Why did the Americans return to operation type Iowa battleships

167
In 1980, Americans quite unexpectedly for the rest of the world awakened four sea giants of a bygone age from hibernation. We are talking about the Iowa type battleships. These warships of the Second World War period were modernized and re-commissioned. That pushed the American command to this step, says the author of the blog naval-manual.livejournal.com. It is worth noting that there is simply no unequivocal answer to this question, but you can try to find versions of such a revival for ships whose golden age has long been in the past.

"Iowa" - a type of battleship American fleet period of the second world war. In total, 4 ships were built in the USA: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin. Two more battleships of this type were planned for construction - Illinois and Kentucky, but their construction was canceled due to the end of World War II. The lead ship of the series, the battleship Iowa, was launched on August 27, 1942 and entered service on February 22, 1943.



“Iowa” type battleships were created as a high-speed version of “South Dakota” type battleships. At the same time, their booking has not changed. To achieve the design speed of the node 32,5, it was necessary to increase the power of the power plant, this caused an increase in the displacement of ships by 10 thousand tons. This increase was rightly considered an inadequate price only for additional 6 speeds, so the designers placed on the 9 ship new 406-mm guns with a barrel length 50 caliber. Due to the speed at 32,5, the Iowa hubs were considered the fastest battleships in the world. At the same time at a speed of 15 nodes, their cruising range reached 17 000 miles (an excellent indicator). Seaworthiness was also good, surpassing predecessors in this indicator. In general, American engineers managed to create an excellent series of warships with a balanced set of characteristics that remained in service (with interruptions) for more than 50 years.


One of the controversial points in the design of Iowa-type battleships was the abandonment of anti-mine caliber by Americans. Most of the battleships of that time period necessarily received at least a dozen 152-mm guns and another battery of 12-16 large-caliber anti-aircraft guns. The Americans in this regard showed unprecedented audacity by equipping the 20 Iowa with universal five-inch (127-mm) artillery guns, which were located in the 10 coaxial installations. This weapon was an excellent means of defense, while this caliber was enough to fight the enemy destroyers. As practice has shown, half the warhead and the mass of projectiles were successfully compensated by the enormous rate of fire of universal guns (12-15 rounds per minute) and the phenomenal accuracy of the fire, using the MK.37 perfect at that time, which was used for firing on both air and surface targets.

It is no coincidence that during the Second World War, thanks to powerful weapons, which were supplemented by 19 quadruple 40-mm "Bofors" and 52 dual and single 20-mm "Oerlikon", Iowa battleships were part of high-speed aircraft carrier connections, playing the role of the core of an air defense order. If we talk about the technical side of the issue, a real technological gulf lay between the Bismarck, which was commissioned in the 1940 year, and the Iowa (1943-1944 years). During this short time, technologies such as radiolocation and fire control systems (LMS) have taken a tremendous step forward.

The implemented technical solutions and the potential embedded in the ships made American Iowa-type battleships truly long-playing ships. They took part not only in the second half of World War II, but also in the war in Korea. And two battleships - "Missouri" and "Wisconsin" took part in the hostilities against Iraq from January to February, 1991, during the famous operation "Desert Storm".

Battleship Iowa, 1944 Year

At the same time, back in 1945, it seemed that World War II had forever changed the military’s perception of battleships, putting an end to almost a century stories armored ships. The Japanese superlinkor Yamato, as well as its Musashi sistership, which could sink any enemy ship in an artillery battle, were the victims of American raids aviation. Each of these battleships received about 10 torpedo hits and about 20 air bombs during massive attacks. Earlier, in 1941, when attacking the American naval base Pearl Harbor, Japanese torpedo bombers managed to sink 5 American battleships and seriously damaged three more. All this gave rise to military theorists to say that now the main striking force on the sea are now aircraft carriers, which, as part of battle groups, are able to destroy any ship of the enemy fleet.

And the advantages of the new battleships turned around their Achilles' heel. Crucial importance was acquired not by the power of the artillery of the main caliber, but by the accuracy of its firing, which was ensured by the use of complex rangefinders and radar installations. These systems were very vulnerable to enemy artillery fire, as well as air attacks. Having lost their "eyes" of the battleships with their main-caliber artillery, little could be done in battle, it was almost impossible to conduct accurate fire. The role played and the development of missile weapons.

During all the post-war years, the United States and other states gradually removed their battleships from the fleet, dismantling formidable warships and sending them for scrap. However, such a fate passed the Iowa type battleships. In 1949, the retired ships were returned to service again. They were used during the Korean War, and all four battleships took part in it. Battleships were used to suppress "point" targets with artillery fire.

Volley main caliber battleship "Iowa", 1984 year

After the end of the war in 1953, the ships were retired again, but not for long. The Vietnam War began and it was decided to return to the “services” of Iowa type battleships. True, the war now went only one "New Jersey". And this time the battleship was used for artillery strikes on the squares, supporting the operations of the US Marine Corps in the coastal areas of Vietnam. According to military experts, one such battleship during the Vietnam War replaced at least 50 fighter-bombers. However, unlike aviation, his tasks did not prevent him from carrying out enemy air defense systems, as well as bad weather. The battleship "New Jersey" was always ready to support the troops fighting on the shore with artillery fire.

It is worth noting that the main projectile of the Iowa battleships was considered a “heavy” armor-piercing projectile Mk.8 weighing 1225 kg with an explosive charge (EX) 1,5 percent by weight. This projectile was specifically designed to fight at long distances, it was optimized to penetrate the decks of enemy ships. To provide the projectile with a more hinged trajectory, like the battleships of South Dakota, a reduced charge was applied, which provided the projectile with an initial velocity of 701 m / s. At the same time, the full charge of the powder - 297 kg provided the initial flight speed - 762 m / s.

However, by the end of the Second World War, these battleships were used mainly for attacking coastal targets, so the high-explosive shells Mk.13 entered into their ammunition. Such a projectile weighed 862 kg, and the relative mass of the explosive was already 8,1 percent. To increase the survivability of gun barrels when firing high-explosive shells, a reduced powder charge with a mass of 147,4 kg was used, which provided the projectile with an initial velocity of 580 m / s.

Launch of the Tomahawk BGM-109 rocket from the side of an Iowa type battleship

In the 1950-60, the battleships underwent only minor upgrades. They dismantled 20-mm, and then 40-mm automatic guns, and also changed the composition of the radar weapons, changed the fire control system. The value of battleships in the era of rocket ships has become quite low. By 1963, the Americans expelled from the fleet in reserve 11 of other types of battleships and 4 "Iowa" were the last battleships of the US Navy.

They decided to return these battleships from the reserve at the end of the 1970-s, the modernization of the ships was carried out in the 1980-s. There are several reasons why this was done. The simplest and most obvious reason is the powerful artillery weapons of the battleships, which could still be used, given the huge stockpiles of shells for 406-mm guns. Already in the 1970-ies in the midst of the Cold War, some experts raised the issue of the re-introduction of Iowa-type battleships. As a justification of this decision, the calculation of the cost of delivery of ammunition to the target was given. The Americans showed practicality and found that 406-mm Iowa guns in 30 minutes would be able to launch 270 high-explosive 862-kg projectiles with a total weight of 232,7 to the target 228,6. At the same time, the aircraft wing of the Nimitz nuclear aircraft carrier, provided that each plane had completed three sorties, could drop tons of bombs on the enemy’s 12 per day. At the same time, the cost of delivering a ton of "ammunition" for the Nimitz was 1,6 thousand dollars, and for the battleship Iowa - XNUMX thousand dollars.

It is clear that the comparison of the delivered mass of ammunition is not entirely correct, since aircraft are able to strike at a much greater distance than the battleship. Also, due to the greater mass of explosives, bombs have a larger lesion area. Despite this, at the end of World War II, during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, a sufficient number of tasks arose that could be solved by heavy ship artillery, and with the greatest efficiency and lower costs. The fact that about 20 thousands of 406-mm projectiles, as well as 34 spare barrels for the battleships had accumulated in the American arsenals, also played its role. In the 1980-ies, it was even planned to create ultra-long shells. With a weight of 454 kg they should have an initial flight speed of 1098 m / s and a range of 64 km, but the matter did not go further than the experimental samples.

Launchers PKR "Harpoon" and ZAK "Phalanx" on the battleship "New Jersey"

In the course of upgrading Iowa type battleships in 1980s, 4 of 10-paired 127-mm artillery units were dismantled from them by 143. In their place were located eight armored quad launchers Mk.109 to launch cruise missiles BGM-32 "Tomahawk" for firing at ground targets with ammunition in 4 missiles. Additionally, the ships were installed on 141 installation Mk.4 16 container in each for 84 anti-ship missiles RGM-4 "Harpoon". The closest anti-aircraft and missile defenses were to be provided by the 15 anti-aircraft artillery complex Mk.20 Vulkan-Phalanx. Each of them consisted of six-barrel 61-mm gun M5 "Vulkan", which was stabilized in two planes and had an autonomous radar fire control system. In addition, 1986 stationary positions for Stinger MANPADS were located on the superstructures of the battleships. The radar equipment of the ships was completely updated. A helipad appeared in the stern of the battleships. And in December, 1988, on Iowa, additionally installed a device for the start and landing of the Pioner UAV. At the same time, the crew of the battleships was significantly reduced, in 1510, on Iowa, 1945 people served, and in 2788, the crew consisted of 151 people, including the officer XNUMX.

