Military Review

Rifle battle cruisers. "Hood" and "Ersatz York". H. 3

115
So, the "Hood" was laid on the day of the Battle of Jutland, during which three British battlecruisers exploded. The English sailors perceived the death of Queen Mary, Invincible and Indefategebla as a catastrophe and immediately began to investigate the incident. Numerous commissions earned as early as the beginning of June, that is, just a few days after the tragedy, and all construction work on the newest series of battle cruisers was immediately stopped.


The reason for the detonation of the ammunition was identified fairly quickly, it was the special properties of the gunpowder used by the English - cordite, prone to instantaneous explosion when ignited. However, as experts rightly noted, it all begins with the penetration of armor - if the German shells did not easily penetrate the turrets, barbety and other defenses of the English battlecruisers, there would be no fires.

Nevertheless, the first offer of the sailors - the reinforcement of the armor deck in the area of ​​the ammunition cellars - provoked the protest of the shipbuilders. Those argued that with the second and third armor belts protecting the side to the upper deck, the defeat of the ammunition cellar is almost impossible even with the available horizontal protection thicknesses - they say, the projectile, punching the side belt, loses much speed, partially deformed, plus changes the angle of incidence (when the vertical armor penetrates, the projectile turns to its normal, that is, it deviates from its original trajectory to the plane located under 90 degrees to the armor pierced by it), and all this videtelstvuet that such a projectile into the deck armor will not get any at all, or else fall, but at a very small angle and ricocheted away. Therefore, the head of the Shipbuilding Office, Tennyson d'Eincourt, proposed a very moderate adjustment to the protection of the newest battlecruisers.


"Hood" on the stocks, spring 1918


In his opinion, first of all it was necessary to increase the height of the main armor belt, in order to improve the ship’s protection under water - d'Einkort was worried about the possibility of hitting the projectile “under the skirt”, that is, unarmored board under the lower section of the armor plates. So he proposed to increase the 203 mm belt by 50 cm, and in order to somehow compensate for the increase in mass, reduce the thickness of the second armor belt from 127 to 76 mm. However, such a scheme obviously contradicted the previously expressed arguments concerning the inaccessibility of artillery grabs for projectiles falling into the armor-protected side - it was obvious that the combination of 76 mm vertical and 38 mm horizontal protection could not stop a heavy shell. Therefore, d'Einkort increased the thickness of the forecastle deck and the upper deck (obviously, only above the artillery graves) to 51 mm. In addition, it was proposed to significantly strengthen the booking of towers - the front plates should have become 381 mm, the side panels - 280 mm, the roof - 127 mm. There were some other small details about the reinforcement - it was proposed to cover the 25 mm with sheets to cover the transshipment compartments for 140-mm guns, the armor protection of the flues should increase to 51 mm.

Perhaps the only advantage of this version of the “reinforcement” of body armor was a relatively small overload relative to the original project: it had to make up the entire 1 200 t, that is, the entire 3,3% of the normal displacement. At the same time, an increase in precipitation on 23 cm was expected, and the speed should have been 31,75 nodes, that is, the degradation was minimal. However, without a doubt, such “innovations” did not give a cardinal increase in the security that the future “Hood” needed and therefore this option was not accepted by the sailors. However, he didn’t suit the shipbuilders either - it seemed that d'Eincourt just took a little time to get used to the new realities. His next proposal literally struck the imagination - it was, in fact, about a 1.5-fold increase in armor thickness - instead of 203 mm of armor belts 305 mm was proposed, instead of 127 mm second and 76 mm of the third belt - 152 mm, and the thickness of barbet should be increased from 178 mm to 305 mm. This increased protection resulted in an increase in the ship’s mass on the 5 000 T or 13,78% of the normal displacement according to the original design, but, oddly enough, calculations showed that the battlecruiser’s hull was able to withstand such abuse without problems. The draft was supposed to increase by 61 cm, the speed was to decrease from 32 to 31 nodes, but, of course, this was an acceptable reduction in performance for such a large-scale reinforcement armor. In this form, the battle cruiser became quite comparable to the queen Elizabeth type battleship in terms of protection, while its speed on 6-6,5 knots was higher, and the draft was less on 61.

