Military Review

The Panzerschiffe. The Dusk of a German Genius

235



Version one. Deutschland uber alles!

“Pantsershiff” could go twice as far as any heavy cruiser of his time.

On the move, due to the unbearable hum of diesel engines, officers in the mess-room communicated with the help of notes. These are the fun, but unimportant features of the life of the German “pocket battleship”.

The essential feature of the pickpocket was his weapon. The ship, similar in size to the “Washington cruiser,” carried a battery of six 283-mm guns, housed in two turrets of GK weighing 600 tons each! This is not counting the eight six-inch and the battery flak "caliber 88 or 105 mm.

In their power, the 28 cm SK C / 28 cannons occupied an intermediate position between the GC cruisers and battleships. Three hundred kilogram shells pierced the defense of Washingtonians like foil. The outcome of the battle was predetermined. Light cruisers could be just a single hit.

The second feature of “Deutschland” - the firing range. No, with a capital letter: Range!

The 28 cm SK C / 28 is one of the most long-range naval artillery systems (over 36 km at elevation angles of 40 ° trunks).

The Panzerschiffe. The Dusk of a German Genius


Everything was fine in these guns. Magnificent ballistic characteristics successfully combined with high barrel survivability (340 shots - 3 full ammunition).

The “battleship” status of the ships was emphasized not only by the caliber of the guns, but also by the fire control system, which was unusually developed for only two towers. It included three equal-value posts, one each in military logging and one more - on the top of the fore-mast superstructure. The rangefinder equipment included the 6-meter stereoscopic rangefinder in the front post and the 10-meter in the other two ... Comparing them in number and equipment with the rather primitive means of the British heavy cruisers demonstrates the complete superiority of the German approach to artillery power.


Legendary German quality literally in everything. The fastening of the hull elements was duplicated by welding and simultaneously by riveting. Pantzershiffe was not built for the “Baltic puddle”: they were to plow the oceans, in time with the crests of the sea under the tent of bad weather, along convex lines of latitudes and longitudes.

The relatively low speed (27-28 nodes) was partly compensated for by the phenomenal autonomy and the highest dynamics. Set speed and the ability to remove from the anchor in minutes - when the “normal” cruisers took half an hour — an hour to separate the pairs.

“High-speed” engines for warships were made by MAN: eight 9-cylinder diesel engines with a maximum power of 7000 hp. In one of the raids, the “Panzershiff” passed almost without stops 46 419 miles per 161 day. Unique ship. There was enough fuel on board for the 20 000 for miles of travel.

The Anglo-Saxons tied Germany with a mass of restrictions: the displacement of ships is no more than 10 thousand tons, the caliber of no more than 11 inches. German engineering genius brilliantly overcame the “Versailles barrier”, having managed to get the maximum benefit in the seemingly impossible conditions.

Build a super-armed ship, almost a battleship, in the dimensions of a heavy cruiser.

Having met the English squadron at La Plata, the “Admiral Graf Spee” stood alone the battle against the three British cruisers. They say he was stronger than each of the opponents separately? So it is in this the merit of its creators!

The second version is rather skeptical

Upon learning of the approach of “Rinaun”, the Germans immediately flooded the “Panzershiff” on the Montevideo roadstead.

The appearance of “Rinaun” is described as a doomsday. As proof of the absolute hopelessness of the situation in which “Spee” found itself.

Come on, where did the panic come from?

What scared the brave fascists?

Veteran 1916 of the year with six GK guns? Wow. If you look objectively, “Rinaun”, waiting for “Spee” at the exit from La Plata, is not yet the most formidable of possible opponents.


HMS Renown

If the Germans were offered instead of “Rinaun” “Hood” or French “Dunkirk”, what would they do then? Fought for a place in the boats?

It's not about the twists and turns stories, and about more simple things. Barely confronted with the shadow of “battleship”, a highly protected ship with a standard displacement of 25 + thousand tons, armed with 15 “artillery,” the fascist “wonder-yudo” fell on its side and died by itself, not even daring to join the battle.

Naturally, no “Rinaun” was close - the Germans had enough horror stories from the British and the Cumberland TKR silhouette, mistaken for the battle cruiser

The whole concept of the German “pocket battleship”, which, due to a unique set of characteristics, could dictate the rules of sea battles, is idle chatter. The use of the word “battleship” in relation to “Deutschland” is as ridiculous as to stick with a paper boat in an elite yacht club.

When meeting with the classic “ships of the line”, the behavior of the German “pickpockets” did not differ from the behavior of ordinary heavy cruisers. They fled, remembering all the saints. The attack on the compound or the convoy, which included the battleship, as well as any attempt to resist in general, was a suicide for Deutschland. With a triple difference in the mass of the projectile (300 vs. 871 kg) and incomparable security, there was nothing to hope for.

15 inches is a scary argument. It is no coincidence that even the Scharnhorst from Gneisenau ran away from the “outdated” British “Rinaun”. Yet another “miracle” of German engineering: non-contourists, who suffered from insufficient firepower until the end of their days.

As for the “pickpockets,” everything is quite clear with them. To deceive the laws of nature, having built with a limited displacement something resembling a LC, failed. But this is not a reason to be upset. The real reason is different:

Further, until he enters the square,
Where with the main caliber fate awaits him.


Unlike cruisers with traditional boiler-turbine power plant, capable of escaping from danger at speeds of 32 — 36 knots, the German Deutschland could not crawl away from the enemy. Salvation from the British LKR was in principle impossible: “Ripals” and “Hood” are much faster. When meeting other battleships, not enough high speed has always played against the Pantshershif.

Is it possible to guarantee a successful escape from “Queen Elizabeth”, having a difference in the speed of the 2-3 node? With that incomparable difference in firepower, when just one hit could immobilize (if not finish off) the pickpocket? Remember, what kind of destruction caused a hit 15-inch projectile in LC "Julio Cesare"!

By the way, if you remembered about the Italians, then their upgraded battleships, preserved from the time of the WWI, cut the wave at 28 nodes.

Pre-war French LC “Dunkirk” and “Strasbourg” made almost 30 nodes.

And suddenly “Deutschland”, a brilliant German invention. Which, with a low security level corresponding to all the TKRs of the pre-war period, was inferior in speed (with a huge margin!) To all cruisers and even some battleships. The concept of Admiral Zenker “is stronger than those who are faster, faster than those who are stronger” did not work in practice. The German super-cruiser, for all its uniqueness and a number of undeniable merits, was a useless combat unit.



How were you going to fight in such conditions?

If we reconsider the area of ​​application and present the “Pantsershiffe” in the role of “big gunboats” in the Baltic, then one of the main advantages is lost in a limited theater of operations - a breathtaking cruising range.

Accept "Deutschland" as an experimental ship "breakdown of the pen" for the German designers who were affected by the decisions of Versailles, prevents the fact of their serial construction. Three corps - one after another. The Germans invested in them seriously, in the conditions of a clear lack of resources for military shipbuilding. Throughout the first half of the 1930's. (before the laying of the “Hippers” and “Scharnhorst”) these ridiculous ships were considered the mainstream and the main striking force of the Kriegsmarin.

The battle of La Plata demonstrated the essence of “pocket battleships”.

The heroic battle of the German raider with three cruisers (two of which are light) dims at the mention of a simple fact - the mass of the “Shpee” airborne volley (2162 kg) exceeded the total mass of its opponents volley.

The result is a grueling skirmish. An hour later, closer to 7 in the morning, the German “wundershiff” tried to escape from the battlefield, but, driven by a sense of duty, he nevertheless returned and continued to fight.



Instead of a quick and easy victory over the Exeter (objectively, the weakest and most primitive heavy cruiser armed with only six GK guns), a drama played out that cost the very life of the pickpocket. The damaged “Admiral Graf Spee” huddled at the mouth of La Plata, never having managed to finish off his opponent.

It is worth noting, “Spee” in technical terms was the best among the “Panzershiff”. Each of the three ships, “Deutschland-Lutzow”, “Admiral Scheer” and “Admiral Graf Spee”, formally being representatives of the same type, had significant differences in design. So, the vertical booking weight of the first two pickpockets differed by 200 tons. “Graf Spee” had even more massive protection. For the manufacture of bulkheads on it used steel of better quality, grade K n / a (Krupp neue Art), or "Wotan".

And if it was even hard for him, then how would his less accomplished brethren look like in that battle?

There was such a nuisance: the average caliber of “pickpockets” - eight 149 caliber mm guns in single-unit installations, despite their high ballistic characteristics, did not have a central fire control station. Because of their military value was questionable. And the towers themselves and 100 people. their servants turned into useless ballast. But who is to blame except the fascists themselves?

Worse, the walls of the SC towers provided protection only against water splashes. As a result, head “Deutschland” received non-illusory injuries during a fire contact with a Soviet bomber. In the 1937 year, being on raid on. Ibiza, the cruiser was hit by the Republican “SB” under the control of Nikolay Ostryakov: as a result of two 50-kg (according to other data, 100-kg) bombs, fires and the subsequent detonation of 6 “SCs” killed two dozen crew members over 80 were injured.

So the enthusiasm for the German engineering genius is an unverified myth. If we consider, for example, the Japanese fleet, then the problem of “artificial restrictions” was solved there in much more elegant ways. First, as elsewhere, the limit was somewhat violated: the standard displacement of all “Takao” - “Mogami” exceeded the established values ​​by 15-20%. Japanese and German cruisers had the same size. As a result, the “Japanese” - speed on 35-36 nodes and weapons from 10 guns main caliber. Plus universal artillery. Plus the famous torpedoes. Even taking into account the 2,5 multiple differences in the mass of 8 "and 11" shells, ten barrels in the five towers with twice the rate of fire provided similar fire performance. And a quick adjustment.

The prohibited displacement surpluses were “dumped” in a cunning Japanese way - in peacetime “Mogami” was carried by “fake” six-inch towers. This is the level! This is a real genius and ingenuity.

And many say: Germans. Engineering thought. In paradise - the mechanics, in hell - the police.

“Pocket battleships” are a fundamentally unfortunate project: from their very concept to individual technical points in the realization of an idea. A project that devoured the unmeasured amount of funds without any clear result.

Solution

Let everyone take it on their own. Contrary to popular belief, the truth does not lie in the middle, which is why it is always so difficult to find it. The author himself believes the second option is correct. And not only because he is convinced Germanophobe. The main evidence of the high combat capabilities of the Panzershiff is the refusal to continue their construction. Brilliant idea of ​​development has not received.

The following “pickpockets” with enhanced armor and increased w / w and 20 thous. Tons, known under the designation “D” and “E”, were dismantled on the stocks in 1934 year, five months after laying. The foundation was used to build the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

We summarize what was said: the Germans threw all their "genius" out of their heads and began building an LCR with a familiar set of characteristics for ships of this class (except for insufficient firepower).

For the role of a heavy cruiser, another project was chosen - “Admiral Hipper”, also with steam turbine power plant and all the “classical” attributes of the TKR of that period.



Based on materials http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru.
Author:
235 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kars
    Kars 2 February 2018 06: 25
    17
    Why don’t you say it’s a shame that the captain ..moreshera..strusil and did not go to battle.
    1. seti
      seti 2 February 2018 11: 11
      23
      There is a very good book on this topic by Igor Bunich - "Pirates of the Fuhrer." It describes the military route of one of the pockets of the "Admiral Scheer." In another of his books, the battle "Count Spee" is analyzed.
      Apparently you messed up the ships. "Admiral Scheer" safely returned to his home port from the raid.

      And in general about these three ships of under-cruisers / under-linocators ...
      You need to understand why and why they were created. First, Germany imposed serious restrictions on tonnage and civil code. Secondly, following them, it was impossible to put a powerful power plant, powerful armor and main gun in 10 inches into the body of a heavy cruiser with a displacement of 000 11 tons. The Germans partially coped with this task - the booking was reduced to a minimum, the diesel engine power plant. But the tonnage all one exceeded the permissible and became about 14 000 tons! But the Civil Code to the maximum. Why is that ? The purpose of this ship is to hunt for the enemy’s protractors and destroy its guards. Moreover, the priority is the fight against merchant ships. Simply put, this is a raider with maximum autonomy on trade routes.
      For this task - the ship was almost perfect. The problem with this project is that the ship is hopelessly outdated for its time.
      1. Santa Fe
        2 February 2018 11: 55
        +7
        Quote: seti
        But the GK to the maximum. Why is that ?

        And why in practice 6 x 280 in two towers turned out to be better than 10 x 203 for the same Japanese ??
        High power ammunition? all-early is not enough for confident superiority over the enemy

        Medium caliber - full trash
        Quote: seti
        For this task - the ship was almost perfect

        Yes, in the first campaign - having met a small squadron from Exeter (the weakest TKR) and a pair of LCR, I squandered all the ammunition, but I could not sink a single enemy. He himself was injured and hid in the port of a neutral country

        Perfect)))

        or the Germans seriously believed that Deutschland would plow the seas, drowning unarmed shopkeepers and not encountering any resistance from the British fleet
        1. seti
          seti 2 February 2018 13: 08
          17
          Do not write nonsense. I did not say that "pocket battleships" is the best TC project of that time. For example, I put the type "Admiral Hipper" above the type of "Dochland." As a more perfect project. What does the Japanese cruiser have to do with it? They were created for completely different purposes and tasks. Or am I wrong? The task of the ships is the "Dochland" type raiding on enemy communications. The task of the Japanese TC is the fight against the enemy TC.

          But consider the battle of La Plata.
          Is the detection speed, the reaction of the first shot and the salvo weight decisive in the duel of opponents as well as the quality of the optics? Is not it ? It is foolish to argue with this and this is not my personal opinion.
          “Pocket battleships” have all this. Especially the "Admiral Graf Spee" because it was the last and therefore the most advanced ship of the project.
          Volley weight more than 1800 kg. Is this not enough? The weight of the total (total) salvo of three British ships was 30% less!
          Why did the battle at La Plata? There are many factors and for the most part they are not in favor of the Germans. The most important one - Langsdof, had a categorical order not to engage in battle with the English warships and turned out to be a bad tactician / strategist. Secondly, the one who has a higher speed chooses a convenient firing position. Spee’s speed did not exceed 26 nodes (but in reality rarely 23.5-24 nodes), while his opponents easily dialed 28-30. They dictated the course of the battle. In the third, there were three against one, which means the division of fire, which led to fatal injuries on Spee. While he was smashing Exeter, the other two cruisers had an almost unimpeded opportunity to shoot and start marking hits in Spee himself. I agree with you that the 150 mm Spee guns are located and booked extremely poorly. But do not forget that the project was developed at the end of 20 and supplemented at the beginning of the 30's and was under restrictions!
          Besides all this, Langsdof had no idea how many enemy ships were nearby and where he could get fuel and ammunition in the future. Both that and another it was necessary to save and the speed and rate of fire did not contribute to this. But already in the future, the Germans took measures and, for example, the Admiral Scheer of the same project had refuellers and supply ships in various parts of the Atlantic. And intelligence provided him much better. Look at his raid - 16 merchant ships are sunk, several more valuable prizes such as tankers are captured. The full tension of the British Navy, which was forced to send even aircraft carriers and battleships into convoys!

          And lastly .. And where was Spee draping with his injuries and without ammunition? It is slow-moving - all enemy ships are 1.5 times faster than it! The Germans did not know how to use their radar at its true worth, but they had it. Like a seaplane. The ship needed repairs and more ammunition. The enemy on the horizon again had three ships, a new TK and 2 damaged LCs. Plus desa that came or two battleships will come at a speed of 30 nodes. Get out and drown with the whole crew? One way or another, he was already doomed.
          Raid Spee was a trial and an unsuccessful step.
          1. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 2 February 2018 15: 56
            +3
            seti Today, 13:08 ↑
            Do not write nonsense.

            So, oh, as you put it, nonsense.
            First, Germany imposed serious restrictions on tonnage and civil code.

            I cried. Oh my poor Germany! (WHERE ARE HERE GERMANY? Treading Japan. And for this, Japan (eating a cactus), the USA, Impudent (jumping to the ceiling) and small grasses signed it)
            But do not forget that the project was developed in the late 20s and supplemented in the early 30s and was under restrictions!

            And here I was already laughing smile Did you go to school? I went. And your favorite magazine ... well then.
            Germany was nobody in the 20s and there was no way to call her. Now there is a Wiki, take a look who signed the Agreement. And find once in 50 Germany there. In the 30s, yes already, but they did not pay attention to her, since they believed that they were still weak. And Germany, realizing its weakness and SAMA or "getting it on the kidneys", announced that it was building ships of 10 tons.
            In the "Model Designer," it was all painted out.
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 5 February 2018 18: 49
              +1
              So read in MK if you don’t know another source - the Panzerschiffe were built under the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles.
              1. Mavrikiy
                Mavrikiy 6 February 2018 00: 12
                0
                Quote: Kibb
                So read in MK if you don’t know another source - the Panzerschiffe were built under the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles.

                Then go and find in MK that the Germans have imposed restrictions. Unless of course you want to read repeat
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 6 February 2018 12: 28
                  0
                  Sometimes a question arises, did we still grow up in one country, as some "patriots" say, or not? MK 2011 №12, you indicate the numbers of the first cruise collection MK or you find yourself?
          2. WapentakeLokki
            WapentakeLokki 2 February 2018 19: 01
            +5
            And to play the Russian Imperial version, the cruiser Varyag and enter the ages as a ship of real men and not a bunch of cowards and dristov-s. Yes, roots of vengeance appeared in Germany long before the old Angela and Herr Lansdorf is clearly not Rudnev. Men and generally in at least one fleet of the World there is a signal '' I'm dying but not giving up '' ???
            1. dauria
              dauria 2 February 2018 23: 15
              +1
              And play the Russian Imperial version of the cruiser Varyag and enter the centuries as a ship of real men and not a bunch of cowards and three hundred s


              Eh, and you wrote a controversial thing. Yes, if you look closely - this is one in one Chemulpo. Only now the Germans did not record their "Rudnev" as heroes. I understand that against the wool. .
            2. Nehist
              Nehist 3 February 2018 03: 07
              +6
              You are sick? Spee already damaged, ammunition exhausted. Three enemy ships are waiting for him, and on the approach or three more have approached that surpass Spee's net. So Lansdorf did the same as Rudnev and Varyag drowned him after the battle, only unlike Rudnev he shot himself
              1. Grafova Irina
                Grafova Irina 4 February 2018 13: 00
                +1
                Not drowned. Blew up. Thus preventing its weakly probable (but still) use by the enemy
            3. Grafova Irina
              Grafova Irina 3 February 2018 10: 52
              0
              You wrote some nonsense, sorry
          3. Hog
            Hog 3 February 2018 19: 12
            +1
            Quote: seti
            For example, I put the type "Admiral Hipper" above the type of "Dochland." As a more perfect project.

            The Germans themselves considered the Hippers not successful.
            Quote: seti
            The high state of German engineering and engineering simply did not allow us to create a clearly unsuccessful project, although in the case of cruisers such as the Hipper, we can say that such an attempt was made.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 19: 48
              0
              Quote: Hog
              The Germans themselves considered the Hippers not successful.

              Quote: Hog
              The high state of German engineering and engineering simply did not allow us to create a clearly unsuccessful project, although in the case of cruisers such as the Hipper, we can say that such an attempt was made.

              Which German do you quote?
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 2 February 2018 14: 19
          +6
          Quote: Santa Fe
          or the Germans seriously believed that Deutschland would plow the seas, drowning unarmed shopkeepers and not encountering any resistance from the British fleet
          For its time, yes, it is almost perfect, especially since it was issued as a “battleship”, which Germany allowed to build under the restrictions of Versailles. At the same time, the Germans made a ship that could escape from the more powerful armaments of the British battleships of that period, but surpassed almost everyone who could catch up with its artillery. Most importantly, so far this is the largest combat ship, diesel engines have provided a huge cruising range and economy (as a minus, a terrible noise and rumble, it was difficult to talk in the mess room, talking with records on special boards).
        3. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 2 February 2018 14: 51
          +3
          Quote: Santa Fe
          And why in practice 6 x 280 in two towers turned out to be better than 10 x 203 for the same Japanese ??


          The lower weight of the towers - the greater power of the projectile.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 2 February 2018 22: 39
            +1
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            The lower weight of the towers - the greater power of the projectile.