As noted in the blog naval-manual.livejournal.com, the battleships were needed by the US not only as large artillery ships capable of effectively fighting coastal targets. The idea of ​​restoring existing battleships arose in the second half of the 1970-ies and was put into practice as part of the Reagan administration's 600 Ships program. In the middle of 1970, leaders, including admiral James Holloway, fleet secretary W. Graham Claytor (junior), assistant secretary James Woolsey, achieved consensus in the Washington naval district - the US Navy had to fight for supremacy at sea against the USSR . Offensive operations were considered the most effective option against the Soviet fleet.

At the technical and operational levels, the US Navy faced at that time two relatively new problems: a significant increase in the number of Soviet surface ships equipped with anti-ship missiles; and an increase in areas that could be the scene of hostilities — now the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean have been added to the number of potential hot spots on the planet. In accordance with the idea that the US Pacific Fleet should be active at its place of residence (earlier plans allowed the transfer of the main forces of the fleet to the Atlantic), all this required increasing the number of ships in the US fleet. The US Navy should, if necessary, conduct active military operations on five directions simultaneously (the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Soviet Far East, the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean).

Surface combat group with the battleship "Iowa"

The fleet also planned to form 4 surface combat groups (NBG), which were smaller combat groups that did not include aircraft carriers. The obvious role of four Iowa type battleships was becoming the central element of these groups. The Americans planned that the group would include a battleship, a Ticonderoga type cruiser and three Arly Burke type destroyers. Armed with cruise missiles, such NBGs will be equivalent to Soviet combat groups and will be able to act independently as active strike groups in areas of moderate threat. They could be especially effective in carrying out operations against coastal targets and in support of amphibious operations, thanks to powerful artillery and cruise missiles.

According to the plans of American strategists, such surface combat groups led by the battleship could act both independently and in conjunction with aircraft-carrier strike groups. Acting independently of aircraft carriers, the NBG could provide the possibility of "surface war" in areas with reduced underwater and aerial threat (such areas included the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean). The battleships remained dependent on their escort, which provided them with anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense. In high-threat areas, the battleships could act as part of a larger carrier-based strike group. In this case, the battleships recorded three roles at once - the attack of surface and ground targets, support for the landing.

At the same time, the fire support of the landing force (the fight against ground targets) was one of the main tasks of the Iowa type battleships in the 1980s, but it was not, apparently, the main cause of their depopardation. In those years, the thoughts of the American military command were concentrated not on the coast, but on the high seas. The idea of ​​a battle with the Soviet fleet, rather than a projection of force in various regions of the oceans, became dominant. This is confirmed by the fact that the battleships were modernized and returned to service at the height of the fight against the Navy of the Soviet Union - and were dismissed just after this peak was passed (an indicative fact). The battleship Iowa was put into reserve on January 26 1990, New Jersey 2 February 1991, Wisconsin 30 September 1991, Missouri 31 March 1992. The last two even took part in the fighting against Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.

The battleship "Missouri" in the composition of the AUG, led by the aircraft carrier "Ranger"

Returning ships to service in the 1980s, the American fleet leadership considered the NBGs built around Iowa-type battleships as an independent means of fighting Soviet surface ships - at least in those areas where there was no threat of massive use of Soviet aircraft. Among other things, the battleships, apparently, were supposed to solve the problem of fighting with surface ships of the Soviet Navy, which were hanging "on the tail" of American aircraft carriers. For this, they could be included in the AUG. The question of what would be their main weapons - "Tomahawks", "Harpoons" or 406-mm guns - remains open. The close contact of American and Soviet warships in those years allowed the use of artillery from both sides. In this situation, the high firepower of the battleships, supplemented by their armor and survivability, became quite valuable advantages. It is no coincidence that in the 1980s, American battleships that had been modernized and received missile weapons were regularly engaged in training artillery firing at surface targets. In this sense, the giants of the end of the Second World War returned to the US Navy in the 1980-s precisely as battleships.

Information sources:
https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/17507.html
https://lenta.ru/articles/2005/07/06/battleships
https://youroker.livejournal.com/52063.html
http://wunderwafe.ru/Magazine/MK/2003_N1/18.htm
Open source materials
Our news channels

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

167 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    +40
    1 May 2018 04: 47
    Objectively, in military conflicts after the Second World War, the United States used its battleships as platforms for nine 15-inch guns. A certain analogue of monitors, with absolute superiority in the sea and in the air.
    By the way, Sergey did not say that today all four battleships are once again mothballed and used as museum-stations. What is patriotic however, even envy takes.
    1. +4
      1 May 2018 06: 25
      Quote: Kotischa
      Objectively, in military conflicts after the Second World War, the United States used its battleships as platforms for nine 15-inch guns. A certain analogue of monitors, with absolute superiority in the sea and in the air.

      And, mind you, immediately after the “decommissioning” of these same “platforms for 15 inch guns” from the military service, the “super destroyer” program was launched, which was seen primarily as a platform for “6 inch superguns”. However, they didn’t succeed in siphoning those guns ... The program stalled and, apparently, "old Zyama" (from the speech of the destroyer "Zimvolt") will be released in a very limited series. That, in turn, gives rise to suspicion of the possibility of returning to operation "ancient irons"
      1. +33
        1 May 2018 08: 55
        I don’t agree about irons :-)
        The last two photos show how much more perfect the hydrodynamic resistance of the battleship of the 40s than modern ships. On the left wake track at the same speed. It can be seen that now the achievement of absolute speed is not put at the forefront.
        1. +5
          1 May 2018 19: 14
          Wave formation depends on the length of the housing. Smaller ships go at a higher relative speed, so the wave system is clearly larger.
        2. +1
          3 May 2018 14: 38
          The battleship screws are set deeper
    2. +5
      1 May 2018 06: 28
      [quote]. Objectively, in military conflicts after the Second World War, the United States used its battleships as platforms for nine 15-inch guns. [quote] "New Jersey" in January 1984, and Beirut several times fired from these guns. In addition, the author could add that on board the Missouri an act of surrender of Japan was signed, i.e. end of the second world war. Good ships, the most important thing is that they can be re-opened at any time.
      1. +3
        1 May 2018 09: 13
        About the shelling of defenseless Beirut "removed from the tongue" ...
      2. +6
        1 May 2018 10: 01
        Quote: Rostovchanin
        You can re-preserve at any time.

        It is impossible. 30 years of parking so simply do not pass.
        1. +6
          1 May 2018 22: 15
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Quote: Rostovchanin
          You can re-preserve at any time.

          It is impossible. 30 years of parking so simply do not pass.

          This is if parking. And if conservation? When performing all routine maintenance?
          1. +1
            1 May 2018 23: 42
            Quote: non-primary
            When performing all routine maintenance?

            It seems that over all these years, ships, let’s say, did not turn the shafts. However, I could be wrong.
        2. +6
          2 May 2018 19: 48
          Look at the Hollywood “masterpiece” Naval battle - everything is clearly shown there: we collected 20 retirees, launched the boilers and go ... :)))
          1. +4
            3 May 2018 11: 56
            Quote: tima_ga
            collected 20 retirees, launched boilers and forth ... :)))

            the veterans themselves in the film said that it was all a pleasure for a couple of hours in all. Yes, and there was everything nearby.
            Despite the "masterpiece" my favorite movie. It is because of the fleet.
        3. +9
          3 May 2018 08: 15
          I will tell you a case from Soviet conservation: in one division of the Strategic Missile Forces in ZabVO, when the mines were built, two towers from T 34-85 were installed at each point as firing points with underground communications (although this was only at the first few points), one was placed at the entrance and another one not far from the glass, but at one point two mothballed T 34-85 tanks were buried, and so at the end of 1994, when the extreme mine installations were disarmed, these tanks were dug up. They could not start one and were taken to a unit on the trawl, but the second one was brought in and he was able to move on his own. These two tanks on May 9, 1995 were put on pedestals, one in the town of the other on the territory of the division
          1. +6
            3 May 2018 08: 20
            I forgot to say that the tanks were mothballed in the early 60s, that is, they stood in the ground for 30 years
        4. +1
          7 May 2018 09: 20
          Cherry Nine (1) May 1, 2018 10:01 ↑
          Quote: Rostovchanin
          You can re-preserve at any time.
          It is impossible. 30 years of parking so simply do not pass.

          yes of course. Watch videos on YouTube about how St. John’s Engine started after it’s 60 years stood in the forest without any conservation. And brought and went.
      3. +7
        1 May 2018 11: 14
        Even for shelling a third-rate country on the Iowa coast, it is too expensive, especially the constant maintenance of such a whopper with 1600 crews and only with a single application. It’s like with an expensive suitcase without a handle, it’s a pity to throw it away, it is inconvenient and expensive to wear, here are the skewers, where to attach it ... The helicopter carrier and others with the Kyrgyz Republic are more universal and can get it out of the way. Conclusion - sigh about the beauty of past days, but how to go to the museum in the past ...
        1. +10
          1 May 2018 13: 56
          Quote: Vladimir 5
          Conclusion - sigh about the beauty of past days, but how to go to the museum in the past ...

