worth the candle.

Of course, 12 130-mm universal-caliber shafts were quite appropriate on a heavy ship, but other anti-aircraft artillery was provided for in an amount corresponding to the light cruiser “Kirov” - and even for him it was clearly insufficient, and only for a large cruiser, to which the standard “Washington "should have been on one tooth - and even more so.

But the torpedo armament raises no objections. Of course, all those interested in marine stories The successes of the Japanese cruisers armed with long-range torpedoes are memorable, but you need to understand that they needed numerous torpedo weapons to accomplish the main tactical task — the destruction of large enemy ships in night battles. But for the Soviet big cruiser such a task has never been set. He had to realize his advantage over the "Washington" cruisers in a day-to-day artillery battle, and there was no point in risking a heavy ship in night battles. Of course, the ships do not always fight in the tactical situations for which they were intended, but in such a case the two three-pipe torpedo tubes looked like quite reasonable minimums. Their increase, in turn, would entail additional risks in artillery combat, in which just a good hit could lead to the detonation of torpedoes and severe damage, if not even the death of the ship.

And besides, torpedoes for a raider are useful in a situation where, for whatever reason, it is urgently necessary to sink a large enemy vehicle.

Aircraft armament in the 9-12 aircraft seemed like an ingenious solution to the problem of day reconnaissance, but in fact would have resulted in endless take-off and landing operations, and would only constrain the cruiser. And this is not to mention the danger that the hangar and storehouses (or the fuel supply system) located outside the citadel would be exposed to in artillery fighting. It is also obvious that it is impossible to use seaplanes for air defense - in terms of their flying qualities they very much lost to both ground and deck aircraft.

The tactics of using submarines are completely incomprehensible - given their meager range of travel and autonomy, the big cruiser would have to take a lot of risk, bringing them to the object of attack, and then waiting for the operation to end so that they could be taken aboard. At the same time, a dozen 240-mm guns when attacking an enemy port would have given far greater effect than four 450-mm torpedoes in side torpedo tubes, which could only be fired at point-blank, and even in this case, having “excellent” chances to miss. In addition, the raid on the enemy base does not require a long stay of the cruiser in its area.

Booking does not cause any complaints, except for the length of the citadel, which was less than 50% of the length of the ship and therefore hardly capable of ensuring its unsinkability at an acceptable level. Thus, in the light cruiser Kirov, the length of the citadel was 64,5% of the length of the ship.

In addition, there are some doubts about the adequacy of 115 mm side armor against 203-mm armor-piercing shells. Designers of the big cruiser of the project "X" focused on the characteristics of the British eight-inch gun, assuming that by the middle of the 30-s it is the best in the world.

In fact, this is not true - the English 203-mm / 50 artillery system Mark VIII mod 1923 g fired 116,1 kg shells with an initial speed 855 m / s and was not at that time the most powerful, but rather, was a strong medium. For example, the French 203-mm / 50 model 1924 g shot 123,1 kg with a projectile with an initial speed 850 m / s, the Italian 203-mm / 53 model 1927 g - 125 kg with a projectile at a speed 900 m / sec, and the newly created German 203- m / 60 SK C / 34 sample 1934 g - 122 kg projectile with an initial speed 925 m / s.

Thus, we see another mistake, but, by and large, this is not a question for the designers of the big cruiser “X”, but for those who provided them with information on the performance characteristics of foreign weapons. Again, today we have at our disposal actual TTX of naval tools of that time, but does this mean that our designers also had them in 1935 r? Or maybe they thought the British gun was more powerful than it actually was? Unfortunately, the author of this article has no answer to this question.

The power plant of the “X project” looks extremely strange. Of course, speed is one of the most important indicators of a warship of those years, but why try to bring it to the 38 nodes? But ... as you know, in those years, the USSR worked very closely with Italy in terms of naval armaments and, of course, was aware of the results of sea trials of Italian heavy cruisers. In 1930, Trieste developed 35,6 bonds, a year earlier, Trento had 35,7, and in 1932, Bolzano showed enchanting 36,81 ties!

It is also impossible to completely exclude that in the USSR somehow obtained data on Japanese heavy cruisers: in 1928 g, ships of the Myoko type showed from 35,25 to 35,6 bonds, and in 1932, Takao showed approximately the same amount. Against this background, the task in 38 bonds for the Soviet big cruiser no longer looks like something transcendent.