            Easier than the Japanese - towers do not exist. Mogami has a pure anti-splinter armor for the towers. But there are a lot of them. :)
        4. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 2 February 2018 14: 53
          +8
          Quote: Santa Fe
          Yes, in the first campaign - having met a small squadron from Exeter (the weakest TKR) and a pair of LCR, I squandered all the ammunition, but I could not sink a single enemy. He himself was injured and hid in the port of a neutral country


          It’s not worth the misses of the command, to blame on equipment.
          The meeting of the Raider with the Warrior Cruisers is already a fiasco in itself. So he did not take measures to timely change the raiding area - this is the only miscalculation of the commander.
          If previously anti-raider forces were a light cruiser in solo swimming.
          That with the advent of ships such as Deutschland, the British had to urgently build up forces to intercept such a powerful raider.
          Ships searching and intercepting a Raider type Raider were distracted much more in terms of power and displacement than the Raider itself - this is a very effective means!
        5. NF68
          NF68 3 February 2018 21: 20
          +2
          Quote: Santa Fe
          And why in practice 6 x 280 in two towers turned out to be better than 10 x 203 for the same Japanese ??
          High power ammunition? all-early is not enough for confident superiority over the enemy


          283 mm. GK is much more powerful than any ship 203 mm. GK



          German 283 mm. shell:

          a total of about 2.7 percent. Although this hit percentage was better than that recorded by the British and New Zealander crews, it was disappointing to the Germans, who - according to Eric Grove - blamed "[Captain] Langsdorff's torpedo officer's tendency to over zigzag".
          Range
          Range with 661 lbs. (300 kg) APC
          Elevation Distance Striking Velocity Angle of Fall
          1.9 degrees 5,470 yards (5,000 m) 2,467 fps (752 mps) 2.4
          4.5 degrees 10,940 yards (10,000 m) 2,005 fps (611 mps) 6.0
          8.0 degrees 16,400 yards (15,000 m) 1,617 fps (493 mps) 11.8
          2.5 degrees 21,870 yards (20,000 m) 1,335 fps (407 mps) 21.4
          18.6 degrees 27,340 yards (25,000 m) 1,181 fps (360 mps) 34.2
          26.3 degrees 32,810 yards (30,000 m) 1,158 fps (353 mps) 46.4
          36.4 degrees 38,280 yards (35,000 m) 1,247 fps (380 mps) 56.0
          40.0 degrees 39,890 yards (36,475 m) --- ---

          And Japanese 203 mm. 125 kg armor-piercing shell:

          Armor penetration
          Armor Penetration with 277 lbs. (125.6 kg) AP
          Range Side Armor Deck Armor
          10,940 yards (10,000 m) 7.5 "(190 mm) ---
          19,690 yards (18,000 m) 4.7 "(120 mm) ---
          32,150 yards (29,400 m) 2.9 "(74 mm) ---
          This data is from "Anatomy of the Ship: The Heavy Cruiser Takao" and refers to NVNC armor.

          In addition, the flight path 283 mm. German shell due to the higher initial velocity is more gentle, which increases the accuracy of shooting. The thickness of the punched 283 mm. with an armor shell allows to punch the reservation of any heavy cruiser at 20 distances and more than km. 203 mm. Japanese shells in this regard are significantly inferior to 283 mm.
          1. Santa Fe
            4 February 2018 01: 45
            +2
            NF68 - great post! But there is no answer to the main question.
            Quote: NF68
            203 mm. Japanese shells in this regard are significantly inferior to 283 mm.

            What did it matter in practice?

            We consider not single tools in a spherical vacuum.
            We estimate the main caliber of the ship:
            6 x 11 '' or 10 x 8 ''

            What advantages did 11 give in a duel situation (Deutschland vs TKR, take the best of the best, Japanese)

            You, dear, did not answer this question. Then I will answer:
            <Panzerschiff armor> ensured the safety of vital parts of the ship only from 120 caliber shells — 152 mm, and from the latter — not at all distances.


            The conclusion is that the Panzershiff and the heavy cruiser are equally vulnerable to 8 and 11 dm shells. The battle will turn into a "battle of two crystal vases armed with hammers"

            In such circumstances, the goal is to “feed” the enemy with a hot metal as quickly as possible, for a speedy failure. And here - no advantage 6 x 283 we 10 x 203 not observed

            Guns rate:

            280 mm SKC / 28 cannon - loading was performed at a fixed angle 2 °, and the theoretical rate of fire was equal to a shot every 17 seconds. However, formally, the maximum rate of fire was three shots per minute, while in practice this value was equal to two.

            20 cm / 50 3rd Year Type naval gun - Shooting speed ranged from four shots per minute when shooting at low angles, decreasing to two or three shots per minute at maximum elevation

            Conclusion: the 1,5-2 has a high rate of fire times, with the possibility of loading at ANY elevation angles of the guns. GK "Deutschland" and "Takao" were equal in mass to a minute salvo

            At the same time, 10 guns in 5 towers = increased shooting speed, plus dispersal and duplication always increase survivability and reliability.
            The thickness of the punched 283 mm. armor shell allows you to punch through the booking of any heavy cruiser at distances 20 and more than km

            Also, like 203 mm shells

            Range is a weak argument, no one has ever fought over 100 kb in artillery battles. The case of "shot at Calabria" - a random hit, the only projectile result of heavy fire from several ships

            With poor visibility and in the dark - any distance advantage is completely lost
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 4 February 2018 02: 40
              +1
              Quote: Santa Fe
              However, formally, the maximum rate of fire was three rounds per minute, when, as in practice, this value was two.

              Quote: Santa Fe
              decreasing to two or three rounds per minute at maximum elevation

              Quote: Santa Fe
              Conclusion: 1,5-2 times greater rate of fire

              What about arithmetic, really bad? Or multiplied by a different number of guns?
              In addition, a real battle at La Plata. Consumption of shells GK Exeter, consumption of shells Spee?
              Quote: Santa Fe
              With poor visibility and in the dark - any distance advantage is completely lost

              But the advantage remains in accuracy.
              From a purely technical point of view, the battle of La Plata can be considered the victory of the “pocket battleship”. Two 203-mm and eighteen 152-mm shells that hit him did not cause fatal injuries. The main artillery “Spee” remained fully operational: despite three direct 6-inch hits in the towers, a solid reservation was so reliable that they did not even temporarily stop firing. Light artillery was hit harder: one 150-mm gun was completely out of order, and the ammunition supply lifts to the others were damaged. Of the three 105 mm installations, only one remained in operation. There were also minor flooding through holes in the cladding in the bow, but the ship had no heel or trim, and its energy was in perfect order. Of the almost 1200 people on the team, the 1 officer and 35 privates were killed, and 58 were injured and poisoned, most of them light. In general, not far from the truth were those critics of Langsdorf who claimed that he led the ship to Montevideo only because the English shell destroyed the bread oven.

              The British suffered much more. “Exeter” completely failed, having lost only 5 officers and 56 sailors. 11 more people died on light cruisers. By the end of the battle, the artillery power of the Herwood detachment had more than halved, and only 360 shells remained on the most combat-ready Achilles. The torpedo of the British remained only 10.

              http://battleships.spb.ru/Germ/Spee/La-Plata.html
              In reality, in fact, the Kyrgyz Republic found themselves in a “battle with LC” situation. And only a chain of unfair and Langsdorf errors saved Exeter from certain death.
            2. NF68
              NF68 4 February 2018 16: 42
              +1
              What did it matter in practice?
              We consider not single tools in a spherical vacuum.


              In practice, when an enemy ship enters a ship, a heavier projectile of a larger caliber, in our case 283 mm., Is heavier than 203 mm for a heavy one. due to the fact that he breaks through thicker armor while having time to penetrate into the compartments and exploding there 283 mm. will cause much greater damage. At the same time, the heavy cruiser of the enemy “Sheer” could start firing at a distance of 22-25 km. where is the fire xnumx mm. HA is ineffective.

              The conclusion is that the Panzershiff and the heavy cruiser are equally vulnerable to 8 and 11 dm shells. The battle will turn into a "battle of two crystal vases armed with hammers"


              Fight in 1914 year between German armored cruisers armed with 210 mm. GK, which is comparable to 8 "and English linear armored armored 12" which at that time had only high-explosive and semi-armor-piercing shells / which in terms of penetration of armor were inferior to German armor-piercing shells of caliber 283 mm. fired from 50-caliber guns GK created before the PMV from which follows 283 mm. armor-piercing shells at any firing distance are more dangerous than 8 "shells.

              Conclusion: the 1,5-2 has a high rate of fire times, with the possibility of loading at ANY elevation angles of the guns. GK "Deutschland" and "Takao" were equal in mass to a minute salvo


              The damage caused by the 8 "armor-piercing projectile" is much smaller than when the 11 "armor-piercing projectile is hit.

              At the same time, 10 guns in 5 towers = increased shooting speed, plus dispersal and duplication always increase survivability and reliability.


              This advantage of the 10-8 "guns is valid only for cases when both ships found each other at comparatively no greater distances. As the distance at which the ships opened fire increases, the advantage of the 11" caliber increases as a result of a flatter trajectory of the 11 "projectile’s flight and beyond due to less dispersion of shells. Based on these considerations, the French to combat the German pocket battleships armed with the 11 GK and built the 2 high-speed battleships of the Dunkirk type armed with the 330 mm. GK, and not heavy cruisers armed 9-th or 10-12 8 "GK.

              Range is a weak argument, no one has ever fought over 100 kb in artillery battles. The case of "shot at Calabria" - a random hit, the only projectile result of heavy fire from several ships


              Even in the years of the WWII when the MSA of surface ships was less perfect than the MSA of the ships built after the WWII on the Black Sea, the Russian battleship Catherine the Great opened fire on the German cruiser Breslau from the 114 cable range. The same Russian battleship fired at the battleship Keben from the 125 cable range.

              http://www.officer-prav.ru/breslau.htm

              In the summer of 1940, the German battleship Scharnhorst opened fire on the British aircraft carrier Glories from a distance of 25 km.-135 cable.

              On 24 on May 1941, the English battle cruiser Hood opened fire on Bismarck and Prince Eugen from a distance of 24 km.-130 cable.

              On July 10 1940, in the battle with the English fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, Italian heavy cruisers opened fire on English ships from a distance of 25 km.-135 cable, Italian battleships opened fire from a distance of 26 km.

              On the morning of March 28, three Italian cruisers collided with the external combat cover of the English squadron, consisting of the battleship Valient, Barham, Warspite, the aircraft carrier Formidedle and nine destroyers.

              Four British cruisers (Gloucester, Ajax, Orion and Perth) and four destroyers covered a search convoy on their way to Greece and were located about 30 miles south of the rocky islet of Guado when they discovered the presence of Italian cruisers on your way. The British began to pursue the Italians, who led them to their main forces. In 10.58, Vittorio Veneto opened fire from its 381 mm guns at Orion from a distance of 23 000 meters-124 cable.

              24 October 1944 year in the Sibuyan Bay, the Japanese battleship "Yamato" opened fire on American aircraft carriers from a distance of 27 km.-145 cable.

              In the 1930-ies, the American Navy during the exercises established that to conduct the maximum range at which it is still possible to carry effective fire from the GK battleships against enemy battleships can at distances up to 27-28 km. At long distances, artillery battleship officers will be able to more or less normally see only superstructures of battleships and enemy cruisers.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 4 February 2018 16: 56
                +1
                Colleague, in vain you run into ultra-long range shooting in those realities.
                The farthest successful WWII shots are just Glories, 24 km, and Worspite shot at Calabria, also 24 km. Hood was drowned with 14 km, and basically a serious mahach took place at very short distances.
                1. NF68
                  NF68 4 February 2018 22: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Colleague, in vain you run into ultra-long range shooting in those realities.
                  The farthest successful WWII shots are just Glories, 24 km, and Worspite shot at Calabria, also 24 km. Hood was drowned with 14 km, and basically a serious mahach took place at very short distances.


                  My counterpart claimed that heavy ships opened fire from the GK from a distance of no more than 100 cable. I showed him that he was wrong and gave evidence of this. And he also reminded that the pocket battleship could open fire with a noticeably greater distance than the TC with their 8 "and that at distances of the order of 20 km it’s more difficult to hit the target of the GK, for example, the Japanese 8," and even if the hit is received, then on such a distance 8 "armor-piercing projectile is significantly less dangerous than the 11" pocket battleship. Far from always shooting from a large 24-25 km. You can quickly hit the distance, but you can shoot before the enemy with 8 "approaches the distance from which he can start shooting and at which 8" shells are really dangerous for the pickpocket.
            3. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 5 February 2018 14: 35
              +2
              Quote: Santa Fe
              NF68 - great post! But there is no answer to the main question.
              Quote: NF68
              203 mm. Japanese shells in this regard are significantly inferior to 283 mm.
              What did it matter in practice?


              A large initial projectile speed of 283 mm is:
              - more flat trajectory - hence greater accuracy;
              - large structural damage;
              - more explosive in the projectile, compared with 203 mm
      2. Kars
        Kars 2 February 2018 14: 40
        +2
        That yes, beguiled. Spee.
      3. Julio Jurenito
        Julio Jurenito 2 February 2018 14: 59
        +4
        The expediency of constructing such ships causes, to put it mildly, bewilderment: their unsuitability for squadron combat was clear from the beginning, and raiders did not need such calibers and armor - the brilliant successes of the auxiliary cruisers "Cormoran", "Penguin", "Atlantis" are proof of this. And if the gloomy Teutonic genius did not spend resources on another still-born child prodigy, and prepared for the beginning of WWII not a dozen, but a hundred of converted armed commercial ships, then history could have taken a different course. And no Royal Fleet would be enough to catch these filibusters all over the World Ocean.

        Hence the transition to the realities of today: do trillions need to be built into the construction of a mega-carrier fleet with all the infrastructure, while almost any bucket can carry the "Caliber" after a minimal revision chisel and file.
      4. yehat
        yehat 2 February 2018 15: 33
        +5
        the problem was different - the Germans forgot about the lessons of Tirpitz and underestimated the problems of the cruising war. And therefore, they did not understand that for these LUCKY designed and made ships there is no corny niche where they will show themselves.
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 2 February 2018 06: 34
    14
    A balanced, powerful fleet has been created for decades. The Nazis did not have this time. Directly according to I.V. Stalin: “The USSR is XNUMX years behind developed capstries, if we do not run this distance for ten years they will crush us!” It’s good to look at the past with a tablet in hand, lying on the sofa and drive the Alternative!
    1. Santa Fe
      2 February 2018 07: 55
      +3
      Quote: andrewkor
      lying on the couch and drive Alternative!

      For history, as part of humanitarian knowledge, a virtual experiment, Formulation and consideration of alternative development options are just as important as a full-scale experiment in physics.. The “alternative reconstruction” of events helps in understanding the causes and mechanisms of the development of real events. And helps to draw lessons from the past.

      So before you write a funny crap about a sofa (no newer jokes?), Better read and think

      Ps. The first part of your comment (before the couch) was meaningful, you can discuss this topic
      1. andrewkor
        andrewkor 2 February 2018 09: 52
        +4
        About the sofa, I’m talking to myself, I’m joking about my beloved, and I respect the Alternative very much. After the Sea Wolf, I don’t even want to return to reality!
        1. Santa Fe
          2 February 2018 11: 11
          +2
          Then I apologize, misunderstood you

          Good luck! hi
          1. seti
            seti 2 February 2018 14: 07
            10
            Your article Comrade Kaptsov is not about anything. I will explain why. If you write about the type "Dochland" so write about this type of ship. What does the Japanese cruiser have to do with it ??? Comparing these ships is simply stupid. The first pure raider and the Japanese were built to fight the “Washington cruisers” of other countries.
            But if you compare, then you need to compare the TC of the first or second generation. After all, the “Dochland” type refers to it. The first two types of Japanese TCs were unsuccessful, the Japanese themselves admitted. But they trained and eventually created the following two types, Myoko and Takao. Yes, these two types are quite successful for their tasks. What is their real advantage over the ships of potential enemy countries? This is a reinforced torpedo armament and a new caliber in 203 mm. Plus sharpening for a night fight that was new in those years. But why did they carry heavy weapons and armor? Because their tonnage exceeded the limits of 45%! All cheated I do not argue, but the Japanese most.
            And what is your total advantage of 10 x 203 among the same Japanese? The Americans on the TK had 9 x 203 guns of the same caliber among the British and Germans on 8 x 203 ..


            And your favorite subsequent type of Mogami, you say .. Type one of the most unsuccessful in the Japanese fleet of those years. Why? The congestion which on each type of TC in the Japanese here has the character of a disaster. A very light initial body in which they tried to stick something that is no longer possible to put. As a result, insufficient seaworthiness and stability. The use of the main caliber in rapid-intensity shooting was difficult due to the deformation of the hulls. Otherwise, why the Japanese themselves subsequently revised the purpose of these shopping malls. They eventually became air defense ships and carriers of seaplanes.

            If you are writing articles do not think that everything is stupid and some amateurs here.
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 2 February 2018 06: 50
    24
    What is the article about? what
    The Germans did not design a ship which, at the time of laying it, met with some restrictions on the requirements for it, taking into account the conditions in which the designers were placed. Weak booking? So it is at the level of all cruisers of that period (at the time of bookmarking). Relatively low speed? So due to the saved weight we got indecently huge range of navigation and weapons! Kaptsov, what's wrong? The ship is a compromise of performance with displacement restrictions! This is the truth wink And you, dear Oleg, do not stop playing numbers on paper and juggling with concepts request
    La Plata fight. And why is there such a thing that makes the "sheers" undercropped ??? Duc Oleg, not ships are fighting, but people !!!! laughing Here the questions are not to the hardware itself, but to the people who controlled it wink
    So we are waiting for the following articles on the topic of measuring the member .... sorry ... um ... with merits on paper. Painfully epithets are beautiful fellow
    PS. Yes ... Oleg Batkovich, the Americans created their own heavy cruisers of the Alaska type to destroy the Mogami you love, just as the later Dunkirks were suitable for bullying the Sheers. Because everything is relative tongue Especially at the time of creation hi
    1. Santa Fe
      2 February 2018 08: 22
      +9
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And what is the article about? The Germans did not design the ship, which, at the MOMENT OF BOOKMARK, answered with some restrictions on the requirements,

      By syllables:

      The Germans were in the same conditions. (restrictions) as the Japanese

      The only benefit of Versailles is that German guns have limited 11 to inches (Washington’s restrictions for TKR of other countries were 8 inches)

      Germans built Deutschlands
      Japanese - Mioko, Tekai, etc.

      What country's projects differed in higher and balanced characteristics? The answer is Japan. Protection, the minute mass of the volley is on the same level, however, in Myoko-Mogami speed higher by third. Plus, a lot of other advantages, such as torpedo armament and universal artillery SK

      Why Yubermenshi instead of analogue Japanese ships (the best you could build with those limitations), built your ridiculous Deutschland?

      Answer - instead of a cruiser they decided to build a non-minority. Which should have been stronger than any TKR. Succeeded? The answer is no.

      Result? Wundership concept - on the shelf. In the 1935 year, they begin to build the TKR of the classical type ("Hipper")

      As a supplement - against the background of the same 4 projects of Japanese TKR, the German "Hipper" still looked like a piece of homogeneous, but this is the topic of the next article.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      due to the weight saved, they got indecently a huge range of navigation and armament!

      Are you sure about the weight saved? Maybe for a start it was worth to google?
      Weight of Spee power plant mechanisms - 2200 tons
      Mass of machinery MEGAMI - 2400 tons

      Save 200 tons by losing 100 000. hp and 30% speed - some dumb savings
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Oleg Batkovich, the Americans for the destruction of your favorite "Mogami" created their heavy cruisers like "Alaska"

      In 10 years after Mogami? very funny
      1. brn521
        brn521 2 February 2018 09: 43
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Weight of Spee power plant mechanisms - 2200 tons
        Mass of machinery MEGAMI - 2400 tons

        This is not enough. Need more volume, because The power plant also needs to be booked, and PTZ is provided. I suspect that I would have to abandon the stern heavy tower.
      2. brn521
        brn521 2 February 2018 10: 13
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        10 years after the Mogami? very funny

        Nothing funny. The lack of armored ships in the impossibility of normal modernization. In this case, opponents will have in mind the already built ships, taking the necessary countermeasures.
        By the way, rather weak armor, even close there is the notorious anti-fragmentation citadel 10 cm thick. And yet, 25% of the displacement. Resentment of the author of the article is natural. And what prevented the Germans from reproducing the notorious fairy-tale Dupuis de Lom from drawings?
        1. Santa Fe
          2 February 2018 10: 30
          +2
          Quote: brn521
          In this case, opponents will have in mind the already built ships, taking the necessary countermeasures.

          Late came to their senses
          while laid-built, the war ended
          Quote: brn521
          We need more volume, because powerplant is also necessary to book, and PTZ to provide. I suspect that I would have to abandon the aft heavy tower.

          Wow, the Japanese fit 5 turrets on an 37 hub cruiser
          1. brn521
            brn521 2 February 2018 16: 35
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Late came to their senses
            while laid-built, the war ended

            But their “Brooklyn" corrected taking into account Japanese achievements.
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Wow, the Japanese fit 5 turrets on an 37 hub cruiser

            Towers with 25mm armor for a smaller caliber.
            And about 37 knots - so it is necessary for the Japanese to first put them in order - seaworthiness and stability, and increase autonomy to 18000 miles. After that, measure what remains of their nodes there.
      3. avt
        avt 2 February 2018 10: 34
        +8
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The Germans were in the same conditions (restrictions) as the Japanese

        wassat And to teach the materiel? Reluctance? The Germans received restrictions on the basis of the lost World War I, and the Japanese generally taxied on the side of the winners and their restrictions were universal, Washington.
        1. Santa Fe
          2 February 2018 10: 49
          +1
          Quote: avt
          and their restrictions were ,, universal "- ,, Washington."