This option, after some improvements, and became final - it was approved by 30 September 1916, however, and after that the discussion about changing certain characteristics of the cruiser continued. D. Jellicoe succeeded in this especially, who constantly demanded next changes - some of them were accepted, but in the end the Shipbuilding Board had to fight back from his demands. At some point, d'Eincourt even suggested stopping construction and dismantling the Hood right on the slipway, and instead designing a new ship that would fully take into account both the experience of the Jutland battle and the sailors' wishes, but then there was a significant delay in construction, and The first battlecruiser could have entered service no earlier than 1920 d - that the war would last for so long, no one could allow (and in fact this did not happen). The proposal of the Shipbuilding Department was rejected, but the final draft of the ship under construction (with all changes) was approved only by 30 in August 1917.

Artillery



The main caliber of the Hood was represented by eight 381-mm guns in four towers. We have already indicated their characteristics several times, and we will not repeat it — we only note that the maximum elevation angle that the Huda towers could provide, already during construction, was 30 degrees. Accordingly, the firing range of 871 kg of shells amounted to 147 cables - more than enough for the then existing fire control systems. However, in the early 30s, the Royal fleet new 381-mm shells with an elongated warhead arrived, which provided a firing range of 163 kbt.

However, the tower installations at Hud also had their own nuances: the fact is that the towers of the previous project could be charged at any angle of elevation, including the maximum 20 for them. The loading mechanisms of the Hud towers remained the same, thus, when shooting at elevation angles above 20 degrees. the guns of the battle cruiser could not be charged - they needed to be lowered to at least 20 degrees, which lowered the rate of fire when firing at long distances.

However, such a decision can hardly be considered a major drawback in the design of the towers: the fact is that the loading on the corners of 20-30 hail required more powerful, and therefore heavier mechanisms, which unnecessarily made the structure heavier. The British 381 towers turned out to be extremely successful, but such a refinement of the mechanisms could reduce their technical reliability. At the same time, tower mechanisms provided a vertical guidance rate of up to 5 degrees / sec, so the loss of firing rate was not very significant. The undoubted advantage was the replacement of tower rangefinders with "15-feet" (4,57 m) for much more accurate and perfect "30-feet" (9,15 m).

Peacetime ammunition made 100 shells per barrel, while the bow turrets were supposed to get more 12 shrapnel on each of the guns (aft towers did not rely on shrapnel). Wartime ammunition was supposed to make 120 shells on the barrel.

Interestingly, the main caliber of "Hud" could differ significantly from the original four two-gun towers. The fact is that already after the reservation was drastically strengthened in the project, the admirals suddenly wondered whether it was worth stopping at what had been achieved and whether to increase the fire power of the future ship as dramatically? A choice of nine 381-mm guns in three three-gun turrets, ten of the same cannons in two three-gun and two two-gun turrets, or twelve 381-mm in four three-gun turrets were offered. The most interesting thing is that everything could have happened if it were not for the British’s desperate reluctance to adopt three-gun turrets. Despite the fact that many countries (including Russia) quite successfully exploited such towers, the British still feared that they would have low technical reliability. Interestingly, literally in a few years, the very same British in the promising projects of battleships and battlecruisers already used exclusively three-gun towers. But alas, at the time of the creation of Hud, such a decision was still too innovative for them.

It must be said that the “Hood”, surprisingly enough, was quite capable of carrying ten and twelve such guns. In the version with 12 * 381-mm, its normal displacement (taking into account the booking gain) exceeded the design one by 6 800 t and was 43 100 t., While the speed should have remained somewhere between 30,5 and 30,75 knots. In general, the ship, no doubt, significantly lost in all the qualities that until Jutland seemed important to British sailors, such as high board, low draft and high speed, but they still remained at an acceptable level. But the output was a real supermonstra, a thunderstorm of the oceans, protected on the level of a good battleship, but much faster and one and a half times more powerful than any other ship in the world. Most likely, the possibilities of modernization in this case would not be particularly great, but ... as you know, in reality, the “Hood” never received a thorough modernization.

As for the technical reliability of the towers, the Khudu would still not have been able to make war during the First World War, and between the wars the British would have enough time to correct any shortcomings - but one would expect that such an experience would give much in this case, the British designer of the Nelson and Rodney towers could have been better than in reality.