Nevertheless, the attempt to deploy such a powerful power plant is certainly erroneous. Even knowing about the high-speed heavy cruisers of Italy and Japan, all the same it was necessary to remember that the Soviet cruiser (as well as any other warship) should be faster than those who are stronger than him, and stronger than those who are faster. The tactical and technical characteristics of the big cruiser of the project "X" provided him with superiority over the "Washington" cruisers of Italy and Germany, so why try to be faster than them? Or did the designers, as in the case of the artillery of the main caliber, prefer to "recast" the future, in fear that the speed of foreign battleships would grow to 35-36 bonds?

To ensure such a high speed, the big cruiser of the project “X” required a super-power, but compact power plant, which could only be obtained using direct-flow boilers and increased steam parameters, so this step looks logical. But the optimism of the designers is striking - on a power plant with a capacity of 210 ths. Hp. total 2000 tons were allocated - and this was at that time, as the mass of 26 cruisers' mechanisms was already known, which was approximately 1834 tons (data from the 26-bis project) at rated power 110 thousand hp!

Shipbuilders were just preparing for the “Experienced” tab, the specific power of the power plant of which was to exceed the average power units of 7 project destroyers by 45%. In this case, the case is considered to be so new and unusual that the newest boiler-turbine installation was first preferred to “run in” on a non-serial ship. Consequently, the risks of not achieving record characteristics were fully understood, and it would be reasonable, before the end of the tests, to design KTUs for promising ships with an increase in power density lower than the “Experienced”, or at least not exceeding its 45%. But instead, the designers are putting into the project of a large cruiser a power plant, whose specific power by 75% exceeds the newly acquired, newest Italian model of EI for a light cruiser!

But you need to understand that the weight and size characteristics of the power plant for the large cruiser of the project "X" were of fundamental importance. After all, with an increase in their size, the length of the ship’s citadel would have to be increased, which significantly increased the displacement of the latter.

Attempting to provide a large 38 cruise speed to a nodal speed had other negative consequences — an excessively long but relatively narrow hull did not allow for some serious anti-torpedo protection. On the other hand, there were, nevertheless, between the engine and boiler rooms and the board, there were “inserts” of compartments - fuel storages, which to some extent could have weakened the disruption.



In addition, questions remain about the cruising range of the big project “X” cruiser. Unfortunately, only the range at full speed of the ship is given, but given that it is only 900 miles, it is extremely doubtful that the range of 12-14 nodes reaches at least 6 000 miles, and even this is not a good indicator for the ocean raider.

In general, it can be stated that a large cruiser type "X" could not be built in the form proposed by the designers. In the case of continuing work on this cruiser, we should have expected such significant adjustments to the project that, in essence, we would have been talking about another ship, created taking into account the experience gained in the development of the “Project X”.

But why did the creators of the “X project” make such a lot of mistakes in their work? In order to answer this question, one should take into account the huge “shipbuilding holidays”: from the time of the First World War and until the development of the “Project X”, the Russian Empire, and later on the USSR carried out only the completion and modernization of large ships, but not their new construction. Military equipment 20-th century, continuously improved in virtually all directions: more durable structural steel and armor, significant progress in the power of ship turbines, a huge increase in aviation capabilities and so on and so forth.

But the most important thing is that then, and today, at each moment in time, the designers of the warship are in a dilemma. Whether to use new technologies that have not been tested yet, hoping to surpass their opponents in case of success, but at the risk of failing to spend money and time on an unfit ship? Or will they rely on reliability, using time-tested solutions, and risk the fact that the enemy ships created using the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress will turn out to be much better and stronger?

In this difficult choice, the only "advisers" are the experience of designing and operating modern ships. In some cases, this experience is able to suggest the right decision, but in the USSR, which stopped building and developing heavy artillery ships for many years, this experience was not, and could not be. The country, in fact, mastered the pre-revolutionary "groundwork" of royal shipbuilding, created in the interval between the Russo-Japanese and the First World Wars. As a result, the designers of the large cruiser tried to compensate for the lack of experience, of course, with ingenious, but hardly able to withstand the test of practice solutions.

No need to blame the creators of the "project" X "" inability. And in the same way, it makes no sense to blame the Soviet leadership for refusing to build heavy ships in the first half of the 30-s - for this, the country had neither financial nor technical capabilities. The history of the design of the heavy cruiser project "X" teaches us only how dangerous breaks in the creation of complex weapons systems. You never need to think that now we have no money / time / resources, and we will not do it, and then, after 5-10-15 years, when the necessary funds appear, we are ordered by law! - and create a competitive weapon.

Even in conditions when the economy of the country does not allow us to create heavy ships, we are able to seek funds at least for R & D in this area. And therefore it is very important to maintain in acceptable technical condition and intensively exploit those few large surface ships that we still have.