          And which of the restrictions were more beneficial for the designers?

          Versailles or Washington
          Teach materiel
          1. avt
            avt 2 February 2018 11: 05
            +4
            Quote: Santa Fe
            And which of the restrictions were more beneficial for the designers?
            Versailles or Washington

            bully Already progress - there is an understanding that the restrictions are different. Now, if you really are interested in the difference between what the Germans were forbidden to do as losers, from the word in general and when they jumped out from under them, and how, with what is spelled out in two stages by the so-called Washington, then we’ll talk.
            1. Santa Fe
              2 February 2018 11: 13
              +1
              Quote: avt
              Already progress - there is an understanding that the limitations are different

              One question - did you see the word "Versailles restrictions" in the article?
              What is written there
              1. avt
                avt 2 February 2018 12: 16
                +4
                Quote: Santa Fe
                One question - did you see the word "Versailles restrictions" in the article?

                bully
                “Burst out laughing so that a sparrow fluttered out of a linden above the heads of those sitting.

                “Well, that’s positively Interesting,” the professor said, shaking with laughter, “what you have, whatever you grab, there is nothing!” - He stopped laughing suddenly and, which is quite understandable in case of mental illness, after laughter he went to the other extreme - he became annoyed and shouted sternly: “So, after all, isn’t there?”
                Even though Oleg issued such lines in Ode
                The Anglo-Saxons tied Germany with a mass of restrictions: the displacement of ships is no more than 10 thousand tons, the caliber of no more than 11 inches. German engineering genius brilliantly overcame the “Versailles barrier”, having managed to get the maximum benefit in the seemingly impossible conditions.
                Build a super-armed ship, almost a battleship, in the dimensions of a heavy cruiser.
                But ,, ahhh, grouse-and-and on taaa-akovische .... "hear only their bullyWell now, let's talk about the second question, such as the difference between the barrier and the restrictions.
      4. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 2 February 2018 22: 21
        +4
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Why, instead of the analogue of Japanese ships, the governesses (the best that could be built under those restrictions) built their ridiculous Deutschland?

        Oleg, the Germans designed the Raider based on the results of the WWII and gaining achievements after wink Therefore, the cruising range turned out to be the cornerstone of the project. Won the range. Because the Deutschlands look so unbalanced request
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The Germans were in the same conditions (restrictions) as the Japanese

        Everyone was in the Washington restrictions! (Well, except for the Germans - they had their own limitations ...) It was just that everyone used them in their own way. The Germans competed with the Italians in speed, the British built the ocean “trade advocates”, the Americans were on their own, and the Japanese built cruisers to destroy the cruisers. As a result, everyone violated, and of the “Washington” Japanese turned out to be the best. The fact that they broke on the wave of the body, to remind, I think is not worth it. Everything is relative...
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The answer is no.

        Well, Oleg, this is your personal opinion. hi
        Quote: Santa Fe
        In addition, against the background of the same 4 projects of Japanese TKR, the German “Hipper” still looked like a piece of

        This is how ALL European cruisers looked like wink Well, maybe only besides Algeria and Zara. but we know what were the "warriors" paddling pools with pasta wassat
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Save 200 tons by losing 100 000. hp and 30% speed - some dumb savings

        Cruising range, Kaptsov, was 20000 miles !!! 2,5 times more Japanese! Set priorities. Germans had Raiders with a long range ...
        Quote: Santa Fe
        10 years after the Mogami? very funny

        What is the difference, they were created for the destruction of the "Mogami" without any restrictions, because "Mogami" were created to destroy their own kind with ogranichnosti hi
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 3 February 2018 07: 32
          0
          Sorry, reservation repeat Of course the French
    2. avt
      avt 2 February 2018 10: 31
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      What is the article about?

      Which one? Where? Oleg sang ODE
      Ode is an old song on any topic that was performed in ancient Greece by a choir accompanied by musical accompaniment. Later they began to call it a laudatory verse dedicated to the glorification of important historical events or prominent persons. Sometimes the ode glorifies majestic natural phenomena. The style of such works is especially solemn; it is designed in a sublime spirit with elements of pathos.
      Sang beautifully - in one breath. Well, I put a plus. Yes! About
      Quote: Rurikovich
      as for the persecution of “sheers” later “dunkers” were suitable

      Nash-a-alnik, mana. But isn't it for Gneisenau "with Scharnhorst"?
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 2 February 2018 22: 28
        +2
        Quote: avt
        Sang beautifully - in one breath. Well, I put a plus

        Eeeee, I also put a plus !!!!
        Quote: avt
        But isn't it for Gneisenau "with Scharnhorst"?

        Nope. precisely for the destruction of the Deutschlands
        Wiki, 2nd paragraph laughing
        And if in addition to jokes, then they can’t compete with the Scharnhorsts by booking ... 225mm-fi negative
        They were created with an eye on the Deutschlands.
        For 350mm of Scharnhorst’s armor weighs more than 330mm of a projectile than 225mm of Dunkirk’s armor versus 279mm of projectile hi
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 00: 12
          +1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Wiki, 2nd paragraph

          What does Vicki have to do with it?
          Dunkirk was laid down on 24.12.32/25.11.34/1935, Strasbourg - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, ShiG - in May XNUMX.
          Quote: Rurikovich
          And if in addition to jokes, then they can’t compete with the Scharnhorsts by booking ... 225mm-fi

          Who are they"? Booking Dunkirk and Strasbourg was different. The latter had a fully adult belt of 283 mm with a slope. In the case of German cannons, this meant the beginning of the invulnerability zone of 16 and 12,9 km, respectively. Horizontal booking was wonderful for its time.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 3 February 2018 07: 37
            +1
            This is for avt request
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            What does Vicki have to do with it?

            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Booking Dunkirk and Strasbourg was different. The latter had a fully adult belt of 283 mm with a slope.

            So I do not argue. The type is simply mentioned. And inside even one type there can be significant differences. smile
  4. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 2 February 2018 07: 43
    +4
    Didn't Mogami get cracks in the hull after the first voyages because of overweight?
    Yes, and the fate of "Hood" was sad ..
    1. Santa Fe
      2 February 2018 07: 47
      +1
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      Didn't Mogami get cracks in the hull after the first voyages because of overweight?

      Problem fixed in 1936 year
      1. seti
        seti 2 February 2018 14: 35
        +1
        The problem has not been fixed.
        1. avt
          avt 2 February 2018 17: 11
          +4
          Quote: Santa Fe
          Problem fixed in 1936 year

          Quote: seti
          The problem has not been fixed.

          Eliminated .... torpedo with ,, Akebono "... forever bully
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 2 February 2018 20: 12
            +2
            Quote: avt
            Eliminated .... torpedo with ,, Akebono "

            But "slightly" later than 1936! laughing
  5. 27091965
    27091965 2 February 2018 08: 16
    +2
    Instead of a quick and easy victory over the Exeter (objectively, the weakest and most primitive heavy cruiser armed with only six GK guns), a drama played out that cost the very life of the pickpocket. The damaged “Admiral Graf Spee” huddled at the mouth of La Plata, never having managed to finish off his opponent.



    " In the "pocket battleship" everything was done to save weight, even due to combat effectiveness. His heavy weapons were concentrated in only two towers, which, combined with their weak defense, led to the defeat of “Count Spee” in battle by three lighter but better designed opponents."

    One against three. One or two ships can always fire without the threat of getting hit from the enemy. Here, luck alone is not enough.
    1. Santa Fe
      2 February 2018 08: 37
      +2
      Quote: 27091965i
      One against three. One or two ships can always fire without the threat of getting hit by the enemy.

      The battle of La Palta was not like a street fight

      A) The English light cruisers entered into a firefight only half an hour after the start of the battle
      B) The participation of "Achilles" and "Ajax" in the battle was minimal, their fire did not bring any result. Only at the very end of the German successful hit blew one of them nose

      The main rubilovo was between "Spee" and "Exeter". The result - the weakest of the heavy cruisers was never sunk, the Spee was damaged, spent most of the ammunition and hid in Montevideo
      1. 27091965
        27091965 2 February 2018 09: 11
        +4
        Quote: Santa Fe
        British light cruisers did not shoot out half an hour after the start of the battle


        " Two minutes later, at 6 o’clock. 20 min., The cruiser "Exeter" opened fire with two towers, four eight-inch cannons. The range was 9,5 nautical miles.

        Meanwhile, the cruisers Ajax and Achilles opened fire with their six-inch cannons. Achilles opened fire at 6 in the morning, Ajax two minutes later
        ."

        Almost at the same time, all the cruisers entered the battle. Located at different angles to the "Earl of Spee".
        1. Santa Fe
          2 February 2018 10: 34
          +2
          Quote: 27091965i
          Almost at the same time, all the cruisers entered the battle. Located at different angles to the "Earl of Spee".

          I agree, wrong

          But the second point is about the insignificance of the role of Ajax and Achilles, I suppose you will not argue with him?
          1. 27091965
            27091965 2 February 2018 10: 56
            +2
            But the second point is about the insignificance of the role of Ajax and Achilles, I suppose you will not argue with him?


            I think you should not consider the role of “Ajax” and “Achilles” in this battle insignificant, the British themselves write in the report about this battle that at long distances of 152 mm the guns of these cruisers could not cause serious damage to the pocket battleship. Therefore, their task was to periodically summon the fire of the main caliber "Count Spee" on themselves. Facilitating the battle with the cruiser Exeter.
            There are only two towers, and it’s not very pleasant when someone bites you with impunity, I really want to drive him away or slam him.
            1. Santa Fe
              2 February 2018 11: 00
              +3
              Quote: 27091965i
              Facilitating combat to the Exeter cruiser.

              Considering the general technical level of the Exeter (one of the weakest cruisers of that era) and the declared capabilities of the “Spee” - such a battle should have ended in a quick victory, without high costs

              Actually, Spee's opportunities were greatly overvalued.
              The result - the weakest of the heavy cruisers was never sunk, the Spee was damaged, spent most of the ammunition and hid in Montevideo
              1. 27091965
                27091965 2 February 2018 11: 10
                +1
                Quote: Santa Fe
                Considering the general technical level of the Exeter (one of the weakest cruisers of that era) and the declared capabilities of the “Spee” - such a battle should have ended in a quick victory, without high costs


                Logically, yes, but luck does not always accompany the strong.
                1. Santa Fe
                  2 February 2018 11: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: 27091965i
                  strong.

                  Was there a "power"?

                  Where there was a useless SC, there was no speed and only a couple of towers of the Civil Code
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 2 February 2018 11: 35
                    +3
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    Was there a "power"?
                    Where there was a useless SC, there was no speed and only a couple of towers of the Civil Code




                    You, as well as another author of a similar genre on this site, are fond of all these mm GK or armor and other technical buns and are trying to explain exclusively to them ALL that happened.


                    All the same, try to analyze the battle taking into account the actions of the people who participated in it. You may understand why the battle developed as it developed and a couple of nodes in plus or minus played no role in the fate of Count Spee
                    1. Santa Fe
                      2 February 2018 12: 04
                      +2
                      Dear Town Hall, you still do not understand

                      People in that battle did everything that depended on them. The Germans shot and fell perfectly - for the level of that time. The only mistake Langsdorf - he went to a rapprochement, having lost the advantage in the range of fire, but this particular

                      La Plata's bout is not a boxing ring. Without equipment, without ships, no battle would have happened. There flew pieces of metal weighing hundreds of kg. In a duel situation, fire and security play a role. None of these criteria was superior to the Germans. And without it - the battle ended in damage to both opponents.
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Perhaps you will understand why the battle took shape as it took shape and a pair of nodes in a plus or a minus-did not play any role in the fate of Count Spee

                      Nodes in that battle really played a little

                      The lack of superiority in firepower played a role. Therefore, the very first meeting with a small squadron was fatal for Spee.

                      Regarding the actions of the crew - what do you want from them? They needed to incapacitate and sink the enemy as soon as possible. What turned out to be technically impossible, Spee’s weapons for this are weak.

                      SC generally is not capable due to the lack of those. opportunities for target designation
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 2 February 2018 12: 15
                        +1
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        The lack of superiority in firepower played a role. The first meeting with a small squadron turned out to be fatal for Spee




                        Maybe I didn’t understand anything. And maybe you don’t really understand what I mean.


                        I’ll try another example. You probably agree that a couple of years later another German ship fell into a similar situation. And the results were also very deplorable for him. And it was all right with both mm and nodes. Bismarck was called.


                        The chain of randomness is a regularity.
                      2. DimerVladimer
                        DimerVladimer 2 February 2018 14: 48
                        +3
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Langsdorff's only mistake is that he went on a rapprochement, losing the advantage in range, but this is particular


                        This is not a mistake - to fire at a long distance - this is an overspending of the main caliber ammunition. To come closer is to increase the accuracy of hits and dispense with a lower consumption of shells due to the introduction of an average caliber into battle.
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 2 February 2018 21: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: DimerVladimer
                        To come closer is to increase the accuracy of hits and dispense with a lower consumption of shells due to the introduction of an average caliber into battle.

                        I remember that the clearest English comrade from WWII ABC (Cunningham) argued that the correct range for firing ships of the Mediterranean fleet, including LC, was pistol (by his standards - within a mile).
                  2. brn521
                    brn521 2 February 2018 17: 17
                    0
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    Was there a "power"?

                    There was just strength. Not enough stamina.
              2. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 2 February 2018 15: 06
                +3
                Quote: Santa Fe
                Considering the general technical level of the Exeter (one of the weakest cruisers of that era) and the declared capabilities of the “Spee” - such a battle should have ended in a quick victory, without high costs


                If this was a 1x1 duel, then this would have happened.
                But it was 1x3 and it determined a lot. And then the task of the raider is not a battle - a squadron of 1 TKr and 2 LKr was caught - which is faster than him and it is possible to shake them off the stern only by battle. Unfortunately, a large range forced to put diesels and lose speed. Here you need to think a few moves ahead, that would not be caught.
                No luck.
                1. Saxahorse
                  Saxahorse 2 February 2018 22: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: DimerVladimer
                  Unfortunately, a large range forced to put diesels and lose speed.

                  And this means that “Spee” could not get away from the enemy who is stronger than him. About that and the article is a poor implementation of the idea of ​​a raider.
                  1. DimerVladimer
                    DimerVladimer 5 February 2018 14: 45
                    +2
                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    And this means that “Spee” could not get away from the enemy who is stronger than him. About that and the article is a poor implementation of the idea of ​​a raider.


                    Not quite so: having plenty of opportunities to replenish fuel supplies, the British anti-raiding forces will always be faster than any raider in Germany, since raiders can replenish fuel supplies only from rare transports. Therefore, it must be economical and more powerful than any cruiser - which corresponds to the “Deutschland” class.

                    To delay such a raider - the British had to group a squadron of three cruisers - an order of magnitude more displacement, cost, and it was a worthy fight - but that was not the task of the raider.
                    The threat of a powerful communications raider is the fleet's forces scattered in his search, in an attempt to protect communications.
                    The concept came true.
                    1. Saxahorse
                      Saxahorse 5 February 2018 22: 09
                      +1
                      Quote: DimerVladimer
                      The threat of a powerful communications raider is the fleet's forces scattered in his search, in an attempt to protect communications.
                      Concept came true

                      How to find so immediately and killed. Moreover, ships of a class below. How did this concept come true ?? Why is a “powerful" raider needed at all? Auxiliary cruisers and submarines required no less forces to counteract, despite the fact that they themselves are two orders of magnitude cheaper.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 5 February 2018 23: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        How to find so immediately and killed

                        The kid walked to success, it didn’t work, he didn’t fartanulo
                      2. DimerVladimer
                        DimerVladimer 6 February 2018 12: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Quote: DimerVladimer
                        The threat of a powerful communications raider is the fleet's forces scattered in his search, in an attempt to protect communications.
                        Concept came true

                        How to find so immediately and killed. Moreover, ships of a class below. How did this concept come true ?? Why is a “powerful" raider needed at all? Auxiliary cruisers and submarines required no less forces to counteract, despite the fact that they themselves are two orders of magnitude cheaper.


                        So the main task of the raider is to not be found. I repeat the third time - the commander’s fault, it’s worth shifting to technology.

                        Well, they didn’t kill them “right away” - rather more with a drain of misinformation, they led to the self-destruction of the ship.

                        The fact that after the battle with superior forces, Count Spee did not receive critical structural damage is a fact that is difficult to deny.

                        Unfortunately, the overspending of the BK GK and the impossibility of conducting centralized fire greatly reduced the combat qualities of the ship - a raider to avoid fighting.

                        The commander, Admiral Scheer, was much more skilled, and slipped into the Atlantic and returned to the base with an excellent result: 2 prize tankers + 15 sunken ships. Forcing warships to chase, several times higher than their own displacement and cost.

                        Because submarines with a similar range or at least close to 150000 miles were piece production, their efficiency is not high - they are not able to destroy the convoy guarding forces, even in a wolf pack. But in fact, "long-range boats, were on duty in remote areas of patrolling alone.

                        The mere presence of a Deutschland class raider - required the escort to be attached to the convoy in the form of a battleship or a linear cruiser, or several heavy cruisers - this was for one convoy! And they had to spend dozens!

                        How many ships stood idle waiting for the convoy (for months). Why and had to increase the production of transport tonnage.

                        Submarines were handled by light forces such as a corvette, a guard, a minesweeper, and a destroyer.

                        Raider Admiral Scheer defeated the convoy forces and drowned Jervis Bay (an armed liner - an auxiliary cruiser), who, at the cost of his heroic death, saved most of the convoy - providing time to disperse.

                        Raiding is primarily the interception of ships.
                        Submarines have much less capabilities than a surface ship, both in speed and in ammunition, in reconnaissance, in pursuit, they are more vulnerable and could not use a gun, since all English transports were armed and could repulse the submarine in artillery battle.

                        The raider is many times faster and more able to reconnaissance - moving around, raising the reconnaissance aircraft. He sometimes did not have to spend ammunition for sinking - the crew of captured ships was captured, and the ships were drowned by subversive charges. Often they did not even have time to give a radiogram about the capture. That provided the raider with some "anonymity" of actions.
                        When the raider "lit up" he quickly changed the raiding area. Submarines were not capable of this because of the limited fuel supply, and type XXI (Elektroboot) boats appeared only at the end of the war.
                        Of the mortgaged 118, only 2 took part in the war.

                        You argue in vain - look for time to familiarize yourself with the Admiral Scheer raiding and I will not have to write what is much better described by eyewitnesses and raid participants.

                        Of the German submarines with a range of 10000 miles or more - this is the IX series from 10000-12000 miles (IX-D type boats over 31000 miles)
                        193 boats of type IX of various modifications were built.
                        Type X submarines (submarine min zag) over 18000 miles - 8 pcs.
                        Submarines of type XIV ("cash cow" supply submarine) - 10 units, in principle, not combat.
                        Submarines of type VII (medium) - autonomy of 40 days, 8500 miles - the most massive series, could not provide the necessary range and autonomy for a long raid.
                      3. brn521
                        brn521 6 February 2018 12: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        How to find so immediately and killed.

                        Not killed. Trick took. Plus, an accident in the form of a 150 mm projectile, due to which the raider lost the main caliber fire control system. Otherwise, he would have drowned all three cruisers and left.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Why is a “powerful" raider needed at all?

                        So that the tiny German fleet in the early 30s could represent at least some kind of problem for the same England.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Auxiliary cruisers and submarines required no less forces to counteract

                        The number of ships allowed for construction, their tonnage and armament were limited by the Treaty of Versailles. A few dead boats and all. Only in 1935, as part of the "pacification policy," a new treaty was signed with England. Then the normal tonnage was allowed, though in the amount of no more than 35% of the total tonnage from the English Navy. And it became possible to build submarines, though only 45% of the English, which were already few. But in order for the "policy of" appeasement "to become possible, the German fleet had to pose at least some kind of threat before 1935. The only threat that could be created was the threat of raider operations. There were no submarines. And the auxiliary cruisers would control the same auxiliary cruisers recruited from the civilian fleet, and they have few chances. They will ultimately be localized and destroyed. Whereas the Panzerschiff, having done a damn thing in the Atlantic Ocean, could have dumped Indy due to its autonomy and seaworthiness sky, not on the way otsvechivaya any public ports. Cruiser for such are not suitable, they need base.
                      4. DimerVladimer
                        DimerVladimer 6 February 2018 12: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        How to find so immediately and killed. Moreover, ships of a class below. How did this concept come true ?? Why is a “powerful" raider needed at all? Auxiliary cruisers and submarines required no less forces to counteract, despite the fact that they themselves are two orders of magnitude cheaper.


                        And to see how many forces were used to intercept and neutralize the same raider Admiral Scheer? Even now it’s impressive:

                        The British promptly reacted to the convoy attack: the battleships Nelson and Rodney blocked the Danish Strait, and the battlecruisers Ripals and Hood blocked the approaches to the Bay of Biscay, blocking for the German heavy cruiser the escape routes to the bases.