The anti-mine caliber of the battle cruiser was represented by 140-mm "Greek" cannons, which, according to the initial design, were to install 16 units, but during construction were reduced to 12 units. For a long time, the British themselves were completely satisfied with the capabilities of the 152-mm artillery, and the 140-mm artillery systems were designed by request of the Greek fleet, but with the start of the war these guns were requisitioned and thoroughly tested. As a result, the British came to the conclusion that, despite the much lighter projectile (37,2 kg versus 45,3 kg), 140-mm artillery outperformed six-inch guns - not least because the calculations were able to maintain a high rate of fire much longer. The British liked the 140-mm cannon so much that they wanted to make it uniform for the armament of the battleships and the main caliber of light cruisers - this was not possible for financial reasons, so only Furyes and Hood were equipped with weapons of this type.

The 140-mm unit had a maximum elevation angle of 30 degrees, the firing range was at the same time 87 cables with an initial speed of 37,2 kg 850 projectile m / s. The ammunition consisted of 150 shells in peacetime and 200 - in wartime and was completed with three-quarters high-explosive, and one - with armor-piercing shells. Interestingly, when designing the supply of these shells, the British tried to learn from the tragedy of the battleship “Malaya”, where the explosion of ammunition in the casemates of 152-mm guns led to a massive loss of calculations and the failure of almost the entire anti-mine caliber of the ship. This happened due to the accumulation of projectiles and charges in dungeons, so that this would not happen in the future, on the "Hude" acted as follows. Initially, the shells and charges from the artillery cellars fell into special corridors that are under the armor deck and under the protection of the onboard armor. And there, in these protected corridors, ammunition was fed to individual elevators, each of which was intended to serve one gun. Thus, the probability of the explosion of ammunition, according to the British, was reduced to a minimum.

Interestingly, the British considered the possibility of placing 140-mm artillery in the towers, and this decision was considered very tempting. But due to the fact that the towers greatly increased the "upper weight" of the battle cruiser, and most importantly, they had to be developed from scratch and this would have greatly delayed the launch of the Hud into operation, it was decided to abandon them.

Anti-aircraft artillery was represented by four 102-mm cannons, which had an angle of elevation to 80 hail, and fired 14,06 kg shells with an initial speed of 728 m / s. The rate of fire was 8-13 shots / min., Reach height - 8 700 m. For its time, these were quite decent anti-aircraft guns.

Torpedo armament

As we said earlier, the initial project (with the 203-mm armor belt) assumed the presence of only two torpedo tubes. However, the Shipbuilding Department was in doubt about their usefulness, so that in March 1916 r the designers turned to the Admiralty with the appropriate question. The sailors' response was: “Torpedoes are very powerful weaponwhich can be a major factor in the war at sea and even decide the fate of a nation. " It is not surprising that after such a statement, the number of torpedo tubes in the final Hud project reached ten or eight surface and two underwater vehicles! Then, however, they refused from the four surface torpedo tubes, but the six remaining ones (more precisely, two single-tube and two two-tube ones) can hardly be called a victory of common sense.

They were equipped with ammunition from twelve 533-mm torpedoes - having a weight of 1 522 kg, they carried 234 kg BB and had a range 4 000 m at speed 40 knots or 12 500 m at speed 25 knots.

Reservation



The basis of the vertical protection was 305-mm armor belt 171,4 m length and about 3 m height (unfortunately, the exact value of the author of this article is unknown). Interestingly, he relied on the over-thick sideboarding that made up the 51 mm of ordinary shipbuilding steel, and besides, it had a slope of about 12 degrees - all this, of course, provided additional protection. Under normal displacement, 305-mm armor plates were on 1,2 m under water, in full load - on 2,2 m, respectively, depending on the load, the height of the 305-mm armor section ranged from 0,8 to 1,8 m. Due to the large length, the belt protected not only machine and the boiler rooms, but also the feed pipes of the main-caliber towers, although part of the barbet of the bow and stern of the towers were a little in favor of 305-mm armor. To them from the edges of 305-mm armor plates went 102-mm traverse. Of course, their small thickness attracts attention, but it must be borne in mind that the vertical booking was not limited to the citadel - 7,9 mm on the 15,5 mm and 305 mm armor plates on the 152 mm lining, and 38 mm on the 152 mm The armored nose was a few more meters protected by 127 mm plates. This vertical protection of the fore and aft end was closed with 127 mm by cross-beams.