          I agree! It was the banal unprofitability of these ships that put an end to them .. Stupidly there were no goals for them .. The landing on the sea coast? And which one? Everything on the planet has everything taken under control, there are no weak players, but those decisions will not work with strong ones .. What battleships are there, what’s not, a strong adversary, when they try to support the landing of an enemy MP on the shore, stupidly drown them, and most likely special ammunition. The exact same situation has developed today with the AUG and other large surface ships, they simply have no one to fight with .. Trivia is redundant, equal and inefficient and equally unprofitable .. A decision will be made and the entire surface lot will quickly sink to the bottom ..
          1. +1
            1 May 2018 15: 12
            AUG’s goals have not changed; they have both fulfilled them and are fulfilling them, and in the medium term it will be an effective means of designing force. The fact that AUGs are now being modernized and they include other ships of the UDC and BDK type only speaks of a different specificity of AUG use in modern realities. The whole charm of AUG is that by changing the composition of the group, you can upgrade it to fulfill any tasks. But naturally, the content of AUG as a universal remedy is not very cheap. And the rotten battleships I see as the only means in the same AUG is the physical protection of an aircraft carrier, a commensurate in size iron high-noise fool will be an excellent target both for homing torpedoes and for GOS anti-ship missiles, and of course battleships even modernized useless crap - albeit very strong in a real military conflict when compared with modern cardboard destroyers and frigates - which only need a couple of torpedoes or anti-ship missiles to sink to the bottom.
            1. +2
              1 May 2018 22: 45
              Quote: Yarhann
              at AUG, the goals have not changed; they have both fulfilled them and are fulfilling them and in the medium term it will be an effective means of designing force

              Not at all! AUG for the USA is primarily a means of earning for those who serve and serve them .. From a military point of view, the US Air Force can do everything for much less money, but thanks to lobbyists, AUG, like the rest of the fleet, is a sacred cow despite the obsolescence of this decision .. With the number of US bases around the world, they don’t really need a strike fleet, everyone and everything will get ground aviation easily .. But again, the fleet is a lot of money ..
              1. +1
                4 May 2018 09: 16
                nice man - a military base and a full-fledged airfield with technicians and other escorts including all possible means of flight support are two different things. This is the whole charm of the supercarriers that it is a floating base and an airdrome all rolled into one.
                And that someone works and serves there, but it’s good to consider other people’s grandmothers - Avrimya in all countries of the world has cut the dough for everyone who is screwed to the military commissar both in the United States and in Europe as well. But there is one BUT - the military should take risks your life and solve the tasks assigned to them, therefore, as a rule, they close their eyes to cuts.
        2. +4
          2 May 2018 00: 11
          "Spreading" around the world of ours and copies of our anti-ship missiles of the "ball" or "shore" type and by another - makes battleships an unacceptably expensive platform for "axes". negative If the Papuans may have a “well-hounded” our complex and they will wait until this fool crawls out to shoot along the shore, then at once they will send to the bottom a lot of money and a lot of mattress pieces of fat good . To strike at destroyed and unarmed Lebanon, which is surprising, only to demonstrate to Stalin nuclear weapons they dropped two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mra.zi finished. am So until the "defenders of the World" appear in the world and the Merikases can "with impunity" beat people at least from battleships.
          1. +4
            3 May 2018 09: 25
            Subsonic x35 from the ball, and especially 152 mm shells from the shore will not be able to cause significant damage to the ship with 300-350 mm side armor and a displacement of 45 tons. X 000 is easy to shoot down, not like the p35 or p700. X1000 for small ships is a maximum destroyer or a small cruiser like ticonderoga. Iowa is too tough for her. And about 35mm, I’m generally silent, it's like shooting a tank from a machine gun
            1. +5
              3 May 2018 09: 33
              when 152mm guests arrived from the Korean coast, Iowa went off to repair. in the Persian Gulf in Missouri, 20mm Falunks shells hit the target - they broke through the superstructure, wounded the crew
              and nobody will break the light armored personnel carrier belt - the adyu will get to the base of the pipe!
              1. +3
                3 May 2018 18: 36
                “Hotels” received only New Jersey and Wisconsin, one for each. In both cases, 3 people died, the ships didn’t go anywhere, but quickly destroyed the coastal batteries, and went on about their business.
                And it’s easy to shoot down the x35, especially since battleships never go alone.
                1. +3
                  4 May 2018 04: 13
                  Quote: Mark9103
                  “Hotels” received only New Jersey and Wisconsin, one for each. In both cases, 3 people died, the ships didn’t go anywhere, but quickly destroyed the coastal batteries, and went on about their business.
                  And it’s easy to shoot down the x35, especially since battleships never go alone.

                  "go about your business" in Yokosuku Yes
                  you say so, as if a single torpedo bomber was hard to shoot down!? Several missiles attack this target. And the battleships went alone and died, moreover, cruisers, armadillos, battleships, dreadnought were attacked in raids, at the pier or in the dock more than 200 times - from Brest to Oahu, and from Scapaflow to Madagascar and Tanzania.
                2. 0
                  18 November 2022 17: 36
                  How many Kh-35s did you shoot down? In Ukraine, the outdated Soviet air defense system is no worse than the modern NATO one, but how many substations did they manage to save from subsonic missile launchers?
            2. +3
              3 May 2018 20: 21
              battleship is not necessary to sink, it is enough to disable.
              if you do significant damage to add-ons, that’s enough.
            3. +2
              20 May 2018 10: 23
              These missiles will not penetrate the armor. May be. Yes, and so much armor that you still have to get into it. And with unarmored units they will do such that no one dreamed. And there is nothing there: all kinds of radar, a lot of weapons, crew, wire routes. After a couple of hits, combat efficiency will be critically reduced. It will be possible only to shoot from the GC on optics. And then if she stays.
              For some reason, it seems to me that this was precisely the main reason why the battleships came to naught. Aircraft carriers, but battleships served long after the war. But in a modern ship you need only so much that it is impossible to protect with any armor.
              1. 0
                18 November 2022 17: 38
                I wonder if Onyx will pierce New Jersey through, or will it explode inside?
          2. The comment was deleted.
      4. +3
        4 May 2018 07: 08
        Well, as much as possible ... GK 9 16 ", that is, 406mm
    3. +9
      1 May 2018 07: 30
      Quote: Kotischa
      for nine 15 inch cannons.

      16 inch cannons wink hi
      1. Cat
        +3
        1 May 2018 14: 41
        Yes, I missed the caliber! Sorry feel
    4. +3
      1 May 2018 08: 13
      16 inches, to be exact. 406 mm.
    5. +5
      1 May 2018 09: 57
      Quote: Kotischa
      used as museum museums

      EMNIP, the Americans have 8 of these LCs: 4 Iowa, 2 Dakota, 1 Carolina and 1 grandfather Texas.
      1. +3
        1 May 2018 10: 42
        Yeah now on Texas built 12 years of the last century and into battle bully
    6. +4
      1 May 2018 10: 41
      Quote: Kotischa
      in military conflicts after World War II, the United States used its battleships as platforms for nine 15-inch cannons.

      Actually, the Iowa 406mm battleships are 16 inches.
      And 15 inches, this is 381mm German "Bismarck", British "Hood" and many more.
    7. +2
      1 May 2018 21: 29
      16 ". That’s 406mm
    8. +3
      2 May 2018 17: 52
      American battleships in World War II repeatedly participated in naval battles, and not just for shelling the coast. Learn the story.
    9. +2
      3 May 2018 06: 37
      In addition to the text, you can watch a video review of the battleship
    10. -1
      3 May 2018 23: 00
      And not 16 inch?
    11. +1
      6 May 2018 19: 30
      As soon as 20 thousand shells mentioned in the article were fired, the need for cannon carriers for these shells immediately disappeared. The new garden began to be fenced for Zamvolt.
  2. +1
    1 May 2018 06: 48
    The artillery guns are undervalued at this time. In some cases, 406 mm would not hurt as some wall-hung guns, but 152 are needed, like air, given their availability of guided ammunition.
    1. +1
      1 May 2018 15: 18
      most likely, launching a PC from a similar (406mm) pipe is more beneficial than a projectile and a rocket
  3. +2
    1 May 2018 07: 09
    Quote: Kotischa
    platforms for nine 15 inch cannons

    If we are talking about Iowa, then the caliber of their guns is 16 dm.
    1. +1
      1 May 2018 10: 15
      Quote: kvs207
      If it’s about Iowa,

      About the Italians of the Littorio class apparently))) 9x15 only they, the rest 8x15
    2. +3
      1 May 2018 11: 32
      Given that dm is a decimeter, not an inch, the remark seems weak. One error was changed to another. No. wassat
  4. +9
    1 May 2018 07: 41
    The lion's share of the world's population lives in the 50km strip of the coast.
    Formally, battleships even now can be used as a cheaper version of the gun at the temple. And for what thread "rebellious" countries (by the standards of American exceptionalism) as a reminder of the power of the world gendarme, sending a group led by which thread of "ayov" would be very adequate. Chi a whole air wing will iron the chosen targets, chi several volleys of almost a ton of Chumaidans around the city (district, port, etc. within reach) is also an argument.
    So this tool (battleships) as an option of intimidation is also very good. Another thing is that everything depends on the budget, but there is no problem - the Fed will print green candy wrappers at least tons (if only they would be converted into tangible dividends) feel
    1. +3
      1 May 2018 07: 46
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The lion's share of the world's population lives in the 50km strip of the coast.
      Formally, battleships even now can be used as a cheaper version of the gun at the temple.