                        The British sent three naval groups to the south to intercept the "Admiral Scheer"

                        In the indian ocean
                        "the British took measures to neutralize the heavy cruiser. An aircraft that was found by a German raider was lifted from the Glasgow English cruiser, which was 140 miles from the Rantaupajang. The British-organized pursuit could not lead to the destruction of the ship or the establishment of constant eye contact "


                        One communications raider is a mass of warships distracted from other tasks.
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 2 February 2018 22: 55
            +3
            Quote: Santa Fe
            But the second point is about the insignificance of the role of Ajax and Achilles, I suppose you will not argue with him?

            Oleg, the light cruisers made 17 hits in Spee versus 2-3 from Exeter wink And one of the shells that fell into the bow at the waterline became fatal, and a hole from it could create problems on the ocean unrest in the future, which was one of the factors that made Langsdorf leave for Montevideo. Therefore, the question is who contributed more to the victory. wink
      2. seti
        seti 2 February 2018 14: 38
        +2
        Why lie ? Reports everywhere indicate that the LK opened the battle two minutes after the first salvo of the flagship Exeter TC. What half an hour?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 2 February 2018 20: 32
          0
          Quote: seti
          it is indicated that LK opened the battle

          KRL, still
  6. tchoni
    tchoni 2 February 2018 08: 21
    +1
    There is an old famous saying "the best enemy of the good." Perhaps the Germans did not hear about her. But here are our shipbuilders trying to cram into a limited displacement of a hedgehog, a snake and a trembling doe .... I, excuse me, do not understand.
  7. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 2 February 2018 08: 45
    +7
    The usual nonsense for this author. CMT is compared with LA and it is concluded that it is not LA. Get drunk like that!
    Quote: Santa Fe
    The Germans were in the same conditions (restrictions) as the Japanese

    Mom’s historian.
    1. Santa Fe
      2 February 2018 08: 53
      +3
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      MCT is compared with LC and the conclusion is made that it is not LC. Hurt as bad as that!

      Come on in more detail about KRT. The Germans themselves singled them out into a special class, the Panzershiff, who in their opinion held an intermediate meaning between the cruisers and the LC

      In practice: there is no significant fire advantage over cruisers, he couldn't even catch one

      And with battleships in general to compare it is stupid, in a battle with the LC, the Pantherschiff will die in minutes. At the same time, did not even have a chance to escape from inevitable death. niht geschwindigkeit
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 2 February 2018 09: 51
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        And it’s foolish to compare it with battleships,

        Exactly
        . Salvation from the British LKR was in principle impossible: “Ripals” and “Hood” are much faster. When meeting other battleships, not enough high speed has always played against the Pantshershif.
        Is it possible to guarantee a successful escape from “Queen Elizabeth”, having a difference in the speed of the 2-3 node? With that incomparable difference in firepower, when just one hit could immobilize (if not finish off) the pickpocket? Remember, what kind of destruction caused a hit 15-inch projectile in LC "Julio Cesare"!
        By the way, if you remembered about the Italians, then their upgraded battleships, preserved from the time of the WWI, cut the wave at 28 nodes.
        Pre-war French LC Dunkirk and Strasbourg made almost 30 knots

        Huh
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Come on in more detail about KRT. The Germans themselves singled them out into a special class, the Panzershiff, who in their opinion held an intermediate meaning between the cruisers and the LC

        As allowed, they called it. They could not build either LC or 10K CRT at that moment.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        In practice: there is no noticeable fire advantage over the cruisers, he could not even catch any of them

        There is no need for this. This is a raider, his task is to drown transports. The Kyrgyz Republic will not go far from transports, but they will run away - and to hell with them.
        1. Santa Fe
          2 February 2018 10: 40
          +3
          Did the Germans single him out in a separate class? Yes.
          Deutschland was positioned as a ship that is stronger than any cruiser.

          Did the Britons call it "pocket battleship"? Yes, they called

          I just gave the facts, the word LC with respect to Deutschland is incorrect. Nothing in common
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Neither LC, nor 10K KRT they could not build at that moment.

          If the Germans are such brilliant constructors, they could build 3 normal CDs of the Mogami type, instead of three useless galoshes
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          This is a raider, his task is to sink the transports.

          Mogami for this task is preferable.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          KR from transports will not run away,

          Naturally not, they will kill Spee, as in La Plata
          the first interception of the convoy will be the last
          1. brn521
            brn521 2 February 2018 19: 22
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            If the Germans are such brilliant constructors, they could build 3 normal CDs of the Mogami type, instead of three useless galoshes

            At the time of design and construction, Pocket battleships were fully consistent with their tasks.
            Mogami? Well, and how is the confrontation with the French or British fleet supposed with their help? Despite the fact that it will be the flagships. No battleships to help, instead of them there will be these very unfortunate Mogami, scoring the limit of the Treaty of Versailles on the most powerful German ships.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 2 February 2018 19: 49
              +3
              Quote: brn521
              Well, and how is the confrontation with the French or British fleet supposed with their help?

              And where does the fleet?
              Raiders from the fleet must run away. Their tasks are complication, and ideally, the complete cessation of transport communications, sea blockade.
              The fact that Germany practically succeeded in World War II with Great Britain and what the Americans did with respect to Japan.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 2 February 2018 20: 35
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                what the Americans did with respect to Japan.

                Yes, a hundred aviks, of which 20 are heavy, would be the best solution, here you are right. However, the main tonnage, like that of Germany, was sunk by submarines
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 2 February 2018 21: 16
                  +2
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Yes, a hundred aviks, of which 20 are heavy, would be the best solution, here you are right.

                  As far as I know, everything was much more complicated there. The main role was played by submarines and basic patrol aircraft. Well, surface ships, including aircraft carriers, played an important, but auxiliary role. First of all, ensuring the safety of these same submarines.
                  It is no secret that, having virtually air and surface dominance in the Atlantic, the Allies could very, very successfully fight an underwater enemy, respond much more flexibly to changing tactics of using submarines, and successfully use real galoshes to combat them.
                  Well, Japanese fighters with submarines had to be very "toothy" in relation to the surface and air opponents, because they were much smaller and they were much more expensive in terms of resources and time to build.
                  The second important role is that, together with the Marine Corps and excellent engineering units, the Fleet provided basic patrol aviation with airfields.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 2 February 2018 22: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    As far as I know, everything was much more complicated there.

                    I noted that most of the tonnage is for submarines. In 43-44 years (when torpedoes had already been repaired, but the aircraft had not yet covered the sun) - more than 2/3, EMNIP (but this is not accurate))).

                    On TO, as far as I can tell, by the 44th there was a very clear division of labor: NK provide and cover the landing (including the fixation of enemy NK), the submarines destroy the tonnage. As for the fact that the Americans of 43-44 years have advanced very far in anti-submarine terms - I agree. Nevertheless, the German submarines and TCs proved to be the most appropriate weapons. And the 21st series of submarines could completely prolong the "happy times", appear on time. The end is one, but would have suffered longer.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 2 February 2018 22: 43
                      +2
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Nevertheless, the German submarines and TCs proved to be the most appropriate weapons.

                      Balance. Due to the weakness of naval aviation and the surface fleet, the Germans were at a disadvantage by default. And the 21st series would complicate the situation by half a year from the strength. Having the ability to do anything in the air and on the surface, the allies were practically unlimited in capabilities.
                      Here you can still remember the Pacific Theater. American heavy ground-based fighter jets and, as far as I read, “fortresses” with heavy machine gun and cannon weapons, very, very limited the capabilities of the Japanese base patrol aircraft to counter submarines. The Germans in the Atlantic did not have a similar antidote to Anglo-American aviation.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 00: 17
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Balance. Due to the weakness of naval aviation and the surface fleet, the Germans were at a disadvantage by default.

                        For many reasons, they were at a disadvantage. But if we consider the task of the complication of ocean logistics, the submarines objectively did incomparably more than NK. With a relatively (Bismarck) moderate consumption of materials and people.
              2. brn521
                brn521 5 February 2018 11: 15
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                And where does the fleet?

                Despite the fact that in 1930 the Germans needed a fleet capable of creating an adequate counter-threat to the fleets of Great Britain and France. The Treaty of Versailles was designed to transform Germany from a maritime power to a coastal one. In response, the Germans designed a full-fledged ocean highly autonomous ships, capable at that time to withstand any cruisers and at the same time move away from the battleships.
                Quote: Spade
                Raiders from the fleet must run away.

                Just not in the case when the raider is the most powerful unit of the German fleet. These were the most powerful ships that the Germans could afford. There was no point in building conventional battleships in this format. According to the Treaty of Versailles, the limit is 6 pieces, plus 2 in reserve. They would simply be thrown hats. Therefore, the decision was the only and forced. It was impossible to resist the enemy’s battleships, so they were supposed to flee from them. But it was possible to normally butt with any cruiser, including heavy, thanks to the powerful main caliber. Well, where to send such a ship? Only for raiding. In the end, he will still be thrown with hats, but it will cost the enemy much more than the pocket battleship cost the Germans.
                Quote: Spade
                The fact that Germany almost succeeded in World War II

                The British and French scored on the Versailles treaty. This allowed the Germans to switch to submarines and normal ships. If not for that, then pocket battleships are the maximum that they could expose. And now Kaptsov suggests instead of them scoring the limit with Japanese pelvis, which broke under their own weight already during sea trials, demanded a whole fleet to provide long trips and did not capsize on the wave only thanks to ballast tanks. These pelvis could not get away from the enemy’s heavy cruisers, nor could they normally resist them. More precisely, they could have gone, but not far - the turbines at full speed in a few hours will exhaust the entire supply of fuel. designed for months of sailing. An ordinary cruiser, at an economical speed of 14 knots, had enough reserves for 7500 miles. Pocket battleship could go at full speed, 26 knots, the same 7500 miles.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 5 February 2018 23: 13
                  0
                  Quote: brn521
                  Despite the fact that in 1930 the Germans needed a fleet capable of creating an adequate counter-threat to the fleets of Great Britain and France

                  Lol
                  Quote: brn521
                  They would just throw their hats

                  Yeah
                  Quote: brn521
                  but it will cost the enemy much more than the pocket battleship cost the Germans.

                  And it could, in principle, be obtained from La Plata.
                  1. brn521
                    brn521 6 February 2018 11: 20
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    And it could, in principle, be obtained from La Plata.

                    This is quite normal statistics. In this case, the raider was not lucky. He was damaged by a fire control system of 150 mm guns. Therefore, he was able to sink only one cruiser. In a normal situation, I would drown all three and leave. The lack of armored artillery ships intended for ocean navigation is that it is impossible to book everything, and the closer to the present, the more difficult. Nevertheless, the raider completed his task. But the concept itself turned out to be quite viable and the Admiral Scheer was able to realize all the advantages of this type of ship.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Yeah

                    Exactly. Only in 1935 did the new Anglo-German maritime agreement finally expand the scope of the Versailles restrictions, allowing it to increase the total tonnage of the German Navy to 35% of English. And it was finally allowed to build submarines, though again, 45% of the small English submarine tonnage. Because of what, incidentally, the Germans were forced to rivet dwarf submarines of a tiny tonnage, sacrificing autonomy. But all this was obtained in the framework of the "policy of appeasement." And for this, the German armed forces had to pose a threat, including at sea. Otherwise, they would be pacified in a completely different way.
        2. loft79
          loft79 2 February 2018 10: 58
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          This is a raider, his task is to heat transports

          That's what this article is about. hi The raider must be able to disperse the cruiser, sink the transports. If you suddenly stumbled on LC, I should quickly fall down, and pickpockets have problems with this.
  8. Curious
    Curious 2 February 2018 08: 52
    +1
    After reading the article, there is a suspicion that the author of Samsonov from the History section and the author of Kaptsov from the Armament section are the same person.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 2 February 2018 09: 56
      +8
      Very different, Karpov is always ready to defend his opinion and writes himself, Samsonov takes someone else's text and adds the masters of the West and never appears in the discussion.
  9. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 2 February 2018 12: 28
    +4
    For a general picture, I’ll give some statistics on the results of the actions of these ships:
    "Count Spee" sank:
    1. The ship "Clement" (England, 1934) 30.09.39/5051/XNUMX (XNUMX gross)
    2. Steamboat “Ashley” (England, 1929) 7.10.39 (4222 gross)
    3. Steamboat “Newton Beach” (England, 1925) 8.10.39 (4651 gt) (cargo - 7080 tons of maize)
    4. Steamboat "Huntsman" (England,) 17.10.39/8196/XNUMX (XNUMX gross)
    5. The motor ship "Trevanion" (England, 1937) 2.10.39 (5299 gross)
    6. Diesel tanker "Africa Shell" (England, 1939) 15.11.39/706/XNUMX (XNUMX gb)
    7. Steamboat "Dorik Star" (England, 1921) 2.12.39 (10086 gross)
    8. Refrigerator "Tairoa" (England, 1920) 3.12.39 (7983 gross)
    9. The ship "Streonshalh" (England, 1928) 7.12.39 (3895 gt) (cargo-grain)
    During the battle at La Plata, the English cruiser Essex and the light cruisers Ajax and Achilles damaged.
    On the "Essex" killed 61 people., Injured 23.
    Ajax killed 7 people and injured 5.
    On the "Achilles" killed 4 people., Injured 7.
    On "Count Spee" 36 people were killed in battle, 60 wounded.

    Admiral Scheer sank:
    1. Aux. the cruiser “Jervis Bay” (England, 1922) 5.11.40 (21601 tons, 14164 brt., 167, 34x20,73x10,06 m., 15 knots, eco-254 people, 7x1-152 mm, 2x1- 76 mm) (189 people died, including 17 of.)
    2. Refrigerated steamer "Mopan" (England) 5.11.40 (5389 gross) (sunk 105 mm artillery)
    3. Steamer "Maid An" (England, 1925) 5.11.40 (7908 gross vehicles) (91 people died)
    4. Steamboat "Travelord" (England, 1936) 5.11.40 (5201 gross vehicles) (16 people were killed)
    5. The ship "Kenban Head" (England, 1919) 5.11.40 (5225 gross vehicles) (23 people were killed)
    6. Steamboat “Biaverford” (England, 1928) 5.11.40 (10042 brt) (79 people died)
    7. The motor ship "Fresno City" (England) 5.11.40 (5225 gross vehicles) (1 person died)
    8. Refrigerated steamer “Port Hobart” (England) 24.11.40 (7448 gt) (cargo including 5 light training aircraft)
    9. Steamboat “Tribesman” (England, 1932) 1.12.40 (6242 brt) (8 people died, captured 14)
    10. Refrigerated steamboat Dukes ”(England) 18.12.40/8651/3539 (720 gt) (cargo - 13 tons of frozen meat, 99 tons (XNUMX million pcs.) Of eggs) (XNUMX people were taken prisoner)
    11. Tanker “Sandefierd” (Norway) 17.01.41/8038/11000 (XNUMX gross tons) (gross - XNUMX tons of oil) (captured as a prize)
    12. Transport “Barnveld” (Holland) 20.01.41/5597/5 (86 gt) (cargo - 10000 light bombers, XNUMX cargo vehicles, XNUMX tons of ammunition)
    13. The steamer "Stanpark" (England) 20.01.41/5103/XNUMX (XNUMX gross vehicles) (cargo - cotton)
    14. The tanker British Lawyer (England) 3.02.41 (6994 gt) (cargo - 10000 tons of oil and gasoline) (captured as a prize)
    15. Transport "Gregoria" (Greece) 3.02.41/2546/XNUMX (XNUMX gross)
    16. Passenger ship "Canadian Cruiser" (Canada, 1921) 21.02.41 (7178 gross) (cargo-ilmenite)
    17. Steamboat “Rangaupajang” (Holland) 22.02.41/2452/XNUMX (XNUMX gt) (cargo-coal)
    18. Icebreaker "Alexander Sibiryakov" (USSR, 1909) 25.08.42 (3200 t., 1384 brt., 76,5 × 10,8 × 6 m., 2360 hp, 13 knots, 2x1- 76 mm, 2x1- 45 mm , 2x1-20 mm) (349 tons of cargo (dogs, cows, station equipment, provisions, fuel, building materials)) (85 people died, 18 were taken prisoner)

    Battleship Deutschland sank:
    1. Steambate steamer (England, 1928) 5.10.39 (5044 brt)
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 2 February 2018 12: 40
      +2
      Quote: VohaAhov
      For a general picture, I’ll give some statistics on the results of the actions of these ships:




      The Germans had a lot of submarines whose track record was more impressive than these. And the submarine was several orders of magnitude cheaper than these cruisers / battleships
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 2 February 2018 14: 46
        +2
        Quote: Town Hall
        The Germans had a lot of submarines whose track record was more impressive than these. And the submarine was several orders of magnitude cheaper than these cruisers / battleships


        So what? Raiders are much more efficient and range and ammunition are many times higher. Vessels were drowned mainly by subversive charges - saving BC.
        And a vessel with valuable cargo can be captured and sent as a prize to Germany - for this purpose there was a special ship crew on the raider (it makes sense to get acquainted with the raiding of Admiral Scheer)
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 2 February 2018 15: 02
          +3
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          So what? Raiders are much more efficient and range and ammunition are many times higher. Vessels were drowned mainly by subversive charges - saving BC.
          And a vessel with valuable cargo can be captured and sent as a prize to Germany - for this purpose there was a special ship crew on the raider (it makes sense to get acquainted with the raiding of Admiral Scheer)



          And how many captured ships with valuable cargo were sent to Germany by raiders?


          The use of large NKs as raiders in the era of aviation, radar, in the absence of bases and supply ports and with complete superiority in the enemy’s ocean turned out to be a very stupid idea to turn these raiders into single-use suicide bombers.


          This, by the way, is also their real reason for their quick death (Graf Spee, Bismarck, Scharnhorst). And not the nodes / mm of the Civil Code


          And their efficiency in comparison with the PL-turned out to be scanty. Considering the cost of construction / result. This is not even a microscope nails, but much worse.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 2 February 2018 21: 07
            +2
            Quote: Town Hall
            And their efficiency in comparison with the PL-turned out to be scanty. Considering the cost of construction / result. This is not even a microscope nails, but much worse.

            Colleague, you judge with aftertaste. Similarly, the japophiles are worried about why it was necessary to throw money at Yamato when you could put some Hiru in the series.
            Now it’s clear that the Germans needed to get on the submarine and move the 21st episode a couple of years to the left. But in the 30s, the layout seemed completely different. This is especially true of the times of Deutschland.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 3 February 2018 13: 23
              +1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              But in the 30s, the layout seemed completely different.




              And in the 30s, it was initially clear that the main potential enemy of England with its total (in relation to Germany) superiority at sea, geography was the same then, all the reasons why these ships were doomed to one-time pirate raids in penguin pasture areas were in stock since bookmarking.


              To establish control over the really important region for Germany - the North Sea, the Central and North Atlantic - they were useless. For raiding in the same areas, which could really play some important role in order to block the supply of England, they were also useless.


              And that was understandable back then.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 13: 28
                +3
                Quote: Town Hall
                it is clear that the main potential enemy is England

                In 1928, Deutschland was laid.
                At that time, talking about the confrontation between Kingsmarin and Royalflit is no less strange than now about the confrontation between the Navy of Russia and the United States.
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 3 February 2018 13: 43
                  +1
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  At that time, talk about the confrontation between Kingsmarin and Royalflit



                  I still assume that the Germans are reasonable people and when they made the decision to build these ships they asked themselves a question - who are we friends against today, girls. And in the future too. Building a ship still required some thought for what and why .... as they say- Build a tram, not a buyman.


                  As an exception to the rest of the candidates, all the same, old-time German friends of the Naglofranka remained.


                  I refuse to think that the beggars at that time the Germans began to build ships on Portosovsky-I am building because I am building
                  1. Rakovor
                    Rakovor 3 February 2018 14: 22
                    +1
                    At the time of designing and laying the Deutschlands, the Germans did not even consider England as an adversary in a nightmare.
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 3 February 2018 16: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Rakovor
                      At the time of designing and laying the Deutschlands, the Germans did not even consider England as an adversary in a nightmare.



                      Seriously? And who were they considering? New Guinea or Old?


                      Getting up from their knees is the fundamental idea of ​​that Germany. It was not Hitler who instilled a spirit of revenge in Germany. It was the spirit of revenge of the people that brought him to power. And that is why the country followed him and went on until the last day of the war.


                      And which countries "put them on their knees" - the Germans had no particular doubts a single day from the day of Versailles
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 17: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        And who was considered: New Guinea or Old?