From this point of view, the history of designing a large cruiser of the project "X" can not be considered a failure. Although it did not lead to the creation of an effective warship, it nevertheless gave our designers the experience that turned out to be in demand when designing new warships of the USSR.

application


The load of the masses of a large cruiser project "X"
Metal housing - 4 412 t
Work items - 132 t
Tree - 6 t
Coloring - 80 t
Insulation - 114 t
Cement flooring - 48 t
Equipment of premises, storerooms and cellars - 304 t
Ship systems and devices - 628 t
Electrical equipment - 202 t
Communication and control - 108 t
Liquid cargo in the hull - 76 t
Reservations - 3 065 t
Armament:
Artillery - 3 688 t
Torpedo - 48 T
Aviation - 48 t
Mine - 5 t
Trailing - 18 t
Chemical - 12 t
Mechanisms - 2 000 t
Sourcing and crew - 272 t
Displacement reserve - 250 t
Total standard displacement - 15 518 t

List of used literature
1. A.A. Malov, S.V. Patyanin "heavy cruisers" Trento "," Trieste "and" Bolzano "
2. A.A. Chernyshev "Maxim Gorky type cruisers"
2. A.V. Platonov "Cruisers of the Soviet fleet"
2. L.A. Kuznetsov Big Cruiser Project X, Gangut, 18 Edition
Author:
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex_59
    Alex_59 16 January 2018 15: 28
    +8
    Strange ship. However, then there was a time of great fancies and fantasies. Very similar to ours. We also paint beautiful pictures and projects, and the harsh reality forces us to build RTOs and diesel engines. Well, at least there is no cold soul of "reality" of the 1941 sample of the year. When it turned out that instead of a dashing battle of cruising armada, barges and boats with infantry and ammunition on board and aircraft would steer.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 January 2018 17: 10
      +9
      Quote: Alex_59
      However, then there was a time of great fancies and fantasies. Very similar to ours.

      Exactly :) One multi-carrier aircraft carrier is worth
      Quote: Alex_59
      Well, at least there is no cold soul of "reality" of the 1941 sample of the year. When it turned out that instead of a dashing battle of cruising armada, barges and boats with infantry and ammunition on board and aircraft would steer.

      Well, strictly speaking, the fleet could not have imagined that both coasts of Finnish would be surrendered to the enemy, and the Germans would lay siege to Sevastopol from land
    2. svp67
      svp67 16 January 2018 17: 22
      +5
      Quote: Alex_59
      When it turned out that instead of a dashing battle of cruising armada, barges will steer

      Russian cruisers were always created on the basis that he would be ONE in the warrior field.
      They say that such "big" ones or as they will be called "linear" cruisers later, the Leader personally liked them very much.
      One thing I can say is that even if the USSR built them, these cruisers would not have much chance to survive in a real battle, since the USSR was very far behind in two very important areas, it was creating radars for guiding and adjusting artillery fire and in creating anti-aircraft artillery.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        16 January 2018 17: 36
        16
        Quote: svp67
        Russian cruisers were always created on the basis that he would be ONE in the warrior field.

        Usually this is due to the inability to build a second.
        In fact, your message carries absolutely no meaning - and Russia and the USSR built a large number of cruisers to serve with squadrons or to work together with dissimilar forces - such as, for example, Kuznetsov TAVKR.
        Quote: svp67
        They say that such "big" ones or as they will be called "linear" cruisers later, the Leader personally liked them very much.

        The term "battlecruiser" appeared before the First World War. And in the Soviet fleet, they were never listed - only heavy cruisers, which included the 69 project. But to which Project X belonged to no one, since it was an almost classic heavy cruiser - just with some twists
        Quote: svp67
        One thing I can say is that even if the USSR built them, these cruisers would not have much chance to survive in a real battle, since in two very important areas the USSR was very far behind

        yes it was
        Quote: svp67
        this is the creation of radar guidance and adjustment of artillery fire and the creation of anti-aircraft artillery.

        There’s just a nuance - more or less decent artillery radars appeared closer to the end of the war and at global effective fire distances didn’t have global advantages over good nonradar SLAs. Of course, at night, or in conditions of poor visibility - yes, but it's still 44 year at least. But the SLA on the Soviet cruisers was very good.
        In addition, our opponents in WWII (Germany, Italy, Japan) had exactly the same high-quality artillery.
        As for anti-aircraft artillery, the 37-mm machine guns were, in general, not as bad as it usually seems
        1. svp67
          svp67 16 January 2018 17: 56
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          like here, for example, Tavkr Kuznetsov.