      The gunboat policy has not yet been forgotten. And they could be useful to our enemies.
    2. +10
      1 May 2018 08: 27
      hi Greetings, my Belarusian brother!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      chi several volleys of almost a ton of chumeydan around the city

      I observed Iowa in the Mediterranean, the smartest thing I will tell you !!!! A shot over 20 kilometers is audible!
      1. +3
        1 May 2018 08: 41
        Quote: Serg65
        I observed Iowa in the Mediterranean, the smartest thing I will tell you !!!! A shot over 20 kilometers is audible!

        drinks ,Sergei! hi
        Yeah, for 20 km the source of thunder is not visible, but for residents of a potential enemy of America after such a thunder, "presents" from a gorgeous little thing can fly in the early morning wink And not kisses at all feel
        I envy you - to see with your own eyes what many can now do only in pictures ... winked If only there are no extra few thousand green tugriks and problems with American troubles in order to visit Honolulu, Boston, Norfolk or LA bully
        1. +9
          1 May 2018 08: 51
          Quote: Rurikovich
          see with your own eyes what many can now do only in pictures

          Andrew, I was also lucky to observe the remains of the glorious “Cahul” at the mouth of the Khobi, not far from Poti! laughing Honestly, I was very pleased with the trips at the expense of the USSR Navy!
    3. +2
      1 May 2018 10: 09
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Formally, battleships can even be used now

      To demonstrate the flag. AB, of course, is also good, but AB approaching the coast at a line of sight westward.
      It is a pity, of course, that the Americans abandoned these littoral warships)))
      1. +3
        1 May 2018 21: 32
        That only littoral is overkill
        1. +1
          1 May 2018 22: 02
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          That only littoral is overkill

          Well, after the Soviet government stopped chasing the Sverdlovs after the Nimits at the distance of fire contact, the value of the LC in the open ocean, already minimal, completely disappeared.
          1. +5
            1 May 2018 23: 32
            It is difficult to answer unequivocally ... A lot of things are walking and swimming along the seas-oceans. And which can fall into the radius of the defeat of the Civil Code. A 406mm shot is many times cheaper than RCC. Here the question is different - the total cost of operation. But, if, God forbid, it comes to a serious amer war with someone, then this question may disappear.
            The British, at one time, were very sorry that the “Wangard” was put into needles. Under the Falklands, he would be very useful to them. 114mm of their EM and frigates for coastal shooting are somehow unconvincing, do not you think?
            1. +1
              1 May 2018 23: 49
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              EM and frigates for shooting along the shore are somehow unconvincing, do not you think?

              Limes had a slightly different situation. It is hard to imagine that it is precisely the LC that is not enough for the Americans to work along the coast.
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              And which can fall into the radius of the defeat of the Civil Code. A 406mm shot is many times cheaper than RCC

              If the enemy is so close that you can get artillery fire and is so strong that 5 "is not enough for him, then he’s no longer in the accounting department.
              Still, starting with WWII, American LCs were used primarily as gunboats.
              1. +5
                2 May 2018 04: 14
                Why use a microscope for hammering nails. In their firing radius, 406mm are hardly inferior to other weapons with a similar explosive content, but are superior in terms of low cost and the absence of an “allergy” to electronic warfare equipment.
                And in this role they were used for a very simple reason - the lack of appropriate opponents. In addition, I ask you to note that the ship from ancient times was very actively used for shelling ground targets.
                In addition, the combat stability of the LC did not disappear. These are not “cardboard” boats that rely solely on active defense. As a "center of sustainability" (there is such a term) they can still come in handy.
                A close adversary is always dangerous. And having "hammered" the detection channels and suppressing the GOS of expensive missiles can do something dashing. Here linear linearity (sorry for the pun) and can come in handy even if the LC and "misses" the first blow
    4. +3
      1 May 2018 10: 16
      wink That is what I wanted to say. You are ahead. I don’t agree with the budget only. As stated above, the cost of delivering a ton of ammunition is several times lower. This is where the budget is saved.
      1. 0
        1 May 2018 10: 42
        Quote: Tomatoes
        This is where the budget is saved.

        That is, if the ship is already there anyway, the only question is to fit and shoot. But the maintenance of the 50-year-old ship, its team like an Avik, is almost all worth it.
        1. +2
          1 May 2018 13: 47
          I think the cost of "delivery of ammunition" includes all costs: maintenance, staff, maintenance .... Otherwise, these numbers do not mean anything. But I do not claim, I have not studied the issue.
      2. +2
        1 May 2018 15: 19
        if you deliver stupidly OFS, then it’s much cheaper to use 52 bombers - of which there are many and which can throw several hundred tons of fab over the enemy anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. And do not bother with this pile of scrap metal. Nobody has canceled simple bombers, which is why both the 52 and the 95 are still in the service - there is no cheaper and more effective means of throwing land mines in the world.
    5. +1
      1 May 2018 11: 34
      About this 20 years ago, Sergey Pereslegin talked very tightly. I also remember the FIDOshnyh posts.
    6. 0
      1 May 2018 22: 50
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The lion's share of the world's population lives in the 50km strip of the coast.

      This share has long been under the lion .. And there’s no one else to shoot at ...
  5. +2
    1 May 2018 10: 09
    controversial points ... there was a refusal of the Americans from the anti-mine caliber. Most of the battleships of that time period without fail received at least a dozen 152 mm guns

    fundamentally wrong. The rejection of 152 mm and the transition to universal artillery of 127 among the Americans and 140 mm of the British were widespread. Americans at least 3 generations of battleships made 127 sparks.
    Only old or under-modernized battleships of the British carried 152.
    1. +1
      1 May 2018 10: 32
      Quote: Dimka75
      Widespread was the abandonment of 152 mm and the transition to universal artillery

      This is not true. The British and Americans switched to universal cars. At the same time, this initially did not seem like such an achievement for the Americans: they simply did not have anti-aircraft guns with unitary loading, as a result of which they stuffed their 5 "where necessary and not necessary.
      The caliber of the British is 133 mm (5 ¼ "), not 140 mm.
      The Germans, Italians, Japanese, French, LK The Soviet Union had a mine caliber.
      1. +5
        1 May 2018 21: 46
        Different views on the use of LC due to different theaters. Europeans, who would have to operate on limited theater operations such as the Mediterranean, North and Baltic seas, were seriously afraid of torpedo attacks by EMs and it seemed important to them to stop EMs with a couple of shots. Britons and amers it concerned in much
        to a lesser degree, moreover, they had completely worked out universal wagons. They reasonably decided why to overload the ships with both guns and their control systems.
        The Germans did not have a successful universal gun. The 128mm appeared later and they just wanted to arm the Gneisenau during its rearmament. The rest - about the same. The French nominally considered the 152mm e universal due to the high elevation angle, but in fact such a caliber cannot be considered as universal and, especially, anti-aircraft. Rate of fire and speed guidance - alas. Then 460mm guns can be called universal - they fired at the planes, having special shells in the 44th and 45th years. Some COMMON there for such and such a number.
        And on the "Dunkirk" 130mm were just universal, but the 4 gun turrets also did not differ in speed of aiming due to weight.
        1. +1
          2 May 2018 00: 09
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          Different views on the use of LC due to different theaters

          It sounds logical, but I doubt that the causal relationship is exactly as you described it. Limes and Germans have the same theater of operations (KD5, after all, was mainly intended for the Atlantic) as well as among Americans and Japanese. The hypothesis that the Americans did not consider the problem of torpedo attacks, looks sad enough for Americans.
          Another explanation would have seemed more logical to me: the Anglo-Saxons were more honest than others. Therefore, they tried to use universal wagons, which not only facilitated armament, but also shortened the citadel. The 38 clb five-inch system itself was not as much success as is commonly believed.
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          The French nominally considered the 152mm universal

          Richelieu had 6x2 100mm anti-aircraft guns, in addition to 3x3 152
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          130mm on the Dunkirks were exactly universal, but the 4-gun turrets also did not differ in speed of aiming due to weight.

          I love Dunkirk very much, but they obviously frowned with the anti-aircraft guns.
          1. +3
            2 May 2018 04: 55
            To begin with, as I have already noted, the Angles and Amers had universal guns that were suitable for use in ship installations even before the creation of new LC projects, the rest did not. Hence the division into anti-mine artillery and "purely" anti-aircraft artillery. Only the yapes still had 127 mm heavy anti-aircraft guns that could act on surface targets, smaller ones were ineffective. The presence of 8 - 10 trunks of caliber 133-127mm on board, coupled with a sufficiently high rate of fire, provided the option of "fire flow", which was (ideally) to prevent an effective torpedo attack. Of course, the use of one caliber instead of two gave tangible savings in weight. As for the shortening of the citadel - it is very secondary, because the stock of buoyancy was reduced.
            Powerful anti-mine artillery was important for the Germans for two reasons (in addition to the lack of a suitable universal weapon). Limited visibility in the North Sea and in the North Atlantic (the desire to stop EM with a pair of shells) and fixation on raider operations. In the latter case - for the sinking of the "merchants". They did not foresee the installation of station wagons anywhere on their subsequent “N” -kahs. Although by then 128mm guns with very good declared characteristics should have already appeared.
            And KD5 (funny designation) and the company were created as ships for all occasions, as they say. They should have been equally effective wherever Royal Navi operated.
            The Franks also had a universal gun of the appropriate caliber, but they disposed of it somewhat strangely. And it is no coincidence that their first "real" battleships received two medium calibers. Because they would have to act in the North Sea, the course of the war would have turned out differently. And in subsequent projects, too, a universal caliber is not observed ...
            After all, ships are created for theater. And not vice versa. Is not it?
            1. 0
              3 May 2018 06: 28
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              As for the shortening of the citadel - it is very secondary, because the stock of buoyancy was reduced.

              That's what the French were climbing over with ship architecture. "Very secondary."
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              And KD5 (funny designation) and the company were created as ships for all occasions, which is called

              KD5 was created in view of a very specific war and the enemy.
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              After all, ships are created for theater.