                        Nobody. Not satisfied?
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Kneeling is the fundamental idea of ​​that Germany

                        Nonsense. Even Hitler, until the end of the 30s, expressed caution on this subject.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        This spirit of revenge of the people brought him to power

                        Lies. Hitler was brought to power by Hindeburg and the then "family" (like a famous character), he lost the election (as opposed to a famous character).
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        that is why the country followed him and walked until the last day of the war practically

                        Like Japan, for example.
                  2. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 15: 02
                    +2
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    I refuse to think that the beggars at that time the Germans began to build ships on Portosovsky-I am building because I am building

                    This is a much more reasonable concept than you think. To be able to build ships, you need to build them. Otherwise, the industry will degrade, something that even the Americans faced by the 30s.
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    The construction of the ship still required some thought for what and why

                    Nonsense. The ship was built under the given restrictions - no more than 10K, no more than 280 mm. In this scenario, it could turn out either a Baltic monitor (as, in fact, was conceived in Versailles), or a superwashington, as unbalanced as all the first Washingtonians, a shell with a hammer. The Germans chose the second option, and did an excellent job. Their ship posed a threat not only to any SRT up to DeMoyne inclusive (here I do not consider the progress of the LMS), but also to the younger LK / LKR, such as Rinaun (belt 152), Congo (203), Seva (225).
                    Little of. If the Germans managed to catch the enemy with their pants down (Matapan, 3,5 km distance, Washington fired Kirishima, 5,3 km, the first Guadalcanal, 2-3 km), then a 280 mm gun (longer, SK C / 34) would penetrate half a meter of armor and allowed to drown anything, up to and including Yamato (of course, only until the moment when Yamato did not gasp on his own).
                    As a matter of fact, this gun killed the Soviet supercruiser before it was born (it went down to 40K), unscrewed the French to the first post-Washington battleships and made the British in the early years of WWII pull the LC / LCR for cruising tasks. IMHO, everything just turned out great.
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 3 February 2018 16: 23
                      +2
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      This is a much more reasonable concept than you think.




                      Just the “sight” of our conversation went astray a bit.


                      My discussion about the "futility" of this project is a response to the author’s statement on the basis of the course and the result of the battle at Rio de la Plata that the ship was unsuccessful because it allegedly lacked a couple more travel units or a quarter of an inch of caliber.


                      I said that this was a narrow-minded assessment of the problem, poppy. And that other German ships that did not have these "shortcomings" repeated his fate. Because the true problems were not in knots / mm, but in completely different moments
          2. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 5 February 2018 15: 07
            +2
            Quote: Town Hall
            And how many captured ships with valuable cargo were sent to Germany by raiders?

            Admiral Scheer
            - Tanker “Sandefierd” (Norway) 17.01.41/8038/11000 (XNUMX gross tons) (gross - XNUMX tons of oil) (captured as a prize)
            - Tanker British Lawyer (England) 3.02.41 (6994 gt) (cargo - 10000 tons of oil and gasoline) (captured as a prize)

            - Refrigerated steamboat Dukes ”(England) 18.12.40/8651/3539 (720 gt) (cargo - 13 tons of frozen meat, 99 tons (XNUMX million eggs)) (XNUMX people were taken prisoner)
            It was used as a ship supplying raiders with food until coal ran out.

            Some ships were used to keep prisoners. To supply the raiders. At the rendezvous point in the Atlantic Ocean, about a dozen ships were assembled, including captured ones, supplies and raiders.
            Of course, the least valuable were sunk later, without any special value.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 5 February 2018 16: 39
              0
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              Quote: Town Hall
              And how many captured ships with valuable cargo were sent to Germany by raiders?
              Admiral Scheer
              - Tanker “Sandefierd” (Norway) 17.01.41/8038/11000 (XNUMX gross tons) (gross - XNUMX tons of oil) (captured as a prize)




              It will not be difficult to tell in a nutshell about the fate of this tanker after being captured as a prize? .. for example, when it was sent to Germany and when it sailed there.
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 6 February 2018 12: 22
                +1
                Quote: Town Hall
                It will not be difficult to tell in a nutshell about the fate of this tanker after being captured as a prize? .. for example, when it was sent to Germany and when it sailed there.


                As far as I remember, one definitely reached Germany.
                I don’t remember the second one - I have to re-read it.
                Please read the materials of the raid - there is a Russified book "pocket battleship Admiral Scheer."

                It is well known that the "raider interception" was carried out
                "The British promptly responded to the convoy attack: the battleships Nelson and Rodney blocked the Danish Strait, and the battlecruisers Ripals and Hood blocked the approaches to the Bay of Biscay, blocking for the German heavy cruiser the escape routes to the bases."
              2. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 6 February 2018 12: 36
                +1
                Quote: Town Hall
                It will not be difficult to tell in a nutshell about the fate of this tanker after capture as a prize?


                The Norwegian tanker Sandefjord (8038 bt), which transported approximately 11 tons of crude oil. 000 prisoners were transferred aboard the captured tanker and sent to Bordeaux as a prize vessel.
          3. Grafova Irina
            Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 16: 31
            +3
            Their efficiency is not in the recessed tonnage (not in the first place) but in the very fact of their presence in the sea-ocean. This is the concept of cruising war. Where, when and how the raider will strike. The crews of the "merchants" do not want to go to sea without cover, they have to collect convoys, as a result - slowdown and decrease in cargo turnover, growth of insurance. To escort them, warships are needed - fuel and distraction from other tasks, wear of machinery and crew fatigue, the risk of running into the same raider, but in adverse conditions, coastal services are on their feet around the clock, patrol aviation pilots are lying on their feet. And the raider is standing somewhere ... Like the Koenigsberg at the mouth of Rufigi, for example ... Or the Tirpitz. Here is the “fleet in bing” ... And if it is reliably known that several enemy ships are in hunting mode, then all this only increases. The essence of cruising warfare is rather economic. And political, too, by the way. As well as psychological. And direct damage - only later
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 5 February 2018 16: 47
              0
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              Their efficiency is not in the recessed tonnage (not in the first place) but in the very fact of their presence in the sea-ocean. This is the concept of cruising war. Where, when and how the raider will strike. The crews of the "merchants" do not want to go to sea without cover, they have to collect convoys, as a result - slowdown and decrease in cargo turnover, growth of insurance.




              Your theory seems to be logical. On paper.


              But like any other theory needs to be confirmed by practice, otherwise it remains only a theory.


              But practice shows that in the zone of operations of these NK-raiders (South Atlantic) -convoys and other horrors described by you were not observed.


              They were observed where the submarines were operating. So the efficiency of the NK Raiders, about 0 turned out to be. Proven by practice
              1. Grafova Irina
                Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 17: 30
                +1
                Not certainly in that way. Even if we leave out the drowned and captured tonnage (the lists here resulted), then there were horrors. Starting, however, from sporadically created convoys (for example, military convoys), to the use of the disproportionate value of a single raider of the number of warships. With all the "charms" arising from this. The cost of freight increased at times, scandals (read Churchill) in parliament with accusations of inability (rule of the seas, Britain) to cope with the problem. And fear has big eyes. And the same ship was "seen" in opposite ends of the ocean, which created even greater confusion ... And, mind you, only one "client" was caught - the one that was originally discussed. And “Bismarck” with “Scharnhorst” is a completely separate “song”. The same "Hipper" and then managed to distinguish himself, although he absolutely did not "pull" on the role of a raider ...
                So again you cling tenaciously to tons, not paying attention to the main consequences of their activities. Or, after all, the Germans were complete and ... mi, starting to build them?
                The struggle for communication is an essential component of wars, right? And here all means are good. A submarine - yes, with a sufficient number of them is a very effective tool. For the time being. But how many Germans had them in the 39th? 57, sort of like? Of these, no more than 20 could really operate far from bases. Here is the answer to the need for NK in remote, and not so, oceans
              2. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 6 February 2018 12: 28
                +2
                Quote: Town Hall
                But practice shows that in the zone of operations of these NK-raiders (South Atlantic) -convoys and other horrors described by you were not observed.
                They were observed where the submarines were operating. So the efficiency of the NK Raiders, about 0 turned out to be. Proven by practice


                Again, you do not own the information.

                When he seized the refrigerator Dukez, Kranke deliberately allowed him to transmit a radiogram - the British sent three ship groups south to intercept the Admiral Scheer, but the "cells" of the "network" spread out against him were very large and the "pocket battleship" slipped away without any problems, making the task easier another German raider
      2. brn521
        brn521 2 February 2018 19: 29
        +4
        Quote: Town Hall
        The Germans had a lot of submarines

        When pocket battleships were built, submarines could not be built. These battleships were a potential asymmetric response to the European fleets in the event of war. Instead of merging a handful of the non-Lincolors in unequal battles off their shores, a bet was made on powerful raiders hanging out somewhere in the Atlantic. Which do not need to rearm and rebuild in advance, because there will be no time for this.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 2 February 2018 19: 35
          +1
          Quote: brn521
          Quote: Town Hall
          The Germans had a lot of submarines

          When pocket battleships were built, submarines could not be built. These battleships were a potential asymmetric response to the European fleets in the event of war. Instead of merging a handful of the non-Lincolors in unequal battles off their shores, a bet was made on powerful raiders hanging out somewhere in the Atlantic. Which do not need to rearm and rebuild in advance, because there will be no time for this.



          And what benefit was Germany from ships dangling in the South Atlantic with a continuous stream of convoys coming from the USA and Canada to England?
          1. brn521
            brn521 5 February 2018 11: 25
            +2
            Quote: Town Hall
            And what benefit was Germany from ships dangling in the South Atlantic with a continuous stream of convoys coming from the USA and Canada to England?

            In economics. Before the raider is drowned, you can catch the merchants, whose total cost will be much more than the raider and its support. In this case, the whole fleet will have to chase the raider - this will further increase the enemy’s expenses. And in the case of a pocket battleship, the raider will not only merge, but will also be able to take the enemy’s cruiser with him. Including heavy, armor which shells 150-200mm like peas against the wall, but 280 mm is already enough.
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 2 February 2018 14: 41
      +3
      Quote: VohaAhov
      For a general picture, I’ll give some statistics on the results of the actions of these ships:
      "Count Spee" sank:
      1. The ship "Clement" (England, 1934) 30.09.39/5051/XNUMX (XNUMX gross)
      2. Steamboat “Ashley” (England, 1929) 7.10.39 (4222 gross)
      3. Steamboat “Newton Beach” (England, 1925) 8.10.39 (4651 gt) (cargo - 7080 tons of maize)
      4. Steamboat "Huntsman" (England,) 17.10.39/8196/XNUMX (XNUMX gross)
      5. The motor ship "Trevanion" (England, 1937) 2.10.39 (5299 gross)
      6. Diesel tanker "Africa Shell" (England, 1939) 15.11.39/706/XNUMX (XNUMX gb)
      7. Steamboat "Dorik Star" (England, 1921) 2.12.39 (10086 gross)
      8. Refrigerator "Tairoa" (England, 1920) 3.12.39 (7983 gross)
      9. The ship "Streonshalh" (England, 1928) 7.12.39 (3895 gt) (cargo-grain)
      During the battle at La Plata, the English cruiser Essex and the light cruisers Ajax and Achilles damaged.
      On the "Essex" killed 61 people., Injured 23.
      Ajax killed 7 people and injured 5.
      On the "Achilles" killed 4 people., Injured 7.
      On "Count Spee" 36 people were killed in battle, 60 wounded.

      Admiral Scheer sank:
      1. Aux. the cruiser “Jervis Bay” (England, 1922) 5.11.40 (21601 tons, 14164 brt., 167, 34x20,73x10,06 m., 15 knots, eco-254 people, 7x1-152 mm, 2x1- 76 mm) (189 people died, including 17 of.)
      2. Refrigerated steamer "Mopan" (England) 5.11.40 (5389 gross) (sunk 105 mm artillery)
      3. Steamer "Maid An" (England, 1925) 5.11.40 (7908 gross vehicles) (91 people died)
      4. Steamboat "Travelord" (England, 1936) 5.11.40 (5201 gross vehicles) (16 people were killed)
      5. The ship "Kenban Head" (England, 1919) 5.11.40 (5225 gross vehicles) (23 people were killed)
      6. Steamboat “Biaverford” (England, 1928) 5.11.40 (10042 brt) (79 people died)
      7. The motor ship "Fresno City" (England) 5.11.40 (5225 gross vehicles) (1 person died)
      8. Refrigerated steamer “Port Hobart” (England) 24.11.40 (7448 gt) (cargo including 5 light training aircraft)
      9. Steamboat “Tribesman” (England, 1932) 1.12.40 (6242 brt) (8 people died, captured 14)
      10. Refrigerated steamboat Dukes ”(England) 18.12.40/8651/3539 (720 gt) (cargo - 13 tons of frozen meat, 99 tons (XNUMX million pcs.) Of eggs) (XNUMX people were taken prisoner)
      11. Tanker “Sandefierd” (Norway) 17.01.41/8038/11000 (XNUMX gross tons) (gross - XNUMX tons of oil) (captured as a prize)
      12. Transport “Barnveld” (Holland) 20.01.41/5597/5 (86 gt) (cargo - 10000 light bombers, XNUMX cargo vehicles, XNUMX tons of ammunition)
      13. The steamer "Stanpark" (England) 20.01.41/5103/XNUMX (XNUMX gross vehicles) (cargo - cotton)
      14. The tanker British Lawyer (England) 3.02.41 (6994 gt) (cargo - 10000 tons of oil and gasoline) (captured as a prize)
      15. Transport "Gregoria" (Greece) 3.02.41/2546/XNUMX (XNUMX gross)
      16. Passenger ship "Canadian Cruiser" (Canada, 1921) 21.02.41 (7178 gross) (cargo-ilmenite)
      17. Steamboat “Rangaupajang” (Holland) 22.02.41/2452/XNUMX (XNUMX gt) (cargo-coal)
      18. Icebreaker "Alexander Sibiryakov" (USSR, 1909) 25.08.42 (3200 t., 1384 brt., 76,5 × 10,8 × 6 m., 2360 hp, 13 knots, 2x1- 76 mm, 2x1- 45 mm , 2x1-20 mm) (349 tons of cargo (dogs, cows, station equipment, provisions, fuel, building materials)) (85 people died, 18 were taken prisoner)

      Battleship Deutschland sank:
      1. Steambate steamer (England, 1928) 5.10.39 (5044 brt)


      That's right - I wanted to write about it.
      The concept of the raider with powerful weapons and diesel engines with a tremendous range of progress - was fully justified.
  10. xomaNN
    xomaNN 2 February 2018 13: 33
    +1
    Raiders German surface blood spoiled the Allies pretty much. I read memoirs on my Rug “War at Sea” about their campaigns. It must be admitted that at that time our native Soviet Navy turned out to be only an appendage to the ground forces.
  11. 32363
    32363 2 February 2018 13: 39
    +1
    MAN's “high-speed” engines for warships were manufactured by:


    why in quotes? it is not the motor that makes the ship fast, but the transmission and the maximum number of revolutions of the screw 700-800 rpm, because from above the screw turns into a mixer and cavitation will kill it.
  12. myobius59
    myobius59 2 February 2018 13: 51
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Santa Fe
    And it’s foolish to compare it with battleships,

    Exactly
    . Salvation from the British LKR was in principle impossible: “Ripals” and “Hood” are much faster. When meeting other battleships, not enough high speed has always played against the Pantshershif.
    Is it possible to guarantee a successful escape from “Queen Elizabeth”, having a difference in the speed of the 2-3 node? With that incomparable difference in firepower, when just one hit could immobilize (if not finish off) the pickpocket? Remember, what kind of destruction caused a hit 15-inch projectile in LC "Julio Cesare"!
    By the way, if you remembered about the Italians, then their upgraded battleships, preserved from the time of the WWI, cut the wave at 28 nodes.
    Pre-war French LC Dunkirk and Strasbourg made almost 30 knots

    Huh
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Come on in more detail about KRT. The Germans themselves singled them out into a special class, the Panzershiff, who in their opinion held an intermediate meaning between the cruisers and the LC

    As allowed, they called it. They could not build either LC or 10K CRT at that moment.
    Quote: Santa Fe
    In practice: there is no noticeable fire advantage over the cruisers, he could not even catch any of them

    There is no need for this. This is a raider, his task is to drown transports. The Kyrgyz Republic will not go far from transports, but they will run away - and to hell with them.

    Absolutely TRUE !!!
    And he proved this, brilliantly coping with our icebreaker Sibiryakov in 42 year, which was, even scary to imagine, armed with TWO 76mm and TWO 45mm guns.
    Despite this, the German cruiser fought courageously, with an icebreaker armed to the teeth, and in an unequal battle was able to WIN.
    Which once again proves the firmness of the German spirit, and the superiority of German technology.
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 2 February 2018 14: 05
      +1
      What did you want to say?
  13. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 2 February 2018 14: 37
    +7
    Such distortion of facts by Oleg is no longer surprising.

    Partly he is right - the raider’s collision with the squadron is already a fiasco in itself. But this is entirely the fault of the commander - who lost caution and did not change the raiding area.
    When meeting with the classic “ships of the line”, the behavior of the German “pickpockets” did not differ from the behavior of ordinary heavy cruisers. They fled, remembering all the saints.


    In general, the task of the raider to avoid such meetings, by any means.

    The Admiral Scheer, under the command of Theodore Kranke, became the Kriegsmarine's most successful raider, taking campaigns all the way to the Indian Ocean - this is the best example of a Deutschchister type sorter with a competent commander.
    There is a very interesting book about this campaign of "Admiral Scheer" - how a raider should competently act.
    First of all, this is a competent commander and a little luck.

    Instead of a quick and easy victory over Exeter

    Oleg so serves, as if it was a duel one on one.
    While there was a shootout of Spey and Exetar in the main calibers, both the light cruisers Ajax and Achilles fired at the raider with impunity, who actually got into a tactical situation in 2 fires.

    Upon learning of the approach of “Rinauna”, the Germans immediately flooded the “Panzerschiff” on the Montevideo raid

    Of course, having less than 25% of the ammunition on board, numerous damage, the destroyed fire control system and part of the crew left (wounded and killed) - you could try to break through, but the ammunition was not enough to fight with two light cruisers. And the rumors about the approaching squadron exacerbated the decision.
    The commander made the decision under the influence of time pressure in the neutral port and who will condemn him?
    Who has not been in a naval battle? Who was not in that situation?
    Sofa "expert"?
    1. seti
      seti 2 February 2018 14: 45
      +1
      Totally agree with you.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 2 February 2018 15: 16
        +2
        Quote: seti
        Totally agree with you.


        Thank you colleague. I share your opinion.
        A wonderful ship for its tasks.
        Two sisterships with different histories and commanders.
    2. Town Hall
      Town Hall 2 February 2018 15: 21
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Partly he is right - the raider’s collision with the squadron is already a fiasco in itself. But this is entirely the fault of the commander - who lost caution and did not change the raiding area.




      He did not lose any caution. In that area he appeared after the Indian Ocean and the shores of Africa. It’s just that the British, long before that, “figured out” that he would definitely appear there and waited for him.



      And all the actions of the German in the battle and then were based on the belief that these three English cruisers are only the vanguard of a more powerful squadron that should appear and one should not lose much time fighting with them.
      1. seti
        seti 2 February 2018 15: 32
        +3
        They have not calculated anything. They simply understood the obvious that Spee could not “hang” in the middle of the Atlantic and that he would definitely be spotlighted somewhere. He needs food and fuel. Therefore, they formed 8 (!) Groups of ships for its capture.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 2 February 2018 15: 39
          +3
          Call it what you like. But the fact that he was sentenced, imposed on all sides and was only a matter of time before the trap shuts.


          And no additional knots and mm guns could change this. Maybe only a little longer to prolong the agony. But no more


          PSGraph Spee appeared in that area not in search of a province and fuel. A In search of "victims" .a areas of heavy shipping in that part of the Atlantic are not so many. Therefore they waited for him there
          1. seti
            seti 2 February 2018 15: 42
            0
            I wrote the same in one of my first comments on this article. Look above.
        2. Town Hall
          Town Hall 5 February 2018 16: 58
          +1
          Quote: seti
          They have not calculated anything. They simply understood the obvious that Spee could not “hang” in the middle of the Atlantic and that he would definitely be spotlighted somewhere. He needs food and fuel. Therefore, they formed 8 (!) Groups of ships for its capture.








          ".... On December 2, the Admiral Graf Spee sank the Dorik Star turbo ship. The team managed to give the SOS signal that was received by Herwood. The squadron ships were currently in different places: Cumberland was being repaired at the Falklands dock (according to other sources) he covered the base in case of a sudden attack by the Admiral Graf Spee, since December 8, 1939 was the 25th anniversary of the battle of the Falklands, in which Count Spee was killed), Exeter went there for repairs, Achilles was in the Rio de Janeiro region , Ajax in the La Plata area.

          Three months of unsuccessful attempts to catch the cruiser directly by the signals of sunken ships prompted the commodore to send his squadron to the next place of the alleged Admiral Graf Spee - to the coast of South America in the region of Montevideo or Rio de Janeiro. This decision was made on the basis of the marks of all previous sunken vessels, including the last ship sunk on December 7th. The last zone where the Admiral Graf Spee was not was just the Montevideo and Rio de Janeiro area. Additionally, on December 5, the German merchant ship Ussukuma, sailing in Montevideo, was detained, on which mechanisms intended for ship repair were discovered. According to Harwood’s calculations, Admiral Graf Spee should have waited at Rio de Janeiro on December 12, at La Plata on December 13 .... "



          Exactly what they calculated. And the exact time and the exact place. And the groups for his capture were 3 and not 8
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 5 February 2018 15: 12
        +2
        Quote: Town Hall
        He did not lose any caution. In that area he appeared after the Indian Ocean and the shores of Africa. It’s just that the British, long before that, “figured out” that he would definitely appear there and waited for him.