          And therefore everything was crammed into it that could cause as much harm as possible to the enemy ...
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Usually this is due to the inability to build a second.

          You know where the name “cruiser” came from, and in fact the promising destroyers “Leader”, real cruisers, both in terms of armament and the tasks that they plan to solve ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            16 January 2018 18: 21
            10
            Quote: svp67
            And therefore everything was crammed into it that could cause as much harm as possible to the enemy ...

            Not everyone. For example, Kuznetsov, having a strong anti-missile defense (meaning anti-ship missiles) did not have a medium and / or long-range air defense system, and could not provide layered air defense for covering war ships. The real powerful cover was obtained with the help of a missile cruiser with a long-range air defense system - then the TAVKR + long-range air defense systems of the RKR + short-range air defense systems of the TAVKR provided very powerful air defense.
            12 RCC Granite was not enough to defeat AUG - for this it was considered necessary to have at least 20 missiles, but TAVKR Granites well complemented, say, RCC 1164 RCCs, and indeed, when shooting at AUG there are not many missiles.
            In addition, the TAVKR could simultaneously solve either the PLO tasks (helicopters on the upper deck) or the air defense (planes) but not both at the same time. Accordingly, while providing air defense of heterogeneous forces striking at the enemy, the TAVKR should be covered with anti-submarine ships, etc.
            Quote: svp67
            and, in fact, the promising destroyers Leader, the real cruisers, both in terms of armament and the tasks that they plan to solve ...

            The only problem is that a single ship starting from the 2 half-last third of WWII does not cost anything and creating such loners is completely pointless. Leaders are not created at all as single-field warriors, but as leaders coordinating a squadron of diverse forces.
        2. zaxis450
          zaxis450 17 January 2018 15: 05
          0
          "Dawn" and "Fiume" radars in 41 strongly liked ....... lol
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 17 January 2018 15: 50
            +3
            "Zara" and "Fiume" were discovered visually and shot on a visual tip.
            At 22.15 p.m. my new chief of staff, Commodore Edelsten, was looking through binoculars to the horizon on the right on the nose. He calmly said that he saw 2 large cruisers and one small in front of them, which cut the nose of our fleet from right to left. I also looked there with binoculars. They were there. Captain 2nd rank Power, a former submariner and an incomparable silhouette recognition specialist, said they were 2 Zara heavy cruisers with a light cruiser in front of them.
            (...)
            Never in my whole life have I experienced such excitement as when I heard a calm voice from the KDP: “The KDP gunner sees the target.” This indicated that the guns were ready, and his finger was already on the trigger. The enemy was no further than 3800 yards - very close
            © ABC
            Suddenly the Greyhound, now ahead, opened the spotlight. A wide beam of light fell directly on the Fiume, the third ship in the enemy convoy. However, he illuminated not only Fiume, but also the ships to his left - Zara and the head of the Alfieri column. The clock showed 22.27.
            The Worspite and Valiant simultaneously fired on the Fiume from 15 "guns. The distance to the target was 2900 yards for the Worspite and 4000 yards for the Valiant.
            © Barnard
            There were no artillery radars in that battle - only radar detection. “Valiant” with her help discovered the standing SRT “Paula” - before the squadron established visual contact with “Fiume” and the company. By the way, the radar did not see this three of the SRT.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              17 January 2018 15: 54
              +3
              "Great God, but we got !!!"
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 18 January 2018 17: 30
                +2
                ... the correct combat distance for any ship in the Mediterranean Fleet, from battleship to submarine, is the distance of a pistol shot (today it is 2000 yards or less). Because at such a distance, even an artillery officer cannot miss.
                © ABC
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 January 2018 15: 53
            +3
            In principle, they already answered you, but I repeat - in that battle the British used the most ordinary radars, not artillery. By the way, I want to note that in the Pacific Ocean, the Japanese who were looking ahead quite often managed to find the Americans faster than those of them with the help of the radar. In the first half of the war, naturally
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 16 January 2018 18: 16
      +3
      more submarines were actively taxiing in 1941-45, the situation is the same even now, submarines, aviation and land facilities
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        16 January 2018 19: 08
        +9
        (heavy sigh) about some kind of "taxiing" of the submarine can only be said in the Atlantic, and only because England had to distribute its attention between Germany, the Mediterranean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, and the United States at the time of entry into the war did not have any sane sub-defense. As soon as she appeared, the Germans began to pay 1 submarines for 1 sunken vehicles - EMNIP since the end of 1943 year. Well, on the Pacific submarine, the United States “steered” when the Japanese Navy was disassembled by US aircraft carriers.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 17 January 2018 16: 21
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, on the Pacific submarine, the United States “steered” when the Japanese Navy was disassembled by US aircraft carriers.