              Again. The British and Germans, Americans and Japanese have one TVD.
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              the Angles and Amers had universal guns suitable for use in ship installations even before the creation of new LC projects

              Yes, the British had successful universal guns. 4.5 "/ 45 (11.4 cm) QF. But at the same time they made a new 5.25" / 50 (13.4 cm) QF Mark I specifically for KD5, if I'm not mistaken. 35th year of design, used from the 40th year. In lime years in those years, making new tools in the new caliber was generally some unhealthy hobby.
              That is, first of all, the Germans did not have such a task. The French, as you rightly noted, took universal guns and made them non-universal, placing them in 4-gun towers. And on Richelieu, they returned the 6-inch at all.
              1. +1
                3 May 2018 09: 41
                They had one theater ??? Well, if you take the oceans, the theater of war, in fact, is one for all ...
                Again. Theater for the British is not only and not so much the North Sea and the North Atlantic. This is the Mediterranean Sea, and the central Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean, and, even, a little further
                For the Germans, first of all, the North Sea and the provision of raider operations. Which in themselves implied individual actions, and therefore revealed the need for the best counteraction (again, individual) to possible threats. I note that neither the Britons nor the Americans have ever planned to use heavy ships outside formations.
                Further. For Yap and Amers, there was one common theater of operations - TO, but for the latter - also the Atlantic. And what do we see? The Yapis, having managed to build only two LCs of the new formation, armed them with both anti-mine and heavy anti-aircraft, and later strengthened it with anti-mine, which is natural. But already on Superyamato projects, they came up with the idea of ​​installing 24 (or more) 100mm station wagons such as those that were on Akitsuki (if I don’t confuse the name - from memory), completely putting protection from torpedo attacks (extremely hypothetical) on guard. Americans saw their LCs always and everywhere in the compound, because their famous 127/38 were the last frontier of defense against a torpedo attack. It was smooth on paper, which showed the second fight at Guadalcanal, but the situation was absolutely atypical there, after all.
                The Britons did their 133 (!) Mm, first of all, for Dido with the company, and without scattering, they successfully landed on Georges as well. Although, like the anti-aircraft guns, they lost 114mm (and 127/38) in terms of rate of fire - the most important factor for air defense systems. But in the anti-ship version they were not able to test the LCs - there were no cases.
                What was not the Germans task?
                The Franks also had two-gun installations ... They returned to the Richelieu - yes, as soon as the displacement allowed, and the ZKBB was limited to 100mm in completely insufficient quantities, partially relying on the "semi-universality" of 152mm installations. But, bearing in mind the possibility of action in areas with limited visibility, they wanted to have the most powerful means of combating EM.
                The heavy anti-aircraft artillery, like the universal one, was focused on setting curtains, ensuring the impossibility of targeted bombing, and not on direct destruction of aircraft. That is why the four-gun pseudo-universal women appeared among the French, who believed that a high guidance speed at long distances would not be required, while forgetting about the rate of fire.
                And about the citadel ... At 35.000 tons of the standard, it was necessary to shove the non-shoved one. Hence, all sorts of "Ebonite Mousse", and four-gun turrets of the Civil Code. That is why, in terms of armor, they were the best practically the best. And Dunkirk is a palliative, a reaction to pickpockets and development for subsequent projects.
                1. 0
                  3 May 2018 19: 18
                  I have lost the thread of our discussion.
                  Universal women stood on the British and Americans. Six-inch stood on the Germans, French, Italians, Japanese and was planned in the USSR.
                  Is it possible to consider that the Americans installed the universal cars because they had them? Can. The British did not have it, but they did it anyway (that is, even worse, they did, but they did not universal, calling them universal).
                  Can we assume that the British and Americans had a different view of the threat from small ships? Perhaps, but I did not come across evidence of this.
                  Quote: Irina Grafova
                  The Britons did their 133 (!) Mm, first of all, for Dido with the company, and without scattering, they successfully landed on Georges

                  And this is you, excuse me, where did you get it? There was a statement that exactly the opposite. And Dido was laid later than George.
                  1. +1
                    4 May 2018 09: 22
                    I summarize, otherwise it can take a very long time ...
                    The Britons were forced to put 133mm, if only for the reason that 114mm as a mine artillery they seemed weak. But to “break” the average caliber into two did not allow known limitations. They have already given up two guns of the Civil Code. To their credit, I must say that the British are the only ones who tried to the last to comply with international agreements.
                    The Americans set a universal caliber instead of 2, also on the basis of pragmatic considerations. In the sense that LCs must be reliably covered by an escort and, most importantly, this is air defense. But since no one canceled the linear battle in “pure form”, the need for protection from dashing to the loss of self-preservation of Japanese EMs also seemed urgent. And 10 trunks with a high rate of fire seemed to them a quite adequate measure. In addition, as you know, any weapon is as effective as its control system, and in this aspect, it is a sin to conceal, the Americans went ahead of the "whole planet".
                    A slightly different situation was in Europe. A clear underestimation of the air threat (at first, underestimation is common, in general, for everyone) and a larger, as it seemed, threat of torpedo attacks. That this, to put it mildly, is not entirely true, it turned out later. That's why we went to the separation of the medium caliber, knowingly underestimating the caliber and the amount of heavy anti-aircraft. 12 90mm anti-aircraft guns at the Littorio - chickens to laugh. True, weight restrictions also left their mark here, since no one had canceled the contracts and had to act with an eye on them. The lack of ready-made station wagons for the same Italians and Germans is not an argument, because having set such a goal initially, they would have managed to create this almost certainly on time. We are not talking about CCC, because the 23rd project allowed, with the right weight culture, to accommodate anything, regardless of all the agreements that we also signed (up to 45.000 tons, which), and as a result - 8 "hundredths" (later 12). The Germans deliberately left 150mm to the last in the discussion of future raider actions. We already spoke about francs ...
                    And the result is banal. Each of the defendants built and armed with what they could and had, based on their assessment of the prospects in the light of future tasks and looking at competitors. Well, all sorts of international restrictions also hung like a stone on the neck of both designers and admirals. An ideal ship, in principle, is impossible, alas. A compromise - alas, only a compromise ...
                    With regards to whether 133mm initially for Dido or not, I don’t presume to say that it’s for them, and then for LC. But the idea of ​​an air defense cruiser and, a defender against EM with numerous quick-firing artillery, has been in the minds of the Admiralty for a long time. So this caliber was chosen almost simultaneously with the first developments on the project of the future "George"
                    1. +1
                      4 May 2018 11: 49
                      Quote: Irina Grafova
                      The Americans set a universal caliber instead of 2, also on the basis of pragmatic considerations. In the sense that LCs must be reliably covered by an escort and, most importantly, this is air defense. But since no one canceled the linear battle in “pure form”, the need for protection from dashing to the loss of self-preservation of Japanese EMs also seemed urgent. And 10 trunks with a high rate of fire seemed to them a quite adequate measure.

                      It seems to me that the considerations were really pragmatic, but somewhat different. Initially, the classic "standard LC" was designed in the USA with a speed of 21-23 knots, which had the classic PMK of two-gun towers with 152-mm guns.
                      But in 1934 the concept changed - and the fleet requested high-speed LCs. And now they already had a single battery of 12-14 5 "/ 38, which migrated to all subsequent projects (with a change in the number and location of towers). Judging by the fact that the PMK" lost weight "at the same time as the thickness of the reservation was reduced - the transition to universal AC could be caused by the need to save weight due to a sharp increase in the mass and volume of gas power plants (due to a 2-3-fold increase in power) while maintaining the displacement limit.
                    2. 0
                      4 May 2018 20: 21
                      Quote: Irina Grafova
                      To their credit, I must say that the British are the only ones who tried to the last to comply with international agreements.

                      Here the schaz was offended by the Americans, and especially the French. They tried so hard, tried so hard (((
          2. 0
            3 May 2018 19: 17
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            The 38 clb five-inch system itself was not as much success as is commonly believed.

            As one smart and experienced person wrote, 5 "/ 38 in itself, without the director and other elements of the MPAECO, is the least needed tool for solving air defense tasks, except for shelling horizontal bombers at high altitude. He could appreciate it on his own in the skin, because with the directors of the station wagons on his ship, misfortune happened.
            The apparently unwieldy director firing system, augmented by numerous casualties which greatly slow the rate of fire, has made the 5-inch battery the least useful of the AA for all except high altitude horizontal bombing attacks. In local control, difficulty is experienced in getting both trainer and pointer on the same target.
            © October 1942. Report of the commander of CV-6 on the battles of the Solomon Islands.
            1. 0
              5 May 2018 07: 19
              Still cognizable in comparison. For others, everything was much worse. And the Americans shot down planes. And 10 trunks on board is also an argument.
              1. 0
                5 May 2018 09: 11
                Quote: mmaxx
                Still cognizable in comparison.

                The idea of ​​the end of the war about installing a 75 mm anti-aircraft guns instead of the Bofors looks especially vivid here. This was not done on the LC, but on Des Moines, for example, there were 6x2 5 " И 12x2 3 ".
                1. +1
                  5 May 2018 10: 45
                  This kamikaze helped. The question arose that the plane should be shot down, not scared away. 76 mm was considered the optimal caliber for this purpose. 127 mm was not enough rate of fire and you will not put much. 40 mm began to work when it was too late. It was already hard to stop a suicide bomber.
                  In the Pacific, the war was already at such a level as in Europe and never dreamed of. No matter who writes about German dive-bombers. I still don’t understand how they did not sink the entire Baltic Fleet in the winter of the 41st. Despite the fact that we have never had comparable air defense to the American one.
                  Beating off a raid kamikazde and 76 mm anti-aircraft guns would have found flaws))))
                  1. +1
                    5 May 2018 11: 45
                    Quote: mmaxx
                    76 mm was considered the optimal caliber for this purpose.