        Raider Commander - does not have the right to act according to the template.
        If your route is predictable, then you are doing something wrong.
        This is implied - a loss of caution.
  14. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 2 February 2018 15: 20
    +3
    Strange article. The author was never able to determine either the class of the ship or its purpose. And the presentation of the material itself is not serious, in my opinion ...
  15. pacific
    pacific 2 February 2018 15: 46
    +3
    The well-known concept of "being stronger than the fast and faster than the strong", according to which three German "battleships" were allegedly built, is under reasonable doubt.
    Indeed, Royal Navy included in its composition and relatively high-speed battleships such as "Queen Mary" and battlecruisers. The speed of the battleships was quite comparable with the speed of the “battleship”, and the LKR completely surpassed them in speed. There is nothing to say about the caliber and the number of guns of the GK - here unconditional superiority over the British ships.
    It seems likely to me that when building these raiders, the Germans proceeded from the assumption that the British would defend their shipping with heavy and light cruisers. And LK and LKr will operate in only the waters of the Metropolis and the Mediterranean Sea.
    Judging by the PMV, then this assumption is justified. Hike 2x LKr in the squad adm. Stray to intercept the Scheer squadron and the subsequent battle at the Falkland Islands - this is the only time in the entire WWII when heavy ships were sent anywhere from the waters of the Metropolis.
    But there was a squadron, and now there will be a solitary raider. For which it is simply not economically feasible to chase a squadron or in LK / LKr.
    Admiral Tovi wrote that in WWI he was less likely to go to sea on a destroyer than in WWII on a battleship.
    It has long been noted that generals are preparing for the past war. The German admirals did the same, having conceived and built a raider that was perfect in WWII but was absolutely out of place in WWII. And the fate of all three "pocket battleships" is proof of this.
    1. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 2 February 2018 16: 17
      +3
      You confuse something, dear. No Queen Mary LCs ever existed in the British Navy, all the more so at that time. And LKR of this type were already divided into "needles". There were only three LCRs left - two Rinaunas and Hood. That is, at that time, only they could pose a terrible threat to the Germans. The rest were dangerous only because of their large numbers, but the “cardboard” CRT of the Britons and KRL, even of a recent building, were not would be able to "block" all the seas and oceans.
      In addition to the aforementioned Sterdy squadron, the Britons sent capital ship to both the Panama Canal (Princess Royal) and the Mediterranean Sea during WWII.
      At the time of the issuance of the terms of reference and design, the concept of ships like the Deutschland and the company was fully justified ... The same Dunkirk was just an answer to them. Because the main threat from a powerful raider is the uncertainty of his actions. And at once for some reason the term that was not mentioned here pops up, but which had great significance: "Fleet in Bing." And the German troika fully corresponded to it even when the LC appeared commensurate with it or at a higher speed
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 2 February 2018 21: 12
      0
      Quote: pacific
      It seems to me probable that during the construction of these raiders the Germans proceeded from the assumption that the British would defend their shipping with heavy and light cruisers

      Hello! We have the 1928th year in the yard. What other British shipping are we in a dream or what?
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 5 February 2018 15: 19
      +2
      Quote: pacific
      The speed of the battleships was quite comparable with the speed of the “battleship”, and the LKR completely surpassed them in speed. There is nothing to say about the caliber and the number of guns of the GK - here unconditional superiority over the British ships.


      To destroy raiders like Deutschland, a fast battleship was needed (it is too expensive and requires a lot of fuel - do you need to carry a couple of tankers with you? Is it not fast enough to transfer from region to region and at the right time, as always, will be in the wrong place ... ), and a battle cruiser or several heavy cruisers - and this is much more cost of effort and money than a raider.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 5 February 2018 23: 30
        +1
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        and a battle cruiser or several heavy cruisers - and this is much more cost of effort and money than a raider.

        Here another moment formed (which, of course, wasn’t imagined in the 20s). KD5 could not impose a battle on either Bismarck or Scharnhorst (under ordinary circumstances), he did not catch them. So the LKR, which was required for hunting the Deutschlands, was very necessary in the North Sea.
  16. NF68
    NF68 2 February 2018 16: 39
    +2
    We summarize what was said: the Germans threw all their "genius" out of their heads and began building an LCR with a familiar set of characteristics for ships of this class (except for insufficient firepower).


    The Germans did not overlook the idea of ​​the further development of ships of this type. Per turn. As part of the Z plan, they developed a more advanced and larger project that received the designation “Cruiser R” with a maximum speed of about 33 nodes:

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-Klasse_(Panzersch
    iff)

    At first it was planned to build 12 of such ships. Then it was decided to reduce the number of these ships to 9 units. On the first 3 ships, it was planned to install towers with main guns removed from the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, to which, according to peacetime plans, in the winter of the 1940-1941-x, they had to install 3 towers of the main gun with 2 xNUMX mm. guns each. The remaining 380 ships were to receive the main gun in the form of the 6's 2's gun turrets with the 2 mm caliber guns. These are the same guns as on the Bismarck and Tirpitz. Caliber HA 380 mm. it was considered more suitable for new armadillos, since these high-speed armadillos were primarily intended for the destruction of the British merchant ships.
    1. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 2 February 2018 18: 34
      +1
      Shoulder straps of 283mm towers and 380mm did not match. Because “Gneisenau” was never put into operation. Yes, and lengthening the bow also required exorbitant costs in those conditions. Like our 69 and 69
      1. NF68
        NF68 2 February 2018 22: 21
        +3
        Quote: Grafova Irina
        Shoulder straps of 283mm towers and 380mm did not match. Because “Gneisenau” was never put into operation. Yes, and lengthening the bow also required exorbitant costs in those conditions. Like our 69 and 69


        During the development of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, initially, during the development of the design, it was possible to replace the towers GK of these battleships with towers with GK with 2-me 380 mm. guns each.

        Hinsichtlich der Hauptartillerie wurde eine Ausstattung mit 38-cm-Zwillingstürmen erwogen, da sich diese jedoch noch in der Entwicklung befanden und die Indienststellung der Einheiten daher erheblich verzögert hättenen dermelten der niehrmten der niehrmn dermeln Diese glichen jedoch nur auf den ersten Blick der Hauptbewaffnung der Deutschland-Klasse. Sowohl was die Stärke der Turmpanzerungen als auch die Länge der Geschützrohre anbelangte, stellten die Geschütztürme eine Weiterentwicklung dar. Eine spätere Aufrüstung auf 28-cm-Kanonen in Zwillingstürmen wurde zwar konstruktiv vorbereitet und im Falle des einzigen Schwesterschiffes Gneisenau auch begonnen, aber nicht vollendet.

        The diameter of the ball strap at the towers of the Civil Code with 283 mm. was equal to 9000 mm., and for towers with 380 mm. 8750 mm. In addition to replacing the HA, it was planned to extend nasal rigidity by 10 meters. The costs of these changes in the design were not exorbitant since there was no need to carry out a thorough change in the design of the ship. All work was planned to be performed during the winter of the 1940 / 1941 year.
        1. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 4 February 2018 19: 50
          +1
          During the design work, Hitler rejected Raeder’s offer to increase the GL to 380mm. For political reasons - first of all. And only after the signing of the Anglo-German agreement and the start of construction of a Richelieu-type LC, he agreed to such a replacement. But the construction of ships by that time had already gone too far for such a radical alteration. After all, it is not so simple as it seems - they removed one turret, put another. Differences in supply, loading, it was necessary to transfer some bulkheads and alteration of cellars. Therefore, the replacement of weapons was planned for the winter of 40-41. The towers were designed not like those of Bismarck, but as for the cruisers of the Q project - they had a smaller diameter of the shoulder strap and, most importantly, they fit into existing barbets. At the same time, sediment and trim on the nose increased, which was already a problem. Therefore, it was necessary 10-meter extension of the bow. And without that the list of works was impressive ...
          So the statement about the initial idea of ​​arming them with 380mm guns is incorrect. And the Germans decided to experiment with Gneisenau (and for some reason only with it, pay attention) after the events of February 27 ...
          Referred to the monograph by Sergei Suliga, Messrs. Whitley MG and Teylor JC
          1. NF68
            NF68 5 February 2018 21: 39
            0
            Quote: Grafova Irina
            During the design work, Hitler rejected Raeder’s offer to increase the GL to 380mm. For political reasons - first of all. And only after the signing of the Anglo-German agreement and the start of construction of a Richelieu-type LC, he agreed to such a replacement. But the construction of ships by that time had already gone too far for such a radical alteration. After all, it is not so simple as it seems - they removed one turret, put another. Differences in supply, loading, it was necessary to transfer some bulkheads and alteration of cellars. Therefore, the replacement of weapons was planned for the winter of 40-41. The towers were designed not like those of Bismarck, but as for the cruisers of the Q project - they had a smaller diameter of the shoulder strap and, most importantly, they fit into existing barbets. At the same time, sediment and trim on the nose increased, which was already a problem. Therefore, it was necessary 10-meter extension of the bow. And without that the list of works was impressive ...
            So the statement about the initial idea of ​​arming them with 380mm guns is incorrect. And the Germans decided to experiment with Gneisenau (and for some reason only with it, pay attention) after the events of February 27 ...
            Referred to the monograph by Sergei Suliga, Messrs. Whitley MG and Teylor JC


            It is precisely in the book of Sergei Sulig that it is mentioned that when designing these battleships, it was possible to replace the 3's 3's gun turrets with the 283 mm GK. caliber on the 3 2's gun turrets with the main gun 380 mm .:

            In 1934, France announced the laying of a second battlecruiser of the Dunkirk type, the Strasbourg, and urgent action was needed. Hitler gave the green light to adding a third tower and increasing displacement to 26 000 tons. The construction of armadillos was stopped on July 5, and the designers started redesigning, which, according to the most optimistic estimates, could not be completed before October 1935. New requirements included 28-nodal continuous speed and 30-nodal full, protection of the citadel from 330-mm guns in the 15 000 range of distances - 20 000 m, splinter protection of the extremities, three turrets (one in the bow and two in the stern), four 2 150 mm equipment in the absence of torpedo tubes. At the same time, for the first time, they expressed a proposal to provide for the possibility of replacing the 3-gun 283-mm towers with paired 330-mm or 380-mm caliber after completion of the project. Soon, the defensive location of the towers of the Civil Code was abandoned, preferring a more familiar scheme with two towers in the nose. As for the mechanisms, the sympathies were in favor of turbines and high-temperature boilers, since only such an EC could provide the speed of 30 nodes.

            Which corresponds to the data in German sources:

            Im Zuge weiterer Untersuchungen wurde erkannt, daß es auch mit neun 28 cm Geschützen schwierig sein würde, einem Gegner wie der DUNKERQUE zu widerstehen. Zwar gab Hitler im März 1935 der Kaliberfrage freien Lauf, aber die Marineleitung kam zu der Feststellung, daß ein neuerliches Revirement eine weitere Verzögerung von 16 bis 22 Monaten zur Folge haben würde; dies aber wollte man nicht mehr in Kauf nehmen. Statt dessen ging von der Marine der Vorschlag aus, auf diesen Schiffen die vorgesehene Hauptbewaffnung von neun 28 cm Geschützen einzubauen, sie aber zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt auf ein stärkeres Kaliberenum kaliberenum vorgeschlagen war zunächst das Kaliber 35,5 cm, endgültig festgelegt wurde 38 cm.

            http://www.bw-hilchenbach.de/body_schlachtschiff_
            gneisenau.html
            1. Grafova Irina
              Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 23: 31
              +1
              Yes, such an upgrade was envisaged. But, let's be logical. Could the Germans really not know with such far-reaching plans that a corps without a very cardinal modernization could not "take" towers with 380mm guns? Why didn’t they even lengthen the hull during the construction, didn’t modify the nose part of the tuning, didn’t provide for the mass of alterations, up to the increase in the load on the electric chains? Answer? Very simple. The ships were “sharpened” under 283mm and only if, given the favorable development of events, they could be put under such a massive reconstruction that they “kept in mind”, but did not intend to implement until the situation became clear in the coming (and already begun) war.
              And what does the "defensive location" of the GK towers mean? Is everything in the feed, or what?
              1. NF68
                NF68 6 February 2018 17: 44
                0
                Yes, such an upgrade was envisaged. But, let's be logical. Could the Germans really not know with such far-reaching plans that a corps without a very cardinal modernization could not "take" towers with 380mm guns? Why didn’t they even lengthen the hull during the construction, didn’t modify the nose part of the tuning, didn’t provide for the mass of alterations, up to the increase in the load on the electric chains? Answer? Very simple. The ships were “sharpened” under 283mm and only if, given the favorable development of events, they could be put under such a massive reconstruction that they “kept in mind”, but did not intend to implement until the situation became clear in the coming (and already begun) war.


                Soon after the construction of the Gneisenau and Shanrhorst during the North Atlantic campaigns, the Germans had to change the bow of these battleships by lengthening it by 5 meters and make the sides collapse larger so that the nose of the hull would fill less with water. I do not know exactly what the Germans planned to do with the nasal tip of these battleships in accordance with the pre-war plans where they planned to replace the HA with 283 mm. by 380 mm., but it’s known that after the German ships broke through the English Channel, the Gneisenau damaged during the breakthrough was docked and in the summer of 1942, after the damage was removed, it was decided to replace the main gun with 380 mm., and in order to eliminate the trim on the nose, which at full load even with 283 mm. was equal to 0,7 meters, it was decided to extend the nasal extremity by 10 meters and install a bulb. This modernization was supposed to last about 1 year, but after Hitler ordered the withdrawal of most of the heavy surface ships from the Navy in February 1943, all work was stopped

                And what does the "defensive location" of the GK towers mean? Is everything in the feed, or what?


                I do not know what it means.
                1. Grafova Irina
                  Grafova Irina 7 February 2018 20: 41
                  +1
                  Which saddens ... Your ignorance hi
                2. Grafova Irina
                  Grafova Irina 7 February 2018 20: 42
                  +1
                  By the way, a new bow extended by 10 meters would not have a bulb ...
                  1. NF68
                    NF68 8 February 2018 18: 16
                    0
                    By the way, a new bow extended by 10 meters would not have a bulb ...


                    Why would the Germans refuse him? Just lengthening the nasal tip to eliminate trim on the nose could not be enough. Most likely, because of these considerations, they could mount a bulb.
  17. NF68
    NF68 2 February 2018 16: 43
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Why don’t you say it’s a shame that the captain ..moreshera..strusil and did not go to battle.


    On the Sheer in the battle with the 3 English cruisers, the OMS was damaged, as a result of which the Sheer lost the opportunity to fight. The SLA needed to be replaced or repaired, which the Germans could not do in a foreign port where the time spent by their ship was strictly limited.
    1. Cyril Troekurych
      Cyril Troekurych 2 February 2018 17: 17
      0
      so on the neck there were 3 fire control posts
      how the British could all of them at once liquidigen
      1. NF68
        NF68 2 February 2018 17: 43
        0
        In order to damage the SLA, it is not necessary to smash everything into small pieces. On their own, and even for 72 hours, the Germans could not repair the MSA anyway, and without an efficient MSA to go to sea where your best friends are waiting for you British who can quickly organize a persecution, this is not the most reasonable thing.
  18. Cyril Troekurych
    Cyril Troekurych 2 February 2018 17: 15
    0
    the adik had a surface fleet
  19. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2018 17: 44
    +5
    Quiet horror. However, thanks, Oleg, you gave me the topic of the next article :))))))
    1. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 2 February 2018 18: 32
      +2
      Announcement will be? hi
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2018 19: 16
        +4
        Hello Irina! hi
        Announcement - probably not, it’s easier to write an article than announcing it :))) But in short, I plan to figure out how successful the pickpockets project was regarding its tasks in the realities of WWII. Oleg in such analyzes is always right and, at the same time, always wrong because he does not understand one simple thing - you cannot evaluate a ship as a spherical horse in a vacuum, in isolation from the tasks for which it was created and the conditions in which it is to fight
        1. avt
          avt 2 February 2018 19: 33
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Oleg in such analyzes is always right and, at the same time, always wrong, because he does not understand one simple thing - you cannot evaluate a ship as a spherical horse in a vacuum, in isolation from the tasks for which it was created and the conditions in which it is to fight

          Came and spoiled the whole listening ,, Songs of Hiawatha "Well, about the battleship bully But the adherents of the sect already and ,, the material base of victories "summed up
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          The concept of the raider with powerful weapons and diesel engines with a tremendous range of progress - was fully justified.
          Although they forgot Oleg’s no less enthusiastic ode about UBoot.
        2. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 2 February 2018 22: 21
          +1
          Just Raeder was a supporter of the cruising war, managed to paint on two volumes the actions of several Kaiser raiders in the WWI, which looked very successful in terms of the damage they caused (in relation to the number of these ships). But, in terms of the volume of British shipping, they were zilch.
          So he demanded to increase the raider qualities of ships to the detriment of combat ones.
          Take the "Bismarck" - with 52 thousand tons of displacement - only 8 15 "guns. Funny. Powerful booking? So the English 14" did not hold.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 00: 23
            +1
            Quote: Snakebyte
            Take the Bismarck - with 52 thousand tons of displacement - a total of 8 15 "guns

            Take the "Vengard" - with 51+ thousand tons of displacement - only 8 15 "guns removed from the LCR of the WWII.
            Quote: Snakebyte
            Powerful booking? So the English 14 "did not hold.

            As far as is known, the Bismarck citadel was never broken, incl. at the shelling of Rodney 16 "from 3 km. The ship sank after the discovery of kingstones.
            1. Grafova Irina
              Grafova Irina 3 February 2018 10: 30
              +1
              Right...
              But, as far as I know, torpedoes decided the outcome, since the German stronghold, subject to the persistence of the trajectory (and all German ships were designed from the conditions of artillery combat at distances below average, why - a separate issue) was practically impenetrable ...
              As for the opening of the Kingstones, they simply do not know. Or missed ... crying
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 12: 57
                0
                Quote: Irina Grafova
                torpedoes decided the outcome, since the German stronghold provided the trajectory was persistent

                The outcome was decided that by the time the torpedoes were used, Bismarck was still a floating, but blind and unarmed burning chest.
                Quote: Irina Grafova
                why - a separate question

                The Germans somehow missed the appearance of radars and laid down for battle in conditions of poor visibility, i.e. at a short distance. Oddly enough, in most cases effective battles were actually fought at very short ranges, not only in the northern seas, but also in TO (night), and even in the Mediterranean.
                Quote: Irina Grafova
                As for the opening of the Kingstones, they simply do not know.

                The question of the causes of the death of the ship has been a subject of debate for a long time: did the torpedoes from the Dorsetshire cause fatal damage, or did the ship sink as a result of the actions of the hold team that received the order to open the kingstones. It is believed that the stability of the ship was violated by the combined action of these factors. Be that as it may, D. Cameron's underwater expedition to the sunken ship showed that the ship’s kingstones were open

                https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_(1939)
                The 2002 documentary Expedition: Bismarck, directed by James Cameron and filmed in May – June 2002 using smaller and more agile Mir submersibles, reconstructed the events leading to the sinking. These provided the first interior shots. His findings were that there was not enough damage below the waterline to confirm that she had been sunk rather than scuttled. Close inspection of the wreckage confirmed that none of the torpedoes or shells had penetrated the second layer of the inner hull. Using small ROVs to examine the interior, Cameron discovered that the torpedo blasts had failed to shatter the torpedo bulkheads. [148]

                Despite their sometimes differing viewpoints, these experts generally agree that Bismarck would have eventually foundered if the Germans had not scuttled her first. Ballard estimated that Bismarck could still have floated for at least a day when the British vessels ceased fire

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_B
                ismarck
                1. Grafova Irina
                  Grafova Irina 4 February 2018 20: 16
                  0
                  Wikipedia is also a separate issue ...
                  The Germans did not "miss" the appearance of radars. But, as you correctly noted, initially oriented their ships to battles with the British, which, naturally, would occur (hypothetically) in the North Sea and in the North Atlantic. Where, as you know, visibility often tends to zero. Hence the smaller caliber, greater rate of fire and initial speed, the priority of vertical booking. They started this since the end of the 19th century, when certainly no one heard about radars ...
                  Yes, the huge range of the GK guns was not in great demand. And it came in handy only when shooting at squares - that is, along the coast. The fact that the Warspite got into Cesar at 25 km (sort of) is a one-off option. Yes, Yamato and Samar’s company started firing from 27 km - more for intimidation. Although they fired pretty well, it somehow went wrong with the hits until the distance has changed and significantly ...
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 4 February 2018 21: 29
                    0
                    Quote: Irina Grafova
                    The Germans did not "miss" the appearance of radars

                    Perhaps unsuccessfully put it.
                    The Germans were aware of the radars, of course, however, laid a short range.
                    And they were right, I must admit.
                    1. Grafova Irina
                      Grafova Irina 4 February 2018 22: 00
                      0
                      Of course, as gunners, they were always on top. Or ALMOST always ... In any case, in artillery battles they have never lost such a “pure” one. What is between the individual ships, what is in the composition of the compounds. But the “Scharnhorst" was just unlucky, well, there's nothing to be done, you can’t trample what’s called against luck.
                2. DimerVladimer
                  DimerVladimer 5 February 2018 15: 30
                  +2
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  The outcome was decided that by the time the torpedoes were used, Bismarck was still a floating, but blind and unarmed burning chest.