          Duc ... it’s very difficult to “steer” when 2-3 out of one and a half dozen fired torpedoes fall and explode. And it's not hunting stories "we shot, hit - and the torpedoes did not explode", but a fact established during field tests. And confirmed" from the other side "- see the Nautilus attack on the Kaga AV: the torpedo hit, did not explode, broke - and the survivors from the sinking AB kept on to it.
          It’s even more difficult to steer when all requests to Washington about unexploded and depth-of-torpedo torpedoes are either ignored for almost a year, or are perceived only as an attempt to discredit the glorious name of those who developed and adopted torpedoes for arming. The torpedo scandal lasted from 1942 to 1944 - and the torpedoes were corrected in three approaches: a magnetic fuse, accuracy of keeping the depth of travel, contact fuse. Moreover, each time in order to move the armed forces from their place, the intervention of a level officer of the fleet commander or fleet submarine commander was required. As well as acts of tests conducted by the fleet "for uncle" from the Bureau of Armaments.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            18 January 2018 00: 13
            +1
            This is true, but in any case, the distance to Japan did not allow the submarine to steer. They began to work seriously when the Japanese were pushed out of their sphere of co-prosperity and it was not necessary to brush off such large ends from basing places to patrol areas.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 18 January 2018 18: 56
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              This is true, but in any case, the distance to Japan did not allow the submarine to steer.

              Theoretically allowed - from bases in Australia. The problem is that these bases still needed to be equipped. smile
              In short, when it was necessary to base submarines in northern Australia, there were no rapidly deployable bases and mobile rear. And when all this happiness appeared - the north of Australia already became the rear.
        2. NF68
          NF68 17 January 2018 20: 54
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          As soon as she appeared, the Germans began to pay 1 submarines for 1 sunken vehicles - EMNIP from the end of 1943 year


          Truly serious problems because of the sharp not only quantitative, but even more so because of the qualitative strengthening of the Allied PLO, the German submarines began in April 1943 of the year.
  2. Amurets
    Amurets 16 January 2018 16: 08
    +8
    Andrew. Thank. The first time I see a detailed description of the project of this cruiser. Usually they refer to him, but then for some reason the srau pass to heavy cruisers like "Kronstadt." On the part of the advantages and disadvantages of this project and probably all of the pre-war Soviet ships: weak anti-aircraft weapons.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 January 2018 17: 14
      +5
      Quote: Amurets
      Andrey. Thanks.

      You're welcome!
      Quote: Amurets
      The first time I see a detailed description of the project of this cruiser.

      So it is practically not there - in fact, 95% of the facts - in L.A. Kuznetsova "Large cruiser of the project" X "", it was printed in Gangut. The article is scanty in size, but I can imagine how much a respected author had to spend in the archives to write it ... In general, my deep bow and gratitude.
      Quote: Amurets
      weak anti-aircraft weapons.

      Yes, it was not so hot in other countries either - at least look at British cruisers for an example. It’s just that after the outbreak of the war, they caught on, began to set bofors / erlikons, and before the war everyone didn’t
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 17 January 2018 01: 42
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yes, it was not so hot in other countries either - at least look at British cruisers for an example. It’s just that after the outbreak of the war, they caught on, began to set bofors / erlikons, and before the war everyone didn’t

        I agree completely. IMHO. The change in attitudes of the English Admiralty leadership was influenced by the familiarity of the English sailors with the installation of Beaufors "on the Hasemeyer platform." At least for the first time the British met her on Dutch ships. “After the fall of Holland in 1940, part of the Dutch fleet went to the UK, and the British had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the 40-mm Hasemeyer marine systems in detail. The 40-mm Dutch Hasemeyer anti-aircraft systems favorably differed in combat and operational-operational characteristics from the British 40-mm "pom-pom" of the company "Vickers". http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/akanm36.html
        “And with the fall of Holland in 1940, the Dutch mine detonator Willem van der Zaan (who left for Britain) showed the British the first example of a water-cooled barrel installation and the Hazemeyer three-axis stabilization system. Similar installations of our own production began to be used by the Royal Navy in 1942 under the designation QF 40 mm Mark IV for twin guns or QF 40 mm Mark V for single guns. The Navy has actively modified Bofors automatic guns and their installations throughout the war. "
        https://forum.worldofwarships.ru/topic/633-bofors
        -40-mm60-157-model-1936-40-%D0%BC%D0%BC-%D0%B7%D0
        %B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1
        %84%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81/
  3. Taoist
    Taoist 16 January 2018 16: 29
    +4
    Yeah ... we were not shy about fantasizing in those days ... Again, the idea of ​​"super-trader" is, as they say in the "inheritance passed." Another question is that by that time it was clear that surface raiders did not live long and unhappily. Apparently therefore, such an aircraft was also laid. But then it would be more logical to focus on the version of the LC - aircraft carrier. Fortunately, such projects were also. (and the Japanese even skated them alive)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 January 2018 17: 16
      +5
      Quote: Taoist
      Another question is that by that time it was clear that surface raiders did not live long and unhappily.