It is also interesting that the British found the penetration of 305 mm of armored plates under water to be insufficient to withstand projectiles that fell into the water near the side, but with enough energy to hit the underwater part of the hull. Therefore, below the 305 mm belt, there was another 76 mm belt with a height of 0,92 mm, supported on the 38 mm panel.

Above the main armored belt, the second (178 mm thick) and the third (127 mm) were located on the 25 mm substrate and had the same angle of inclination 12 deg.

Rifle battle cruisers. "Hood" and "Ersatz York". H. 3


The length of the second belt was slightly lower than the main one, its edges just “reached out” to the barbets of the first and fourth towers of the main caliber. From its edges approximately to the middle of the aft tower barbet, 127 mm traverse went. But there was no such traverse in the nose - 178 mm armor was completed in the same place as 305 mm, but further from him was 127 mm armor, and here it was in turn ended with the traverse of the same thickness. Above there was a significantly shorter third armor belt with a thickness of 127 mm, which defended the board right up to the deck of the forecastle deck, respectively, where the forecastle ended, and the armor ended there. In the stern, this armor belt was not closed by traverse, but in the nose its edge was connected to the middle of the barbet of the second tower of 102 mm armor. The height of the second and third belts was the same and was 2,75 m.

The horizontal case protection was also very ... let's say, diversified. Its basis was the armor deck, and three of its sections should be distinguished; within the citadel, outside the citadel in the vicinity of the armored side and outside the citadel in the unarmored extremities.

Within the citadel, its horizontal part was located just below the upper edge of the 305 mm armor belt. The thickness of the horizontal part was variable - 76 mm above the ammunition cellars, 51 mm above the engine and boiler rooms and 38 mm in other areas. From it to the bottom edge of the 305 mm belt, there were 51 mm bevels - it is interesting that if, on warships, the lower edge of the bevel was connected to the lower edge of the armor belt, then at Hud they were connected with each other by a small horizontal “jumper” that also had 51 mm thickness . Outside the citadel in the area of ​​the armored side, the armored deck had no bevels and ran along the upper edge of the 152 and 127 mm belt in the bow (here its thickness was 25 mm) and also over the 152 mm belt in the stern, where it was twice as thick - 51 mm. In the unarmored ends of the armor deck located below the waterline, at the level of the lower deck and had a thickness of 51 mm in the bow, and 76 mm in the aft, above the steering mechanisms. From the description of the reservation given by Kofman, it can be assumed that the lower deck had armor protection in the cellars of the main caliber towers 51 mm thick (in addition to the armor deck described above, but lower than it), but the extent of this protection is unclear. Presumably, the cellar defense here looked like this - within the citadel, above the artillery houses, the 76 mm armor deck was located, but it did not cover part of the cellars of the first and fourth towers of the main caliber, thinning to 25 mm and 51 mm, respectively. However, under this deck was still armored bottom, whose thickness in these "weakened" areas reached 51 mm, which gave the total thickness of the horizontal protection 76 mm in the bow and 102 mm in the stern.

This “injustice” was leveled by the main deck, located above the armor above the upper edge of the 178 mm armor belt, and everything was much simpler here — it had a thickness of 19-25 mm in all places except the nose towers — there it thickened to 51 mm — thus, taking into account the main deck, the cumulative horizontal protection leveled to 127 mm in the areas of artillery grabs of the main caliber towers.

Atop the deck of the main deck (on top of 76 mm of armored belt) was the forecastle deck, which also had a variable thickness: 32-38 mm in the bow, 51 mm above the engine and boiler rooms and 19 mm further into the stern. Thus, the total thickness of the decks (including armor and structural steel) was 165 mm above the armored nasal towers, 121-127 mm above the boiler rooms and engine rooms and 127 mm in the area of ​​the main caliber stern towers.