                  It is not good to so derogatoryly comment on the death of the enemy, which even the British spoke of as a worthy opponent.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 5 February 2018 23: 34
                    +1
                    Quote: DimerVladimer
                    It is not good to so derogatoryly comment on the death of the enemy, which even the British spoke of as a worthy opponent.

                    I characterize the condition of the materiel at 10 am on May 27. The actions of the Bismarck crew (and Scharnhorst) inspire great respect from me.
          2. Grafova Irina
            Grafova Irina 3 February 2018 10: 43
            +1
            You forget about one very simple thing, which, nevertheless, underlies the doctrine of cruising war. The number of drowned "merchants" of the opposite side is far from the first place. The main thing is to increase tension, slow down commodity circulation, and upset finances, if only because of higher insurance rates. Option "fleet in bing"
            And to take "Bismarck" - he was never considered as a "pure" raider. And it was considered as a distant cover and a "vague threat." What his sistership proved
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 3 February 2018 13: 01
              0
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              which, however, underlies the doctrine of cruising war. The number of drowned "merchants" of the opposite side is far from the first place. The main thing is to increase tension, slow down commodity circulation, and upset finances, if only because of higher insurance rates.

              The increase in insurance rates here is not in the first place. British imports fell in the years 39-40, and strongly, despite the increase in tonnage, primarily due to the transition to the convoy system, respectively, a sharp slowdown in tonnage turnover.
              And from this point of view, the influence of the submarine and NK-raider is the same.
              1. Grafova Irina
                Grafova Irina 4 February 2018 12: 51
                0
                So what am I talking about? The introduction of the convoy system is a consequence of the uncertainty that raiders introduced regardless of class. But the Germans didn’t have so many submarines in the beginning
            2. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 5 February 2018 15: 36
              +1
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              You forget about one very simple thing, which, nevertheless, underlies the doctrine of cruising war. The number of drowned "merchants" of the opposite side is far from the first place. The main thing is to increase tension, slow down commodity circulation, and upset finances, if only because of higher insurance rates.


              It’s true, it’s worth adding that the forces involved in the hunt for raiders were far superior in tonnage to the raider forces themselves.
              But such a potential threat as Tirpitz forced the convoys to deploy 1–2 battleships in the long-range cover forces of the convoys, in addition to the cruisers in the near cover and the destroyers in direct guard.

              Commander Luttsov in the New Year’s fight to show a little initiative and if the weather was a little better - the result would be completely different. Hipper wouldn’t have to "swell" alone.
              1. Grafova Irina
                Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 16: 02
                0
                Again, old Mahen is right - “fleet in bing” is a very effective technique. And in conjunction with an unknown number of raiders, be it pickpockets or just auxiliary cruisers, all the more so.
                This "worked" even on such a limited theater of operations as the Mediterranean Sea, but there is nothing to say about the ocean open spaces ...
                Yes, New Year’s fight is a sad page in the history of the Kriegsmarine
          3. NF68
            NF68 3 February 2018 21: 29
            0
            Quote: Snakebyte
            Powerful booking? So the English 14 "did not hold.



            Range Side Armor Deck Armor
            0 yards (0 m) 26.9 "(668 mm) ---
            10,000 yards (9,144 m) 15.6 "(396 mm) 1.15" (29 mm)
            15,000 yards (13,716 m) 13.2 "(335 mm) 1.95" (50 mm)
            20,000 yards (18,288 m) 11.2 "(285 mm) 2.85" (73 mm)
            25,000 yards (22,860 m) 9.5 "(241 mm) 4.00" (102 mm)
            28,000 yards (25,603 m) --- 4.75 "(121 mm)
            This data is from "Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II" for a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps) and is partly based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration and partly based upon official data.

            Range Side Armor Deck Armor
            13,700 yards (12,530 m) 14.0 "(356 mm) ---
            15,800 yards (14,450 m) 13.0 "(330 mm) ---
            18,000 yards (16,460 m) 12.0 "(305 mm) ---
            20,000 yards (18,290 m) --- 2.0 "(52 mm)
            20,500 yards (18,750 m) 11.0 "(279 mm) ---
            23,700 yards (21,670 m) 10.0 "(254 mm) ---
            24,000 yards (21,950 m) --- 3.0 "(76 mm)
            28,000 yards (25,600 m) --- 4.0 "(102 mm)
            32,000 yards (29,260 m) --- 5.0 "(127 mm)
            This data is from "British Battleships of World War Two." This table assumes 90 degree inclination and is based upon theoretical calculations performed in 1935, not actual firing trials.

            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.ph
            p

            Let me remind you that the "Bismarck" thickness of the lower belt 320 mm. And behind it is the bevel of the 110 / 120 mm armored deck. Barbets GK 340 mm. Those already with a distance of more than 15,5-16 km. if the ships will be opposite each other 356 mm. armor-piercing English shell will not penetrate either the belt or the barbet.
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte 3 February 2018 22: 05
              +1
              Let me remind you that the "Bismarck" thickness of the lower belt 320 mm. And behind it is the bevel of the 110 / 120 mm armored deck. Barbets GK 340 mm. Those already with a distance of more than 15,5-16 km. if the ships will be opposite each other 356 mm. armor-piercing English shell will not penetrate either the belt or the barbet.

              In the Danish Strait, 2 out of 3 of the 14 “Prince of Wales” shells that hit the “Bismarck” 1000 made a hole in the board (the third hit a motor boat), caused flooding, loss of speed and XNUMX tons of fuel. The battleship remained operational, but the raid could be set cross.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 4 February 2018 01: 13
                0
                Quote: Snakebyte
                They made a hole in the side (the third hit a motor boat), caused flooding, loss of speed and 1000 tons of fuel. The battleship retained combat effectiveness, but it was possible to put an end to the raid.

                You just proved that the most powerful NK raider in those realities is kamikaze. Similar to Spee.
                But it’s not at all that Bismarck’s reservation was insufficient. You, it seems, are unfamiliar with the principles of booking the LC of the last wave.
                1. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte 4 February 2018 11: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  But it’s not at all that Bismarck’s reservation was insufficient. You, it seems, are unfamiliar with the principles of booking the LC of the last wave.

                  And what are the new reservation principles used at Bismarck? The all-or-nothing scheme? Inclined belt? Reinforced horizontal protection?
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 4 February 2018 12: 03
                    0
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    The all-or-nothing scheme?

                    Well done cucumber!
                    Accordingly, the Bismarck reservation implied the absence of critical damage (they did not exist until the very end), and not at all what you described. It is not possible to protect the entire skin.

                    And this is far from a new principle. It started with Nevada, xnumx bookmark.
                    1. NF68
                      NF68 4 February 2018 17: 21
                      0
                      And this is far from a new principle. It started with Nevada, xnumx bookmark.


                      Bismarck has a quote type reservation with a low armored deck and tip reservation, while Nevada has a reservation based on the “all or nothing” principle.
                    2. Grafova Irina
                      Grafova Irina 4 February 2018 22: 08
                      0
                      And it turned out to be vicious, in my opinion. The "soft" extremities drove even the Yapov monsters to death.
                      And the Britons already on the “Georges” began to depart from this principle, extending the on-board booking beyond the beam. True, they were able to implement the principle of "all or nothing" only at Nelsons. And on unrealized projects like G-3 and "Invincible" ... (like that)
                      1. NF68
                        NF68 4 February 2018 22: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Grafova Irina
                        And it turned out to be vicious, in my opinion. The "soft" extremities drove even the Yapov monsters to death.
                        And the Britons already on the “Georges” began to depart from this principle, extending the on-board booking beyond the beam. True, they were able to implement the principle of "all or nothing" only at Nelsons. And on unrealized projects like G-3 and "Invincible" ... (like that)


                        The British received real experience during the WWII had a different opinion. The only battleship in the world that was modified taking into account the real experience of WWW Vengard just received not only armored extremities, but also a sufficiently developed local reservation that made it possible to ensure greater stability of the OMS and the entire ship as a whole to damage. Those. in this regard, the British returned to what the Germans had not abandoned while not having WWII experience:

                        An important innovation was the armored belt at the extremities, partly returning the Wangard from the all-or-nothing scheme to the traditional Anglo-German reservation scheme (although the large length and dense weight load did not allow ensuring the proper thickness of the extremities protection). Officially, this belt was called "anti-fragmentation" and consisted of sheets of cementless armor with a thickness of 51 - 64 mm, covering the space on the outer side between the lower and middle decks. The nose belt had a height of 2,45 m and ended at a distance of 3,5 m from the stem; in the stern it was wider - 3,4 m and covered the steering compartments. Moreover, the shape of the hull made it possible to give it a stern outward slope of the upper edge in the stern, which ensured angles of encounter at medium and long distances that were unfavorable for shells. An addition was the 25 mm bulkhead. In general, covering the extremities saved from shell fragments and bombs exploding near the side, localized damage from getting into the bow or stern of the hull, and provided some protection from light guns fire. At a meeting angle of 90 ° 64-mm non-cemented armor protected against shells of 6-inch guns firing from a distance of more than 100 - 110 kbt, and from 120-mm shells from 35 - 64 kbt (depending on the specific model of guns). At first glance, the reservation might have seemed ineffective, because it did not protect against shells from cruisers and destroyers at normal combat distances, however, it should be borne in mind that, firstly, we are talking about armor-piercing shells with slowdown, which made up a small part of the ammunition load of light ships; secondly, the real angle of contact between the projectile and the side at the ends having a complex shape is extremely rarely close to a straight line. So the above distances should be reduced by at least a third, and with sharp heading angles, the probability of a rebound sharply increases. But, most importantly, even armor with a thickness of 51 — 63 mm reliably covers from high-explosive medium-caliber projectiles with a head fuse — the most common on ships of the second and third rank.

                        The horizontal protection of the extremities consisted of armored decks passing along the level of the upper edge of the bow and stern belts. The thickness of its front part within the extension of the main belt (from the nose traverse to the end of the 280-mm armor) was equal to 125 mm, then the deck was thinned to 64 mm throughout the entire front belt, i.e. to 3,5 m from the stem. It was made as waterproof as possible, with a very limited number of hatches; the only large cutout was the anchor mine. At the stern, the deck looked more powerful as it covered such weak spots as steering, shaft shafts and partly propellers. The armor thickness here was 114 mm - slightly less than over cars and boilers. The deck ended with an armor beam 100 mm thick, which was the rear wall of the steering compartment. Thus, the protection of the ends of the “Vengard”, especially the horizontal one, was the most thoughtful and powerful among all modern battleships, which had very “soft” bow and stern. Almost all of the extra weight was due to increased armoring of the extremities and local protection, but the battleship significantly increased buoyancy due to well-armored compartments at the level of the waterline in the bow and stern.

                        http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2000_04/0
                        3.htm
                      2. NF68
                        NF68 5 February 2018 21: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Grafova Irina
                        And it turned out to be vicious, in my opinion. The "soft" extremities drove even the Yapov monsters to death.
                        And the Britons already on the “Georges” began to depart from this principle, extending the on-board booking beyond the beam. True, they were able to implement the principle of "all or nothing" only at Nelsons. And on unrealized projects like G-3 and "Invincible" ... (like that)


                        Your view, as I have long noticed, for some reason is very different from the view of sailors and shipbuilders who knew how many shells, bombs and torpedoes it took to sink the “Prince of Wales” and “Tirpitz” with the “Scharnhorst”. And this also applies to English shipbuilders. And it was the English designers who were the only ones in the world who managed to build a battleship in whose design we took into account the experience of WWII, decided that Vengard got both armored ends and developed local reservations. Or did these designers understand this worse than you?
                    3. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte 4 February 2018 22: 31
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Well done cucumber!
                      Accordingly, the Bismarck reservation implied the absence of critical damage (they did not exist until the very end), and not at all what you described. It is not possible to protect the entire skin.

                      The Bismarck armor is an attempt to cross a hedgehog with a snake. Excessive vertical booking of the citadel (with an outdated booking scheme) and poor horizontal protection. "Anti-cruising" 80-mm protection along the entire waterline, and insufficient (for a raider) belt height.
                      As a result, the reservation played its role only in the sense that the battleship went to the bottom with serviceable boilers and turbines.

                      Quote: Cherry Nine

                      And this is far from a new principle. It started with Nevada, xnumx bookmark.

                      Compared to that used by the Germans, it is new. And you didn’t say which “principles of booking new-wave battleships” were applied at Bismarck?
                      1. Grafova Irina
                        Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 15: 16
                        0
                        But no. Because, according to German views, there was no need for this - why reinvent the wheel ... The reservation system they adopted fully corresponded to their concept of artillery combat on the proposed theater. There was nothing fundamentally new in the protection system on the type “N” type LCs started and on subsequent projects. Grew caliber GK and the thickness of the armor, mostly horizontal. Which, in total, was not so much inferior to the horizontal reservation of other "capital thrusts" + the presence of interdeck vertical armored bulkheads and showed itself on the wrong side (the Germans initially underestimated the aircraft, and the actions of the British naval aviation did not turn them away from such an assessment). ..
                        The Germans traditionally relied heavily on constructive protection and ensuring general unsinkability, although the characteristics of their anti-tank missiles were not up to par because of its relatively small depth (for some reason, the Germans were very negative about boules) ...
                        So about the crossing of the hedgehog with snake, you got a little excited as well as the obsolescence of the protection system itself ...
                        What does it mean - excessive vertical booking? Then how to regard the thicknesses of the belts of his opponents (possible), with the exception of the Americans? But the combination of a belt and a bevel behind it gave such a system significant advantages when trajectories were flat and could "hold" 16 "English shells starting from 9000 meters depending on course angles. Further ..." Bismarck "was never considered by the Germans as" pure "Raider. They were well aware of the insufficient range of navigation. And they used them in that capacity for lack of anything else. Here's the project" Q "- this is a raider, yes. They could have used the" N "-ki in such a role, but this is breaking the shell with a hammer ...
                        Sorry to wedge into your fruitful correspondence
                  2. NF68
                    NF68 4 February 2018 16: 50
                    0
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    But it’s not at all that Bismarck’s reservation was insufficient. You, it seems, are unfamiliar with the principles of booking the LC of the last wave.

                    And what are the new reservation principles used at Bismarck? The all-or-nothing scheme? Inclined belt? Reinforced horizontal protection?


                    http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Bismarck/0
                    5.htm
              2. NF68
                NF68 4 February 2018 16: 50
                0
                Quote: Snakebyte
                In the Danish Strait 2, from the 3s of the 14 Xnumx of the “Prince of Wales” projectile, they pierced the side (the third hit the powerboat), caused flooding, loss of speed and 1000 tons of fuel.


                About these shells hit the Bismarck’s body under the lower edge of the belt, thereby confirming the importance of the proposal of one of the developers of the German battleship who proposed to extend the thinned belt down. Those bottom belt are 320 mm thick. was not broken by the English 14 "shell.
                1. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte 4 February 2018 22: 11
                  0
                  Quote: NF68
                  About these shells hit the Bismarck’s body under the lower edge of the belt, thereby confirming the importance of the proposal of one of the developers of the German battleship who proposed to extend the thinned belt down. Those bottom belt are 320 mm thick. was not broken by the English 14 "shell.

                  I know that the belt was not broken. Only the Fritz did not help. The battleship was seriously damaged, was forced to interrupt the task.
                  This means that booking is not enough (it would have been possible to extend the belt down if the Germans had not rested in the excessive booking of the board, from the time of the First World War), and a huge raider is forced to evade the battle even with a weaker battleship. And what's the point of the 52000 ton ship?
                  1. NF68
                    NF68 4 February 2018 22: 56
                    0
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    I know that the belt was not broken. Only the Fritz did not help. The battleship was seriously damaged, was forced to interrupt the task.
                    This means that booking is not enough (it would have been possible to extend the belt down if the Germans had not rested in the excessive booking of the board, from the time of the First World War), and a huge raider is forced to evade the battle even with a weaker battleship. And what's the point of the 52000 ton ship?


                    If the “Bismarck” had extended the lower belt, the damage would have been even smaller. And the point was that the 52000 ton battleship was more resistant to damage, and in this regard, the British, developing the Vengard, already having WWII experience, returned to armored extremities and developed local reservations. Those to why the Germans didn’t refuse to give up WWII without experience. I’ll add that the Bismarck almost immediately shot at 2 British battleship and several heavy cruisers, but Bismarck was in no hurry to sink and they also added ship torpedoes: and the “Prince of Wales” had enough 6 aviation torpedoes with a less powerful warhead than the ship’s torpedoes which, after the artillery “processing,” finished off “Bismarck” and “Scharnhorst”. For example, the "Scharnhorst" got 11 ship torpedoes, and that's not counting the 356 mm. shells.

                    http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2000_04/0
                    3.htm

                    During the sinking of Scharnhorst, the British used up 446 356-mm shells, 161 203-mm, 974 152-mm, 531 133-mm (plus 155 lighting) and 83 102-mm, as well as 55 torpedoes: from which there were X targets: 11 hits were made by Jamaica and Virago, 2 by Masketir and Savage, and 3 by Scorpio. When shooting a large caliber, there were some difficulties with the failure of the materiel. Because of this, for example, in the Duke of York bow tower with 1 volleys, one gun fired an 77 shell, and the rest 71, 47 (!) And 6.

                    http://www.wunderwafe.ru/Magazine/MK/2002_N1/29.h
                    tm
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte 5 February 2018 06: 33
                      0
                      Speaking of Scharnhorst. He had the same reservation scheme with Bismarck. And he got 14 "into the boiler room. Potentially, Bismarck could get the same projectile into the citadel (Bismarck has thicker armor there, but not so much). Because the horizontal defense is weak.
                      1. Grafova Irina
                        Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 08: 47
                        0
                        Not quite so, although the principle of booking was the same. “Scharnhorst” had a top belt with a thickness of 45mm versus 145mm at the “Bismarck”. A 45 mm belt was only suitable for removing an armor-piercing cap, and even that is unlikely ...
                        And the “Scharnhorst” got a fatal hit quite by accident, although the British shot very well. The projectile passed over the main belt and hit an 80mm glacis above the boiler room with a height of only 0,7m and a length of 9,6m (just that!). Of course, a vertical reservation of this thickness could not stop the 356mm projectile (with or without a cap, because the projectile passed through the 45mm belt along the "road") and the result is known - an explosion in the boiler room and a speed drop of up to 8 knots, although later it was brought to 22 s. Here, luck of the British: the shell found a loophole in the excellent booking of a German ship. Moreover, according to some reports, the fatal projectile ricocheted from the 80mm lower armored deck along the way and only then fell into glacis. That is, horizontal booking fulfilled its role at these distances, for which it was optimized.
                      2. NF68
                        NF68 5 February 2018 21: 52
                        +1
                        Quote: Snakebyte
                        Speaking of Scharnhorst. He had the same reservation scheme with Bismarck. And he got 14 "into the boiler room. Potentially, Bismarck could get the same projectile into the citadel (Bismarck has thicker armor there, but not so much). Because the horizontal defense is weak.


                        By see where exactly the English 356 mm got. a shell. He did not break through the armored deck, but fell into the voice which the Germans had to fulfill since the height of the boilers was somewhat higher than what was expected during the design of the Scharnhorst.
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 5 February 2018 23: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: Irina Grafova
                        Here, luck of the British: the shell found a loophole in the excellent booking of a German ship

                        Golden bullet. Fee for Hood.
              3. Kibb
                Kibb 6 February 2018 20: 20
                0
                The fact that from that moment he was doomed, do not care
        3. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 2 February 2018 22: 30
          +1
          Your opinion is very interesting ...
          But, please take into account that no one has yet, to the end, understood the essence of this company of "Germans". In addition to all known positions. And, again, no one was able to catch about the “fleet in bing” and at the time of their design. Everything else is the consequences ...
          These "boats" were unique - at that time VM history. That is precisely why so many problems have been created for their opponents. Lead analogies? Starting from the "pure" pirates and ending with "Emden."
          Oleg, if not for his style of presentation, could claim to be serious ... But in this case, he, at least, is not very convincing. Yes, and the material does not quite own. Even about the mass of the shell of that gun ... At least I guessed that it was 283mm
  20. Rakovor
    Rakovor 3 February 2018 11: 14
    +2
    Dear Mr. Kaptsov, please answer me only one question - are you at least superficially familiar with the articles of the Treaty of Versailles regarding the limitation of the German Navy?
  21. Lozovik
    Lozovik 3 February 2018 11: 27
    +1
    “Ripals” and “Hood” are much faster.