                    76 mm is the minimum caliber into which the radio fuse got into
                    1. 0
                      5 May 2018 18: 46
                      On YouTube there are shots of 76 mm firing at Des Moines. Not bad.
                  2. 0
                    8 May 2018 16: 48
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICifnf63lCs
                    It turned out to be Salem. Come on. No difference)))
                    How to insert a video, I don’t know
                    1. 0
                      9 May 2018 10: 17
                      Quote: mmaxx
                      How to insert a video, I don’t know


                      The youtube mark is second to the right in the comment box
  6. +1
    1 May 2018 10: 33
    So why? If we are talking about the 1980s, then the topic is not very relevant. The USSR and its ocean fleet do not. If you mean pressure on the DPRK or Iran, then another thing. I do not think that someday such battleships will appear in the fleet of another state. In my opinion, the question of the rationality of using the "unimprovable" artillery weapon system and mobile platform to support and strengthen the capabilities of the naval strike groups is of interest.
    What we are going to do? To envy.
    1. 0
      1 May 2018 10: 44
      Quote: iouris
      So why?

      As I understand it, we are talking about the return to duty in the 80s. Unsuccessful zag.
      I have not heard anything about the fact that they will be commissioning the LC right now.
  7. +1
    1 May 2018 10: 40
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Kotischa
    used as museum museums

    EMNIP, the Americans have 8 of these LCs: 4 Iowa, 2 Dakota, 1 Carolina and 1 grandfather Texas.

    Yeah, now in Texas, 12 years of the last century and into battle good
    1. +2
      1 May 2018 11: 04
      Quote: CosmoKot
      Now would be in Texas 12 years of the last century but in battle

      Now Kaptsov will come and explain to you that against asymmetric threats (shahid on a boat, shelling from a howitzer, etc.) LC, even a century old, is more stable than Burke and especially Nimitz or Petya with their nuclear power plants.
      Quote: shinobi
      One submarine

      It seems that not a single WWII LC was sunk by submarines. Is Royal Oak, and he is not in battle, but at the base.
      1. 0
        1 May 2018 13: 03
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Barham_(1914)

        And you can recall the “Tirpitz”, which was attacked and with a better hit could be sunk, and “Sinano”, which is an aircraft carrier, but the anti-aircraft carrier on it remained battleship.
        1. 0
          1 May 2018 15: 42
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          HMS_Barham_ (1914)

          You are right, I forgot about him. Thank.
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Shinano

          Drowned in tests, was not worked out BZZH.
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Tirpitz, "which was attacked and, if hit better, could be sunk,

          I don’t remember. Are you talking about the “Lunin attack” or something?
          1. +1
            1 May 2018 17: 21
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            I don’t remember. Are you talking about the “Lunin attack” or something?


            Here the story is dark, who actually torpedoed it, Lunin or the British, but damage to the shaft by a torpedo is a fact.
            1. +2
              1 May 2018 21: 50
              About hitting a torpedo in the “Tirpitz” at that time there is no data. Because there was no hit. It’s just that the Germans, realizing that they were discovered, “turned the bench”
        2. +2
          1 May 2018 21: 51
          Another "Congo" in the 44th year
      2. 0
        1 May 2018 14: 01
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: CosmoKot
        Now would be in Texas 12 years of the last century but in battle

        Now Kaptsov will come and explain to you that against asymmetric threats (shahid on a boat, shelling from a howitzer, etc.) LC, even a century old, is more stable than Burke and especially Nimitz or Petya with their nuclear power plants.
        Quote: shinobi
        One submarine

        It seems that not a single WWII LC was sunk by submarines. Is Royal Oak, and he is not in battle, but at the base.
      3. +2
        1 May 2018 20: 53
        Barham and Congo
        1. -1
          1 May 2018 21: 21
          "Congo" - a battle cruiser, although modernized
          1. +2
            1 May 2018 23: 42
            But it was already classified as a high-speed battleship.
            There were three battle cruisers at the beginning of WW2. "Ripals", "Rinaun" and "Hood" - all of the Angles, as you understand. They were the only ones who did not change the classification. Conservatives are so big.
            "Dunkirk" and "Scharnhorst" also periodically ranked as battlecruisers, but at the same time violate one of the main definitions for ships of this class - the correspondence of their main guns to the guns corresponding to them in time LC.
            So it’s more correct to call this company small or “situational” LC
          2. +2
            2 May 2018 00: 49
            At that time, more precisely, after modernization, this entire company was classified as high-speed battleships. In the amount of 4
            And there were three battlecruisers during WW2: Ripals, Rinaun, and Hood. All British, as you know. They are conservatives, so-so ...
            True, sometimes Dunkirk and Scharnhorst with their sisterships were assigned to battlecruisers. But at the same time, the basic rule of determining linear cruisers as a class was violated - the correspondence of their main guns to the guns of battleships corresponding to them in time. So rather (and more correctly) call them small ("conjunctural") battleships
            1. 0
              3 May 2018 06: 06
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              there were three battle cruisers during WW2: Ripals, Rinaun and Hood

              If not mistaken, Hood is not always. Battleship Cruiser, so to speak. But in fact - the first high-speed battleship.
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              the correspondence of their main guns to the guns of the corresponding battleships

              Well, Wyoming can be attributed to the corresponding battleships, in principle))))
              And, more importantly, LC classes Brittany, Conte Di Covour, Andrea Doria.
              1. +1
                3 May 2018 09: 55
                You are mistaken. According to the classification of Royal Navy "Hood" was always a battle cruiser. And what, in fact, there were several of them, that is, those whom you called the "high-speed battleship", which in itself is somewhat wrong.
                Ffu ... remember the definition of a Hovgard for a battlecruiser? What does Wyoming have to do with it, which is a classic dreadnought?
                It is wrong to say "LC of such and such classes. LC is a class of ships in itself. Like" Brittany ", this seter is more true. And italians modernized to complete unrecognizability have always and everywhere been identified in the same category as Scharnorst and Dunkirk
                1. 0
                  3 May 2018 19: 21
                  Quote: Irina Grafova
                  Speak wrong

                  OK
                  Quote: Irina Grafova
                  What does Wyoming have to do with it,

                  The listed types of ships have a caliber not exceeding 330 mm (Brittany 340), are contemporaries of Dunkirk, and even (Italians) are their probable opponents.
                  1. +1
                    4 May 2018 07: 23
                    I didn’t understand anything ... Wyoming and Arkansas are still pre-war classic dreadnought. And in the Amerov fleet nothing corresponded to them for the reason that they simply did not have battlecruisers.
                    And one of the tenets of reckoning a capital ship to battlecruisers is the correspondence of his GK to the GK with his MODERN LK. What we can observe on the example of the British and German fleets of the times of 1MB. Yes, and the Franks also worked in this direction in the same years, only it did not come to implementation. By the way, KD5 (1) had a GK caliber less than that of the aforementioned trinity, but these are already political games. But "Brittany" is a contemporary in that regard (like the others indicated) only in the sense of the time period, but not in the sense of the time of design and construction. Yes, and conceptually, “Dunkirk” from a completely different “opera” and another generation, in general
                    1. 0
                      4 May 2018 08: 53
                      Quote: Irina Grafova
                      the correspondence of his Civil Code to the Civil Code by CONTEMPORARY to him. What we can observe on the example of the British and German fleets of the times of 1MB.

                      Actually, I’m leading to the fact that the caliber criterion for 30s ships is unsuccessful. As for the LK, modern Dunkirk, just in the early 30s were the efforts of limes to limit LK 25K / 12. "
                      However, your position on LCR is also quite reasonable. From my couch, talk about linear 30s cruisers are generally strange. Where is the line?
        2. 0
          1 May 2018 21: 25
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          and Congo

          You are right, thanks. Very old became (((
  8. 0
    1 May 2018 10: 53
    Well, at the expense of the independence of this class of irons, they got excited. One submarine, their same age, and all their power will fly into the pipe. As it was correctly noticed, "the ideal weapon for intimidating the Papuans."
    1. +1
      1 May 2018 13: 16
      To send the Yamato to the bottom, it took 10 to 20 torpedo hits. Yes, air torpedoes are weaker than those of submarines, but still. 1-2 hits in the PTZ are not fatal. And then, no one canceled active remedies like our Package-NK. With a great desire, you can put a modern hack + rocket torpedoes + a couple of anti-submarine helicopters - there is already a hangar. Is that just the point? There are already eight dozen old people, the GEM resource is not unlimited, and the case itself is aging.
  9. +1
    1 May 2018 10: 56
    hi We are talking about battleships like "Iowa"

    In total, 4 ships were built in the USA: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin.
  10. +2
    1 May 2018 11: 06
    "I don’t know what they will fight in the third world war, but in the fourth world people will fight with batons."
    )))))))
  11. 0
    1 May 2018 11: 47
    American battleships in the 1980's were used exclusively to deal with coastal slippers in Lebanon.