      Yes, how to say? The Germans were pretty good at the beginning of the war.
      Quote: Taoist
      but then it would be more logical to focus on the version of the LC - aircraft carrier.

      Nah, not ripe before the battleships.
      Quote: Taoist
      Fortunately, such projects were also. (and the Japanese even skated them alive)

      Yes, the Japanese didn’t succeed too much, I don’t know why they were so perverted over Ise. Carriers with almost no fuel stock ...
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 16 January 2018 17: 35
        +3
        And even then they anticipated the kamikaze ... One way filling and a banzai! Just the suicidal tactics of a raider.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          16 January 2018 17: 37
          +4
          Nah, the seaplanes were based on Ise, but the kamikazes didn’t land on them
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 16 January 2018 17: 47
            +3
            But they could have ... ;-) In general, this was a joke ...
            I don’t understand the works according to the principle "neither to the candle nor to the damn poker." Technical adventurism did not bring anyone to good.
  4. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 16 January 2018 17: 39
    +1
    and the ship is beautiful ...
  5. yehat
    yehat 16 January 2018 17: 45
    +1
    among other things, in shortcomings, the tactics of use were completely incomprehensible - the cruiser was physically unable to perform raider functions due to the fact that there were too many dangers on the way to the open space, and he could not act as part of the squadron
    and unlikely to return in danger. Even the Germans had similar problems in much more comfortable conditions.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 16 January 2018 23: 51
      +1
      There is an even simpler question.

      And where, in fact, so cool? Atlantic, Baltic, World Cup, Pacific Fleet?
      1. yehat
        yehat 17 January 2018 00: 28
        0
        only 1 place - atlantic
        nowhere else
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 17 January 2018 02: 07
          0
          Quote: yehat
          only 1 place - atlantic
          nowhere else

          Basing in Severomorsk? Disruption of Atlantic communications? Yeah ...
      2. max702
        max702 17 January 2018 11: 18
        +2
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        There is an even simpler question.

        And where, in fact, so cool? Atlantic, Baltic, World Cup, Pacific Fleet?

        And this is the most pressing issue for the modern Russian Navy ...
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 17 January 2018 21: 47
          0
          Quote: max702
          And this is the most pressing issue for the modern Russian Navy ...

          It is not clear what it is. The situation of the 30s is not very similar to the current one.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        17 January 2018 15: 10
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        And where, in fact, so cool? Atlantic, Baltic, World Cup, Pacific Fleet?

        Honestly, myself at a loss. Is that Pacific Fleet, more like and nowhere much
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 17 January 2018 21: 37
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Is that Pacific Fleet

          First, talking about Pacific Fleet in relation to the 30s seems a little too optimistic.
          Secondly, the idea of ​​hitting on Japanese communications, if I understand you correctly, is even more optimistic.
          Thirdly, Ripples, but this is the afterlife.

          It seems to me (purely in the order of opinion) that the only option in which large NKs could be useful in those realities is actions taken by senior comrades in the Atlantic. Either the German, with their raids towards Iceland, or, conversely, the English, escort convoys in the presence of large NK from the enemy, which is already real.

          In any case, the big technical risk and the bet on speed (what kind of autonomy can there be, Iowa cars in the size of a Hipper?) Look strange.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            18 January 2018 00: 18
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            First, talking about Pacific Fleet in relation to the 30s seems a little too optimistic.

            And what is wrong? By the way, at the same time, we developed ten-thousand-year-olds for the Pacific Fleet.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Secondly, the idea of ​​hitting on Japanese communications, if I understand you correctly, is even more optimistic.