    Hood for all the time of service did not go through any major modernization, by the year 40 he could give no more than 27 knots, unlike Rinaun and Ripals, which could well develop 30 knots. Of the Queens, no one seemed to give more than 23,5 knots during the war.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 13: 45
      0
      Except Worspite
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 5 February 2018 23: 44
        0
        Quote: Irina Grafova
        Except Worspite

        It seems that the range, not the speed, fell to him. The power of cars has not changed much. Weight saving was allowed on defense and weapons. Yes, and why the British battleship, able to break away from the sisters? Tea is not Germans.
        1. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 6 February 2018 08: 09
          +1
          Of the entire series, Malaya was the fastest - initially. (if the memory does not change). But times are changing and ships with them ... After finishing the modernization, the most ambitious of the five, “Worspite” accelerated to 25,5 knots, that is, it actually reached the rate that the Britons were guided when creating the project itself
          1. Lozovik
            Lozovik 6 February 2018 16: 10
            0
            Isn't it 23,84 knots at 80250 hp right after the upgrade?
            1. Grafova Irina
              Grafova Irina 7 February 2018 20: 45
              +1
              I look at A. Raven and D. Roberts
              1. Lozovik
                Lozovik 8 February 2018 10: 16
                0
                Norman Friedman - "The British Battleship 1906-1946"

                Warspite made 23,84 knots on 80,247 SHP at 32,570 tons (March 15, 1937)


                I also highly recommend Ross Watton - "The Battleship Warspite, if you have not read it.
  22. Usher
    Usher 3 February 2018 11: 41
    0
    I read about the cruiser Kriegsmarine, Tower installations in the shields without central aiming were considered the norm, and still pompously write something about tips and yap. The Germans are generally strange, it’s kind of not stupid, and they sometimes take such nonsense, this is due to the fact that there is no academic planning and approach, but political desires.
  23. Potter
    Potter 3 February 2018 20: 45
    +1
    Quote: Rakovor
    Dear Mr. Kaptsov, please answer me only one question - are you at least superficially familiar with the articles of the Treaty of Versailles regarding the limitation of the German Navy?

    This is just the missing link in the history of pocket battleships, which were built under the limitations of the Treaty of Versailles to replace the old battleships.
    1. unknown
      unknown 4 February 2018 08: 36
      +1
      The refusal to build “pocket” battleships was dictated by the conclusion in the 1936 year of a maritime agreement between Germany and Great Britain. But not the so-called "insufficient speed" of the "battleships". The Battleships had unsuccessful contours of the hull. Their improvement would increase the speed to 30 nodes. Such calculations were made. This would require an increase in tonnage of the 500.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. NF68
        NF68 13 February 2018 17: 32
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        The refusal to build “pocket” battleships was dictated by the conclusion in the 1936 year of a maritime agreement between Germany and Great Britain. But not the so-called "insufficient speed" of the "battleships". The Battleships had unsuccessful contours of the hull. Their improvement would increase the speed to 30 nodes. Such calculations were made. This would require an increase in tonnage of the 500.


        In the 1937-1939 years, those after the alleged refusal to build pocket battleships developed the heavy cruisers of the Project P (German Panzerschiff Typ P) - a series of 12 design heavy cruisers Kriegsmarine, developed in the 1937-1939 years, which were a logical continuation to type Deutschland and had to develop a maximum speed of 33 node. All orders were canceled in favor of the linear cruisers of the O project: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Navy:%D0%9F%D1%80%D0
        %BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0
        %B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1
        %81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2_O
  24. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 4 February 2018 12: 10
    0
    It seems that the First World War did not teach the Germans anything in terms of futility of betting on raider operations. Take the history of the same Spee squadron: you can even defeat the forces sent to intercept the raiders, but a country with superiority at sea is able to send a new detachment that will be knowingly stronger, and in the presence of reconnaissance aircraft and radars, the search for a raider in the ocean has ceased to be an extremely difficult task requiring a large number of ships.
  25. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 08: 07
    0
    Quote: NF68
    Quote: Grafova Irina
    And it turned out to be vicious, in my opinion. The "soft" extremities drove even the Yapov monsters to death.
    And the Britons already on the “Georges” began to depart from this principle, extending the on-board booking beyond the beam. True, they were able to implement the principle of "all or nothing" only at Nelsons. And on unrealized projects like G-3 and "Invincible" ... (like that)


    The British received real experience during the WWII had a different opinion. The only battleship in the world that was modified taking into account the real experience of WWW Vengard just received not only armored extremities, but also a sufficiently developed local reservation that made it possible to ensure greater stability of the OMS and the entire ship as a whole to damage. Those. in this regard, the British returned to what the Germans had not abandoned while not having WWII experience:

    An important innovation was the armored belt at the extremities, partly returning the Wangard from the all-or-nothing scheme to the traditional Anglo-German reservation scheme (although the large length and dense weight load did not allow ensuring the proper thickness of the extremities protection). Officially, this belt was called "anti-fragmentation" and consisted of sheets of cementless armor with a thickness of 51 - 64 mm, covering the space on the outer side between the lower and middle decks. The nose belt had a height of 2,45 m and ended at a distance of 3,5 m from the stem; in the stern it was wider - 3,4 m and covered the steering compartments. Moreover, the shape of the hull made it possible to give it a stern outward slope of the upper edge in the stern, which ensured angles of encounter at medium and long distances that were unfavorable for shells. An addition was the 25 mm bulkhead. In general, covering the extremities saved from shell fragments and bombs exploding near the side, localized damage from getting into the bow or stern of the hull, and provided some protection from light guns fire. At a meeting angle of 90 ° 64-mm non-cemented armor protected against shells of 6-inch guns firing from a distance of more than 100 - 110 kbt, and from 120-mm shells from 35 - 64 kbt (depending on the specific model of guns). At first glance, the reservation might have seemed ineffective, because it did not protect against shells from cruisers and destroyers at normal combat distances, however, it should be borne in mind that, firstly, we are talking about armor-piercing shells with slowdown, which made up a small part of the ammunition load of light ships; secondly, the real angle of contact between the projectile and the side at the ends having a complex shape is extremely rarely close to a straight line. So the above distances should be reduced by at least a third, and with sharp heading angles, the probability of a rebound sharply increases. But, most importantly, even armor with a thickness of 51 — 63 mm reliably covers from high-explosive medium-caliber projectiles with a head fuse — the most common on ships of the second and third rank.

    The horizontal protection of the extremities consisted of armored decks passing along the level of the upper edge of the bow and stern belts. The thickness of its front part within the extension of the main belt (from the nose traverse to the end of the 280-mm armor) was equal to 125 mm, then the deck was thinned to 64 mm throughout the entire front belt, i.e. to 3,5 m from the stem. It was made as waterproof as possible, with a very limited number of hatches; the only large cutout was the anchor mine. At the stern, the deck looked more powerful as it covered such weak spots as steering, shaft shafts and partly propellers. The armor thickness here was 114 mm - slightly less than over cars and boilers. The deck ended with an armor beam 100 mm thick, which was the rear wall of the steering compartment. Thus, the protection of the ends of the “Vengard”, especially the horizontal one, was the most thoughtful and powerful among all modern battleships, which had very “soft” bow and stern. Almost all of the extra weight was due to increased armoring of the extremities and local protection, but the battleship significantly increased buoyancy due to well-armored compartments at the level of the waterline in the bow and stern.

    http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2000_04/0
    3.htm

    Thank you, I have a book by A. Raven and D. Roberts, as well as a monograph by V. Koffman. So the "shot" idle wink
    But thanks anyway
    1. NF68
      NF68 5 February 2018 21: 54
      0
      Quote: Irina Grafova
      Thank you, I have a book by A. Raven and D. Roberts, as well as a monograph by V. Koffman. So the "shot" idle


      So read this also and try to understand why the English developers decided to return to the armored extremities on the Wangard.
      1. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 5 February 2018 23: 37
        +1
        laughing They returned to them a little earlier ... hi
        1. NF68
          NF68 6 February 2018 17: 50
          0
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          They returned to them a little earlier ...


          Do you mean projects of English battleships with 16 "/ 45 GK?
          1. Grafova Irina
            Grafova Irina 7 February 2018 20: 46
            +1
            I mean Georges ...
            1. NF68
              NF68 8 February 2018 18: 28
              0
              Quote: Grafova Irina
              I mean Georges ...


              At the “Georges” reservation of the corps was made according to the “all or nothing” scheme.
              1. Grafova Irina
                Grafova Irina 9 February 2018 08: 44
                +1
                Already not in "pure form" smile
                1. NF68
                  NF68 9 February 2018 16: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Irina Grafova
                  Already not in "pure form"


                  It’s the “Prince of Wales” flood after the 6 torpedoes and one bomb hit.
                  1. Grafova Irina
                    Grafova Irina 11 February 2018 16: 13
                    +1
                    One does not cancel the other. If you understand the subject of discussion ...
                    Have you read about the bent shaft and the consequences of this "bent" on the "Prince"?
                    1. NF68
                      NF68 11 February 2018 17: 24
                      0
                      Have you read about the bent shaft and the consequences of this "bent" on the "Prince"?


                      The bent shaft rotated with one set of turbines from the 4's and the fact that the British did not foresee the possibility of an emergency stop of the turbines was the problem of the British. At the “Scharnhorst” 4 April 1940 year, the propeller shaft also did not get bad. Because of this, the average MO became impossible to use.
                      1. Grafova Irina
                        Grafova Irina 12 February 2018 23: 39
                        +1
                        And the fact that it was this ill-fated shaft that caused extensive flooding in the stern of the ship - do you know? Yes, the unsatisfactory resistance of the PTZ system at Georges and the company is well known and, supposedly designed to withstand 454 kg warheads, could not provide adequate protection against twice as light warheads of airborne torpedoes. The number of hits is not the most decisive factor (within reasonable limits). No less important is where the hits came from and what they entailed. Rowing shaft - one of the "inevitable accidents at sea", alas
  26. NF68
    NF68 6 February 2018 16: 46
    +1
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Langsdorff's only mistake is that he went on a rapprochement, losing the advantage in range, but this is particular


    This is not a mistake - to fire at a long distance - this is an overspending of the main caliber ammunition. To come closer is to increase the accuracy of hits and dispense with a lower consumption of shells due to the introduction of an average caliber into battle.


    The high initial speed of 11 "shells of a pocket battleship and the gentle trajectory of the projectile allowed effective fire at greater distances than 8." The greater weight of the 11 "projectile at any distance pierced thicker armor than the 8" and caused great damage. Again, in the salvo, the greater weight of the 11 shells gave less dispersion. A pickpocket, in good visibility, could open fire on the enemy’s heavy cruiser from a distance of more than 20-22 km., Or even more, while the heavy cruiser shortens the distance necessary for effective fire , a pickpocket could already not only shoot, but also achieve hits.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 7 February 2018 09: 41
      0
      Quote: NF68
      The high initial speed of 11 "shells of a pocket battleship and the gentle trajectory of the projectile allowed effective fire at greater distances than 8." The greater weight of the 11 "projectile at any distance pierced thicker armor than the 8" and caused great damage. Again, in the salvo, the greater weight of the 11 shells gave less dispersion. A pickpocket, in good visibility, could open fire on the enemy’s heavy cruiser from a distance of more than 20-22 km., Or even more, while the heavy cruiser shortens the distance necessary for effective fire , a pickpocket could already not only shoot, but also achieve hits.


      This is in ideal visibility conditions.
      With increasing distance - the probability of hitting decreases exponentially.
      I remind you - by the end of the battle, the raider emptied the main-caliber cellar by 75% - while Ajax and Achilles still remained. to bring medium-caliber guns into battle against Exeter in that situation is the competent decision of the commander.
  27. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 6 February 2018 16: 50
    0
    Quote: NF68
    In addition, the flight path of 283 mm. German shell due to the higher initial velocity is more gentle, which increases the accuracy of shooting. The thickness of the punched 283 mm. with an armor shell, it allows to punch through the reservation of any heavy cruiser at distances of 20 km or more.

    This is not so. As can be seen in the diagram, with course angles of more than 50 degrees 100 mm, the board of the Soviet cruiser project 68 bis will not break through the German 283 mm gun from approximately 15 kilometers.
    68 bis has twice as many guns and twice as fast rate of fire. The horizontal armor of the German armadillo penetrates the shells of the cannons of the Soviet cruiser from about 20 kilometers. With this, the Soviet cruiser is noticeably faster and will be able to maintain the desired distance and directional coal.
    1. NF68
      NF68 6 February 2018 18: 22
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      This is not so. As can be seen in the diagram, with course angles of more than 50 degrees 100 mm, the board of the Soviet cruiser project 68 bis will not break through the German 283 mm gun from approximately 15 kilometers.


      What does the post-war Soviet light cruisers have to do with it? And from what distance will armor of a pickpocket belt break through at the same course angles?


      68 bis has twice as many guns and twice as fast rate of fire. The horizontal armor of a German armadillo is pierced by shells of guns of the Soviet cruiser from about 20 kilometers. At the same time, the Soviet cruiser is noticeably faster and will be able to maintain the desired distance and course angle.


      Yeah. At an initial speed of 950 m / s, the flight path is 152 mm. the projectile is very shallow resulting in such a projectile at a distance of 20 km. it will be bad to break through horizontal armor.

      AP (B-35): 3,117 fps (950 mps)
      Semi-AP mod 1915 / 28 (PB-35): 3,117 fps (950 mps)

      http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_6-57_m1
      938.php
    2. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 7 February 2018 19: 16
      +1
      I recommend the Russian language to study ...
      Including - what displacement did the "Maslovian" cruisers, for example ....
  28. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 7 February 2018 12: 15
    0
    What does the post-war Soviet light cruisers have to do with it? And from what distance will armor of a pickpocket belt break through at the same course angles?

    The Soviet cruiser I gave only as an example of what can be done better at the same displacement. You can use other examples from other countries. The armor of the pickpocket belt with an 152 mm gun will not penetrate the same way, and therefore the main horizontal armor is approximately 20 km or more.
    Yeah. At an initial speed of 950 m / s, the flight path is 152 mm. the projectile is very shallow resulting in such a projectile at a distance of 20 km. it will be bad to break through horizontal armor.

    The 152 mm gun has a lowering charge and an initial velocity of 800 m / s. He pierces the horizontal armor of Spee already from 20 thousand meters.
    1. NF68
      NF68 7 February 2018 18: 15
      0
      The Soviet cruiser I gave only as an example of what can be done better at the same displacement. You can use other examples from other countries. The armor of the pickpocket belt with an 152 mm gun will not penetrate the same way, and therefore the main horizontal armor is approximately 20 km or more.


      In this case, 9 American 203 mm are much better:

      Armor Penetration with AP Shell
      Range Side Armor Deck Armor
      10,800 yards (9,880 m) 10.0 "(254 mm) ---
      15,400 yards (14,080 m) 8.0 "(203 mm) ---
      18,400 yards (16,820 m) --- 2.0 "(51 mm)
      20,800 yards (19,020 m) 6.0 "(152 mm) ---
      23,800 yards (21,760 m) --- 3.0 "(76 mm)
      24,400 yards (22,310 m) 5.0 "(127 mm) ---
      27,600 yards (25,240 m) --- 4.0 "(102 mm)
      28,600 yards (26,150 m) 4.0 "(102 mm) ---

      These figures are taken from armor penetration curves published in 1942.

      http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk12-15
      . Php

      Or 8 German 20.3 cm / 60 (8 ") SK C / 34:

      at a distance of 20 km. an armor-piercing shell of a German gun pierces 100 mm., at a range of 15 km. punches approximately 170 mm. vertical armor:

      Armor Penetration with 269 lbs. (122 kg) AP Shell Pz. Spr. Ggr. L / 4,4
      Distance thickness
      10,400 yards (9,500 m) 9.4 "(24 cm) of Face-hardened Armor
      18,300 yards (20,000 m) 3.9 "(10 cm) of Face-hardened Armor
      The above information is from "German Cruisers of World War Two" for a muzzle velocity of 3,035 fps (925 mps) and is based upon German face-hardened (vertical) and homogenous (deck) armor penetration curves.

      http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_8-60_skc34.
      php

      The large thickness of the vertical armor pierced by the American 8 shell is explained by the fact that the Americans conducted tests in the 1942 year on their own armor and only after WWII did the Americans again during the testing of the hardened armor produced for ships during WWII experienced the armor produced in different countries. it was pleasant for Americans that American armor was only slightly better than the worst Japanese armor. The best was the English armor of the AC brand. Not a lot of English armor was inferior to the AC KS brand. The armor of the rest of the countries was noticeably worse than the English and German.

      From which it follows that in fact the German 203 mm. the armor-piercing projectile was slightly better than the heavier American one in cases when it came to breaking through vertical armor. And the accuracy of shooting at any distance from the German shell due to the gentle trajectory was higher. But the heavier American shell was better when firing was carried out at long distances when the shells were more dangerous for horizontal booking.
  29. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 8 February 2018 14: 31
    0
    brn521,
    Quote: brn521
    This is quite normal statistics. In this case, the raider was not lucky. He was damaged by a fire control system of 150 mm guns. Therefore, he was able to sink only one cruiser. In a normal situation, I would drown all three and leave.


    No - at such a distance, the main caliber BC was not enough for the sinking of light cruisers. At the end of the battle, Count Spee had about 25% of the main caliber ammunition.
    Both light cruisers had a high speed (31,25 knots according to documents) and could keep a distance that ensured the least chance of enemy shells hit.
    They could take Spee “in two fires” while keeping out of the range of effective medium-caliber fire, while the targets would have to be divided between the towers of the raider, which halved the effectiveness of his fire.
    With the remaining ammunition, the raider could not sink both LKR, but had the chance to seriously damage or slow down one or both of them, then he could “come off” from the chase at night.
    But by the end of the battle, he was already practically not combat-ready for well-known reasons (spent BK, damage to the central fire control of the GK, large losses of the crew, many wounded would have died without medical assistance from outside).
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 February 2018 22: 04
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      But by the end of the battle, he was already practically not combat-ready for well-known reasons (spent BK, damage to the central fire control of the GK, large losses of the crew, many wounded would have died without medical assistance from outside).

      Perhaps you should clarify the condition of the ships at the end of the battle.
  30. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 9 February 2018 08: 36
    +1
    Quote: NF68
    By the way, a new bow extended by 10 meters would not have a bulb ...


    Why would the Germans refuse him? Just lengthening the nasal tip to eliminate trim on the nose could not be enough. Most likely, because of these considerations, they could mount a bulb.

    Alas, the bulb was not provided. Although initially he had it. If you do not believe me, then questions to Mr. Suliga
    1. NF68
      NF68 9 February 2018 16: 06
      0
      Quote: Irina Grafova
      If you do not believe me, then questions to Mr. Suliga


      I have questions for him, since not all data from German sources are reflected in his material.
  31. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 9 February 2018 08: 51
    +1
    Quote: Lozovik
    Norman Friedman - "The British Battleship 1906-1946"

    Warspite made 23,84 knots on 80,247 SHP at 32,570 tons (March 15, 1937)


    I also highly recommend Ross Watton - "The Battleship Warspite, if you have not read it.

    I will not argue because data of this kind can vary greatly for a number of reasons. Even because of the depth on the measured mile
  32. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 11 February 2018 16: 06
    +1
    Quote: NF68
    By the way, a new bow extended by 10 meters would not have a bulb ...


    Why would the Germans refuse him? Just lengthening the nasal tip to eliminate trim on the nose could not be enough. Most likely, because of these considerations, they could mount a bulb.

    The question is not for me. And to the Germans
  33. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 11 February 2018 16: 10
    +1
    Quote: Lozovik
    Norman Friedman - "The British Battleship 1906-1946"

    Warspite made 23,84 knots on 80,247 SHP at 32,570 tons (March 15, 1937)


    I also highly recommend Ross Watton - "The Battleship Warspite, if you have not read it.

    hi
  34. NF68
    NF68 13 February 2018 17: 40
    0
    Quote: Grafova Irina
    And the fact that it was this ill-fated shaft that caused extensive flooding in the stern of the ship - do you know? Yes, the unsatisfactory resistance of the PTZ system at Georges and the company is well known and, supposedly designed to withstand 454 kg warheads, could not provide adequate protection against twice as light warheads of airborne torpedoes. The number of hits is not the most decisive factor (within reasonable limits). No less important is where the hits came from and what they entailed. Rowing shaft - one of the "inevitable accidents at sea", alas


    I know that this propeller shaft created big problems, but the “PU” had 4 propeller shafts spaced from each other across the width of the hull. I don’t argue about exactly where the torpedoes hit, and bombs with shells too. Steering wheels are also the same inevitable accident.
  35. Looking for
    Looking for 7 June 2018 16: 00
    -1
    Surprisingly, many people are not bored for the hundredth time to sack over the generally recognized and undeniable facts of bygone years.