    In TMV, the Soviet Navy would send these artillery troughs to the bottom with the very first salvo of anti-ship missiles from special warheads.
    1. +1
      1 May 2018 12: 50
      without special warhead
      yes, for some reason, the author did not mention the shelling of Lebanon, where the New Jersey distinguished itself in particular, for example, destroying a village with more than 1500 people with one shell
      1. mko
        +1
        1 May 2018 14: 45
        Correctly:
        destroyed 1500 Islamic terrorists. Good result
      2. +2
        1 May 2018 14: 51
        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
        without special warhead
        yes, for some reason, the author did not mention the shelling of Lebanon, where the New Jersey distinguished itself in particular, for example, destroying a village with more than 1500 people with one shell

        what nonsense?
        1. 0
          2 May 2018 07: 37
          Novorossiysk and Belgrano drowned without using special warheads
          You see, one already writes above that it was correct in the Druze village, they were "mistaken" with a crazy shell for several kilometers.
    2. +3
      1 May 2018 12: 51
      Quote: Operator
      would send these artillery troughs to the bottom n

      The Navy also, until the end of the 80s (the 2000th, to be exact) consisted of artillery ships of the Sverdlov type.
      If we distract from suicidal fantasies and consider real "semi-combat" incidents with American ships of recent years - a bulk attack on Yorktown, an attack on Stark, an explosion of Cole - damage to the LC would be minimal.
      1. +1
        1 May 2018 17: 09

        Montreux Convention does not allow Iowas to butt in the Black Sea. In general, it would be funny if a small guard patched up an unarmored bow or stern to this mastodon good
        1. 0
          1 May 2018 17: 27
          Hmm.
          I remember the Italians in the 30s reworked the old battleships, changing the rammed nose to a clipper, or rather, just doing a make-up on top of the old case. Interestingly, and the reverse alteration can be muddied up - instead of ramming?
        2. +1
          1 May 2018 21: 42
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Montreux convention does not allow

          I guess, yes. If the Turkish government does not enact Article 21.
          Quote: Tlauicol
          it would be funny

          I’m not sure that the crew of the USS Eaton of the Fletcher type, which is close to the whole in size, seemed amused by the incident to which the photograph you refer refers.
          1. +1
            2 May 2018 04: 09
            [/ Quote]
            I’m not sure that the crew of the USS Eaton of the Fletcher type, which is close to the whole in size, seemed amused by the incident to which the photograph you refer refers. [/ Quote]
            well so this is it (USS Eaton) Wisconsin rammed, not vice versa request Yorktown could just as well have split the TFR in half.
            Just imagine: a little watchdog opens Wisconsin poop belay
            1. +1
              3 May 2018 06: 00
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Just imagine: a little watchdog opens Wisconsin poop

              Just imagine - a 3200-ton ship with a crew of 197 people falls under the Wisconsin keel on a 30 nodal turn.
        3. 0
          24 June 2018 14: 04
          as ? can kak that kanvents forbid. and + wrote down the seseer. and the race rejected the seseer. Ana the first adopted the law that its laws are more important than the north. and this is the old and non-working convention.
  12. +1
    1 May 2018 12: 40
    Firepower is impressive, but ineffective over long distances; they may not have time to shoot how they will be destroyed by enemy missiles. The view of the warrant is impressive, but one view cannot be defeated.
    1. Cat
      +3
      1 May 2018 14: 49
      But what a longing in the eyes of admirals of all stripes at the sight of a battleship in the sea! Unless the slunks flow, raise your pennant on a flashlight of such a handsome !!!
      1. +3
        1 May 2018 15: 44
        Quote: Kotischa
        longing in the eyes of admirals of all stripes

        Couch, above all.
        1. +3
          1 May 2018 20: 50
          But, you must admit that heavy artillery ships are simply elementary beautiful ... Not a pancake in the form of an AB or a cucumber of submarines, and other modern NKs ... Well, not that much ... This is akin to how the captains of the first steamboats felt when they saw clippers and windjammers
          1. 0
            1 May 2018 21: 57
            Quote: Irina Grafova
            heavy artillery ships are simply elementary beautiful

            Here, of course, the felt-tip pens are different in taste and color. For example, Soviet ships (1144, 1164, 956) seem very aesthetic to me)))
            1. +3
              1 May 2018 23: 48
              Well, the rigor of the lines is spoiled by all these radar grids, bare PU ... I don’t know ... My hobby is artillery ships since the appearance of steam. Everything else is just to have an idea, so to speak. In terms of aesthetics, the current floating "stealth" and even more interesting look ...
              1. 0
                3 May 2018 05: 58
                Quote: Irina Grafova
                Well, all these radar arrays spoil the severity of the lines,

                Well, so on the last LC grilles, too, hung, the same Vengard take))
  13. +1
    1 May 2018 15: 14
    When they begin to return to operation canned equipment from storage, it is worth preparing for the worst turn of events. This is true for the present period of the international situation. War is either unsuccessful diplomacy or a political line, due to power superiority.
  14. +1
    1 May 2018 16: 17
    Seaworthiness was also good, surpassing its predecessors in this indicator.


    These are fairy tales. Already with moderate excitement of approximately 2 / 3, the hulls of these battleships were filled / splashed with water, which caused problems with the use of FCS. The same was observed with the German high-speed battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
    1. +1
      2 May 2018 05: 05
      Not observed in amers. Do you think that with moderate excitement, the spray reached the KDP on the top of the foremast? These are fairy tales for sure.
      But the Germans - it was, but not with moderate, but with strong excitement and against the wave at full speed. And largely thanks to the traditional low freeboard height
      1. 0
        2 May 2018 16: 16
        Quote: Grafova Irina
        Not observed in amers. Do you think that with moderate excitement, the spray reached the KDP on the top of the foremast? These are fairy tales for sure.
        But the Germans - it was, but not with moderate, but with strong excitement and against the wave at full speed. And largely thanks to the traditional low freeboard height


        In the North Sea, the wind is strong enough for almost the entire year, and there is quite a lot of excitement there almost all the time:

        German ships at high speed out of the battle. Despite the modifications made to the hulls, in the stormy sea they took with their noses huge masses of water, which cascaded into the main deck and the bow towers deployed behind the left beam. Due to the ingress of water into the electrical circuit of the ammunition lift of the bow tower of the Gneisenau, a short circuit occurred. And on the Scharnhorst, the bow tower went out of action under heavy waves. Water penetrated the tower through openings for the ejection of spent cartridges, casings of rangefinders and embrasures of guns. A short circuit occurred in the circuits of the ammunition supply electric motors due to salt water. When the Scharnhorst tried to increase the stroke to its fullest, the right turbine had to be stopped, due to which the speed decreased to 25 knots.

        http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2002_N1/1
        5.htm

        Gneisenau (the flag of Vice Fleet Commander Vice Admiral Wilhelm Marshall's flag) and Scharnhorst, escorted by light cruisers Leipzig, Cologne and three destroyers on 21 on November 1939, left Wilhelmshaven to strike British British ships Faroe Islands. And this operation was intended to distract the French and British ships from the South Atlantic, where they squeezed a ring around the raider "Admiral Count Spee." As both battlecruisers passed minefields, light ships returned to base. We are building a bearing, with the Gneisenau at the head and the Scharnhorst in the 20 000 m to the right behind, they rushed at the 27-nodal speed into the open sea, played out by a strong storm.

        The return trip took place in the same stormy weather, and the ships again suffered damage: water flooded the bow towers, and also, through the cracks between the deformed sheathing sheets, the crew’s bow cubes. Due to the insufficient height of the side, the battle cruisers took most of the passage over the entire bow, ice flows even flooded the bridges and platforms of the bow superstructure, so the control had to be transferred to the conning tower.

        http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2002_N1/1
        3.htm

        Scharnhorst and Gneisenau took a position west of the West Fjord. At the Scharnhorst, water through the air intake fell into KO # 2, and the speed had to be reduced to 7 knots. At night, water through ventilation shafts entered the Gneisenau fuel tanks, making 470 cubic meters of oil unusable.

        http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2002_N1/1
        4.htm

        Worse, chasing a record speed, the Americans INSTEAD of it received poor seaworthiness. To achieve high speed, it was necessary to create a ship with a sufficiently elongated bottle-shaped hull.

        This was done for easy cutting of the waves. But it’s one thing to do this, say, in the Baltic Sea, where the wave is short and low (in most places), and the other is in the Pacific, where the wave is long and high. This led to flooding in stormy conditions, in addition, to a high voltage in the housing set. There is a mention of how in joint maneuvers after the war, in which Wangard and the same New Jersey participated, in bad weather the Briton kept noticeably better than the American, despite his smaller size. The British also noted a strong rolling side,

        https://topwar.ru/59164-mify-ssha-linkory-ayova-c
        hast-2.html

        Some sources write about the good seaworthiness of battleships such as "Afova". In others, on the turnover mention that seaworthiness was unsatisfactory.
        1. +1
          3 May 2018 05: 56
          Quote: NF68
          Some sources write about the good seaworthiness of battleships such as "Afova". In others, on the turnover mention that seaworthiness was unsatisfactory.

          Seafaring Iow was good by the standards of LC. Wangard is recalled here in a good way, and KD5 and the Germans in a bad way.
          Iowa seaworthiness was poor compared to normal ships, including Burke. The narrow nasal extremity was unsatisfactory by current standards, the permeability to the wave. Accordingly, at high speed the ship buried in excitement.
        2. +1
          3 May 2018 10: 10
          Hee hee The floodability of tower rangefinders - no doubt, was present at the Germans during the course against the wave on the moves close to full. The reasons are indicated that in the sources you cited, that I have. There is nothing special to refer to here - just look at the projection of the German body. By the way, “Hippers” - they had rangefinders only in elevated towers - precisely because of flooding in bad weather
          And about fairy tales ... Something I didn’t read anywhere, that it was flooded, that of the Germans, that of amers and other French, OMS, rangefinders and sighting devices on add-ons and tops, which were the main elements of the OMS at that time. More precisely, the main suppliers of information for her.
  15. Hog
    +1
    1 May 2018 17: 52
    Why picture with North Carolina?
    1. +1
      2 May 2018 05: 19
      Yes, a little strange. They are not even very similar.
  16. 0
    1 May 2018 22: 28
    Generally speaking, if a suitcase arrives with an 15 inch caliber surrounding it, it doesn’t matter what year it was manufactured: the times of the WWII, WWII, or yesterday. The result is the same. In this sense, science has not progressed much. Therefore, the battleship under certain circumstances (to fight with the Papuans), it’s quite a fighter, IMHO.
    1. +2
      2 May 2018 05: 22
      16 "or 406mm. But the meaning does not change from this. And he can fight with anyone. Provided there is adequate support
    2. +1
      2 May 2018 17: 06
      Quote: Olegi1
      Generally speaking, if a suitcase arrives with an 15 inch caliber surrounding it, it doesn’t matter what year it was manufactured: the times of the WWII, WWII, or yesterday. The result is the same. In this sense, science has not progressed much. Therefore, the battleship under certain circumstances (to fight with the Papuans), it’s quite a fighter, IMHO.