            Well, yes, in general it is. Although I was thinking not about Japanese, but about English communications. In general, "Rurik" part two. The Germans built their pickpockets, but what are we worse? It is clear that the lone raiders in those years are no longer a cake, but this is more aftertaste after all.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 18 January 2018 00: 38
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And what is wrong? By the way, at the same time, we developed ten-thousand-year-olds for the Pacific Fleet.

              Sorry, but the Pacific Fleet in the mid-30s - what exactly is that? To put to the boats and small submarines such a child prodigy, of such a size, with such machines?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Although I was thinking not about Japanese, but about English communications

              From Hong Kong and south? From Vladik? Trick.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                18 January 2018 08: 45
                +1
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Sorry, but the Pacific Fleet in the mid-30s - what exactly is that? To put to the boats and small submarines such a child prodigy, of such a size, with such machines?

                So this is in the middle of 30 kaer and small submarines. But the cruiser will not come out of nowhere - it would have been built closer to the 40th (well ... except that it could not be built at all in this form) and there would have been destroyers and medium submarines
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                From Hong Kong and south? From Vladik? Trick.

                And what other options? It’s impossible to get out of the Baltic and Black, from the North they will intercept, and the basing there is still what remains of the Pacific Fleet.
  6. Conductor
    Conductor 16 January 2018 17: 48
    +2
    Thanks again to Andrey, the project is very strange, especially the caliber, where did you choose it from Rurik 2?
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 16 January 2018 18: 08
      +1
      Quote: Conductor
      Thanks again to Andrey, the project is very strange, especially the caliber, where did you choose it from Rurik 2?

      Rurik has 2 like 254 mm. It was
      1. Conductor
        Conductor 16 January 2018 18: 43
        +1
        Exactly 254, why did they take such a caliber, and even where did the shells come from for it.
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 16 January 2018 18: 45
          0
          Quote: Conductor
          Therefore, the "growth" took the caliber 240-mm.

          just based on the article
          Therefore, the "growth" took the caliber 240-mm.

          caliber does not seem to be 254
      2. Conductor
        Conductor 16 January 2018 18: 48
        +1
        In general, some strange ship was, 254, 203 cho is even smaller, they somehow reminded me of Dzhapov’s kusima, 320 mm main caliber and then fantasy)))
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 17 January 2018 00: 18
      +2
      Quote: Conductor
      Thanks again to Andrey, the project is very strange, especially the caliber, where did you choose it from Rurik 2?

      Well, here it is necessary to seek from Shirokorad: "Secrets of Soviet artillery" and "Cruiser, which Khrushchev destroyed." There is about leapfrog with gun calibers.
  7. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 16 January 2018 17: 49
    +1
    Greetings! hi
    The tactics of using submarines are completely incomprehensible - taking into account their meager cruising range and autonomy, a large cruiser would have to take great risks, delivering them to the target of the attack, and then waiting for the end of the operation in order to take them on board.

    Probably, they counted on approximately such an application: descent at a certain distance from the enemy’s port, further transition in the TCA mode, immersion, secretive strike on the TR in the harbor, departure, pick-up on board. And all this - at night (optimists ... smile ).
    When shelling an enemy port, especially at night, the SRT unmasks itself too much - and can collect not only the coastal artillery fire, but also any patrol and basic trifle, such as the same TCA. They see SRT, and there are practically no SRTs.
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 16 January 2018 18: 45
      +1
      Aglitz midjats have all shown themselves so. In any case, Tirpicz they hobbled.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 January 2018 19: 09
      +2
      And good evening to you!
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Probably, they counted on approximately such an application: descent at a certain distance from the enemy’s port, further transition in the TCA mode, immersion, secretive strike on the TR in the harbor, departure, pick-up on board. And all this - at night (optimists ... smile).

      Well, maybe :)))))
  8. Alf
    Alf 16 January 2018 20: 12
    10
    Andrew ! You have given thoughts, unfortunately, very rare among home analysts.
    how dangerous are the breaks in creating complex weapons systems. You never need to think that now we do not have money / time / resources, and we will not do it, and then, after 5-10-15 years, when the necessary funds will appear, we are by the pike dictation - good! - and create a competitive weapon.
    Even in conditions when the country's economy does not allow us ..., we are able to raise funds even for research and development.

    Bravo !!! hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 January 2018 22: 02
      +3
      Thank you, dear Alf! hi drinks
  9. yarema vishneveckiy
    yarema vishneveckiy 16 January 2018 21: 45
    +2
    Stalin shot a little))) The authors of this completely insane project must be in Magadan ....
  10. Dedall
    Dedall 16 January 2018 22: 09
    +1
    There is such a site - "Alternative History" http://alternathistory.com There this article would be more appropriate. But overall it was interesting to read.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 January 2018 22: 19
      +3
      Quote: Dedall
      There is such a site - "Alternative History"

      Yeah, I lived there before :))) Yes, and now I have not abandoned
      Quote: Dedall
      There, this article would be more appropriate.

      Why? It is a very real development, without any bifurcation points.
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 16 January 2018 23: 19
        +4
        Yeah, I lived there before :))) Yes, and now I have not abandoned

        Andrei hi . Sinful too - often "with one eye" repeat
        Thank! I always discover something new for myself.
  11. faiver
    faiver 17 January 2018 08: 39
    +1
    five points - nice to read hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 January 2018 11: 52
      +3
      Thank you, it's nice to hear :)))))
  12. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 17 January 2018 12: 00
    +3
    Thank you.
    Funny project - the level is primitive, elaboration is outline.
    Really says a lot about the failure in the "school of design."
    Such a thing could be submitted to the graduation project, but it would be naive to take it seriously, in the absence of the necessary technical base.
    Correctly said Andrey - a technically unrealizable project due to gross basic errors.
  13. looker-on
    looker-on 17 January 2018 18: 12
    +2
    Andrey, I’m taking off my hat again. Your analytical talent and a distinct love of the sea and ships + easy and readable syllable is staggering. I am your fan without exaggeration) Thank you very much! Please write a general article on the "Washington" cruisers. Consolidated by country, it will be very interesting to read your opinion.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 January 2018 19: 30
      +5
      And thank you for your kind words
      Quote: looker-on
      Please write a general article on the "Washington" cruisers.

      And what? Good idea :)) Now I "drag" as many as three series at once, (invincible / prospects of the modern fleet / svetlana), but as soon as one ends, I’ll definitely think what can be done here :) hi
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 18 January 2018 00: 52
      0
      Quote: looker-on
      Please write a general article on the "Washington" cruisers

      Of course, I do not want to stifle the creative impulses of the author. But the author does not like the Busurman, and especially their Busurman writings. And the USSR did not seem to fit too much into the Washington theme, so everything was pretty sour with Russian-speaking sources, NJA.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        18 January 2018 08: 46
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        But the author does not like the Busurman, and especially their Busurman writings.

        Why do not like? I love you. I just don’t know how to cook it :)))))
  14. NF68
    NF68 17 January 2018 20: 59
    0
    The main caliber of a large cruiser with its 235 kg projectile at an initial speed of 940 m / s is obviously reformed.


    There is overkill. For shells with this weight, the initial speed is approximately 840-850 m / s. will be just right. Otherwise, the spread of shells after several tens of shots may become too large.
  15. DM51
    DM51 17 January 2018 22: 27
    0
    If you approach this cruiser project realistically, without fantasies, such as: a dozen seaplanes, mini-submarines, converted GEMs, reduce the speed of shells, and on the contrary increase a bit armor, put ordinary GEMs, strengthen air defense, leave a couple of seaplanes, you would get a good super cruiser
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 January 2018 00: 20
      +3
      Quote: DM51
      I would get a good super cruiser

      I agree that the changes you just listed will entail a radical revision of the project with all that it implies - you get a cruiser "based on" project X
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 January 2018 19: 15
      0
      Realistic is:
      - throw out the air group, leaving 2-3 GS for adjustment and reconnaissance;
      - throw out the PL-TKA;
      - cut the length of the hull (due to the hangar);
      - deform the main gun (or better yet, switch to the traditional caliber 203 or 254 mm);
      - as a power plant to take something from serial or pre-serial (pr. 7, 26).

      True, there is a danger here to fit into improvement - and again get the project 69 as an output. smile
  16. looker-on
    looker-on 18 January 2018 00: 33
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And what? Good idea :)) Now I "drag" as many as three series at once, (invincible / prospects of the modern fleet / svetlana), but as soon as one ends, I’ll definitely think what can be done here :)


    I’ll wait) Well, if you really dream, there would be a super article about the Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (Elsvik cruisers). Favorite ship of Admiral Makarov. I don’t know anything about its construction and birth (Wiki and all)
  17. volodimer
    volodimer 19 January 2018 17: 15
    +1
    Thank you for the article! Well, you, dear, and multi-stationer laughing ! I hardly have time to read.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 January 2018 17: 38
      +1
      Quote: volodimer
      Well, you, dear, and multi-stationer

      Well :)))) I’m sitting again without work, so I’m replenishing a little family budget :)