      The difference is just there and it is quite significant since the PMV shells are inferior to the WWII shells, and the WWII shells are inferior to the shells that were made yesterday or the day before.
      1. +1
        3 May 2018 10: 32
        The difference between the first and second, maybe not very significant, but between the second and third there may be a gap. Because in modern projectiles can be introduced and homing, and the possibility of applying the active-reactive principle. But it immediately pushes away the main advantage of a 406mm shot - cheapness
        1. +1
          3 May 2018 15: 53
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          about here between the second and third there may be an abyss. Because in modern shells can be introduced and homing, and the possibility of applying the active-reactive principle. But this immediately pushes away the main advantage of the 406mm shot - cheapness


          In fact of the matter.
  17. +1
    3 May 2018 08: 16
    Because a properly made battleship is cool. Especially if it has already been made, and it needs only to be mothballed, and the entire infrastructure for ships of this size is already available, so that the investments are not very large, but nothing is cheaper than the already developed and built gun, for which there must also be plenty of barrels in warehouses , for total genocide of coastal areas have not yet been invented. You will tell tales about cruise rackets to children, they are actually aircraft with a meager resource and aircraft prices. It’s good when you need to get a thread from the Black Sea to Paris without leaving the pier.

    And the dynamics of the battleships are atrocious, huge size, allows you to have a very high mass fraction of the power plant and fuel supply.
  18. +1
    3 May 2018 09: 58
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    Well, all these radar arrays spoil the severity of the lines,

    Well, so on the last LC grilles, too, hung, the same Vengard take))

    They hung ... But against the background of the enormous size of the lattice carriers themselves, they (lattices) were simply lost
    1. 0
      3 May 2018 19: 24
      Quote: Irina Grafova
      .. But against the backdrop of the sheer size of the lattice carriers themselves, they (lattices) were simply lost

      Under Stalin, the guns were large, and the radars were small))))
      1. +1
        4 May 2018 07: 29
        Under Stalin, if we take project 23, then there were no shipborne radars yet, and this boat itself is not very beautiful, in my opinion, compared to the "legislators" of the mod. And look at the 24th project - it's beautiful and its radars are not particularly spoiling. Or 68 bis is the same
  19. 0
    3 May 2018 22: 20
    The article seems to be about Iowa type LCs, and for some reason the picture is North Caroline what request
    1. +1
      4 May 2018 07: 25
      Yes, people are surprised at such a "blunder"
  20. +1
    4 May 2018 13: 39
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    The Americans set a universal caliber instead of 2, also on the basis of pragmatic considerations. In the sense that LCs must be reliably covered by an escort and, most importantly, this is air defense. But since no one canceled the linear battle in “pure form”, the need for protection from dashing to the loss of self-preservation of Japanese EMs also seemed urgent. And 10 trunks with a high rate of fire seemed to them a quite adequate measure.

    It seems to me that the considerations were really pragmatic, but somewhat different. Initially, the classic "standard LC" was designed in the USA with a speed of 21-23 knots, which had the classic PMK of two-gun towers with 152-mm guns.
    But in 1934 the concept changed - and the fleet requested high-speed LCs. And now they already had a single battery of 12-14 5 "/ 38, which migrated to all subsequent projects (with a change in the number and location of towers). Judging by the fact that the PMK" lost weight "at the same time as the thickness of the reservation was reduced - the transition to universal AC could be caused by the need to save weight due to a sharp increase in the mass and volume of gas power plants (due to a 2-3-fold increase in power) while maintaining the displacement limit.
    1. +1
      4 May 2018 13: 43
      It may very well be. Moreover, one should not forget that it was nevertheless necessary to “shove” the “shoved” of 35.000 tons, since no one has canceled the contractual framework. Or at least pretend to be something ... And two medium caliber in such conditions is an inadmissible luxury.
  21. +1
    4 May 2018 13: 47
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    the correspondence of his Civil Code to the Civil Code by CONTEMPORARY to him. What we can observe on the example of the British and German fleets of the times of 1MB.

    Actually, I’m leading to the fact that the caliber criterion for 30s ships is unsuccessful. As for the LK, modern Dunkirk, just in the early 30s were the efforts of limes to limit LK 25K / 12. "
    However, your position on LCR is also quite reasonable. From my couch, talk about linear 30s cruisers are generally strange. Where is the line?
    1. +1
      4 May 2018 13: 49
      Yes, volleys faded in the line ... crying A few times in the years of WW2, and even then ...
      So, I fully agree with you hi
      1. 0
        4 May 2018 20: 37
        Quote: Irina Grafova
        A few times in the years of 2MB, and even that

        Well, I remember one line, Surigao. The second, maybe Calabria. And the third? Matapan unless))
        1. +1
          4 May 2018 22: 15
          Strait of Denmark. Trying to create a line?
          It’s just that the opponents did not have the opportunity to collect “under the banner” a lot and immediately LK and LKR. The course of the war itself impeded.
          1. 0
            5 May 2018 09: 06
            Quote: Irina Grafova
            Trying to create a line?

            Geometrically, yes, the line is plotted at two points.

            But in my opinion, there should be at least three “linear” ships in the “line”. Perhaps this is my quirk.
            1. +1
              8 May 2018 01: 35
              I completely agree.
              When the yapes drowned LK and LKR - if it weren’t for this, then an interesting option would be two “Congo” + a certain amount of TCR - how they would look against the British
  22. +1
    5 May 2018 08: 44
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    To their credit, I must say that the British are the only ones who tried to the last to comply with international agreements.

    Here the schaz was offended by the Americans, and especially the French. They tried so hard, tried so hard (((
    1. +1
      5 May 2018 08: 49
      And say it ain't so ...
      Reservations with amers were weaker on board than the other "contract" with the largest caliber. Franks went to the four-gun tower. Oddly enough, the Italians looked the most profitable, if we consider them as ships for artillery battle - according to the declared characteristics
      1. 0
        5 May 2018 09: 04
        Quote: Irina Grafova
        And say it ain't so ...

        And I will say)))
        SoDak and Richelieu at the time of construction are also quite currently 35 thousandths.
        1. 0
          7 May 2018 20: 11
          Frogs cannot have anything decent.
          1. +1
            8 May 2018 01: 41
            View declared performance characteristics
        2. +1
          8 May 2018 01: 45
          SoDak - what is it?
          Nobody, except the Britons, got into the contractual framework, alas.
          But in the "memory" this framework was held. In addition to the Germans and us, beautiful ....
          1. 0
            8 May 2018 07: 58
            Quote: Irina Grafova
            SoDak "- what is it?

            You have already asked. South Dakota.
            Quote: Irina Grafova
            Nobody, except the Britons, got into the contractual framework, alas.

            Firstly, KD5 is also larger. So the limes were dishonest less than others, let’s say so.
            Secondly, contractual LCs are Nelson, Dunkirk and Scharnhorst. All the rest were put into operation after 03.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX
      2. 0
        5 May 2018 10: 53
        This is if you don’t remember that the Massachusetts shell went 2/3 of the length of the Jean Bar along the hull. A 406 mm crusher is always a good argument. Once you see this and you will not remain unperturbed
        1. +1
          8 May 2018 01: 40
          I don’t argue ... 1225 kg is not just like that. For the "European" theater, Richelieu was among the best. And, if I had the ability to move, then how Amer behaved is unknown
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. 0
            8 May 2018 07: 50
            Quote: Irina Grafova
            how amer behaved - is unknown

            Hardly a special intrigue.
            Firstly, there would be 5 amers, albeit with outdated ones. A grandfather like Colorado will have a wider barrel than other young ones.
            Secondly, they would try to solve the problem with aviation, even if it’s not Avik, Gibraltar is not so far away.
            Knowing the Americans, both this and that.
          3. 0
            8 May 2018 08: 05
            Quote: Irina Grafova
            For the "European" theater, Richelieu was among the best

            Oddly enough, on the contrary)))
            On THAT, fighting for the Americans against the 14-inch Japanese, primarily Congo, and the KRT, he would have been very much in the subject, if not taking air defense. There are many American missions to the Congo, and few to the Yamato.
            But in Europe, but for the FOSchists (Pettenists)) against the Americans, he somehow ...
  23. 0
    5 May 2018 13: 09
    Iowa is fine. It's a pity. Such a good rhyme is wasted! hi
  24. +1
    7 May 2018 20: 10
    As a sailor I can say one thing, the product is certainly fundamental and inspires respect for both power and technical thought. So I want to go up and stroke the board with my hand.
  25. 0
    8 May 2018 18: 00
    Quote: CosmoKot
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Kotischa
    used as museum museums

    EMNIP, the Americans have 8 of these LCs: 4 Iowa, 2 Dakota, 1 Carolina and 1 grandfather Texas.

    Yeah, now in Texas, 12 years of the last century and into battle good

    They wrote that the US effective managers want to give up Texas for scrapping. Like, the condition is bad and there is no money. They did not offer to hold on. Apparently they want to weld on metal. Optimize costs, reduce risks, reorganize structures. Words can be swapped as you want.
    In fact, the board rusted in places to holes: the light is visible.
  26. 0
    8 May 2018 20: 21
    Beautiful ships! You look at the photo with a fast heartbeat as a very charming girl! Sorry, for my Moreman perverts)

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

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