The main caliber towers, which had the shape of a polyhedron, were very well protected — the frontal plate was 381 mm thick, the side walls adjacent to it were 305 mm, then the side walls were thinned to 280 mm. Unlike the 381-mm turrets on the ships of the previous types, the roof of the Hud towers was almost horizontal - its thickness was 127 mm of homogeneous armor. The barbets of the towers above the deck had quite a decent protection 305 mm thick, but below it varied depending on the thickness of the side armor protection behind which barbet passed. In general, the British sought to have 152 mm barbet for side armor 127 mm and 127 mm barbet for armor 178 mm.

The Hood received a significantly larger conning tower than the ships of the previous types had, but it had to be paid for by some weakening of its armor - the felling head made 254 mm armor plates, the sides 280 mm, but the rear protection consisted only of 229 mm plates. The roof had the same horizontal armor 127 mm as the turret. In addition to the conning tower itself, the shooting control post, the control tower, a specially designated and admiral’s combat room separately separated from the conning tower (above it), were protected by armor plates from 76 to 254 mm. Below the conning room, rooms under it all the way to the deck of the forecastle had an 152 mm reservation. The aft control box for torpedo shooting had 152 mm walls, 102 mm roof and 37 mm base.

In addition to armor, the “Hood” received, perhaps, the most perfect underwater protection among all the ships of the Royal Navy of military times. It was based on boules that had a length of 171,4 m, that is, the same as 305 mm armor. Their outer skin was 16 mm thick. They were followed by an 12,7 mm beadboard (or bulkhead inside the boules) and another compartment filled with metal pipes of length 4,5 m and diameter 30 cm, while the ends of the tubes were sealed on both sides. The compartment with tubes was separated from the other rooms of the ship 38 mm bulkhead. The idea was such that the torpedo landed in boules would waste some of its energy on breaking through its skin, after which the gases, hitting a fairly large empty space, would expand and this would significantly reduce the effect on the side sheathing. If it is also pierced, the pipes will accept the explosion energy (they will absorb it, distorting it) and in any case, even if the compartment is flooded, they will provide a certain amount of buoyancy.



Interestingly, in some of the drawings, the compartment with the tubes is located inside the body, while in others - inside the bulls themselves, the author of this article does not know what is right about this. It can be assumed that in the widest parts of the body the “tubular” compartment was in it, but closer to the extremities it “moved” to the boules. In general, as you can understand, the width of such anti-torpedo protection ranged from 3 to 4,3 meters. At the same time, for the said PTZ there were compartments with oil, which, of course, also played a certain role in protecting the ship from underwater explosions. In the areas of the nose towers of the main caliber, these compartments were wider, in the area of ​​machine and boiler rooms - already, but along the entire length of them from the rest of the body separated 19 mm bulkhead. In order to somehow compensate for the smaller width of the fuel compartments along the turbines, the bulkheads inside the boules were thickened from 12,7 to 19 mm., And in the area of ​​the main caliber aft towers, where PTZ was the least deep - even to 44 mm.

In general, such protection can hardly be called somehow optimal. The same metal pipes obviously overloaded the hull, but hardly provided a gain of protection adequate to the mass expended on them, and the increase in buoyancy that they could provide was absolutely meager. The depth of the PTZ is also difficult to find sufficient, but this, by the standards of the interwar period and the Second World War, was a great step forward for the ship of the military construction of the PTZ Hud.

Power plant

As we said earlier, the rated power of the Hud machines was 144 000 hp, the ship was expected to develop 31 knots despite this overload. The steam was given an 24 boiler of the Yarrow type, with hot-water tubes of small diameter - this solution gave an advantage of about 30% power compared to “wide tube” boilers of the same mass. The specific weight of the Huda steam turbine unit was 36,8 kg per hp, while for Rinaun, which received the traditional chassis, this indicator was 51,6 kg.

On testing mechanisms "Hud" have developed the power of 151 280 HP that the displacement of the ship 42 200 t allowed him to reach 32,1 bonds. Surprisingly, but a fact - with a displacement very close to the full (44 600 t), with a power 150 220 hp the ship has developed a 31,9 node! It was an excellent result in every respect.

Of course, the thin-tube boilers were quite new for the British on large ships - but the experience of their operation on destroyers and light cruisers led to the fact that there were no serious problems with their operation on the Hude. On the contrary, in fact they were even easier to maintain than the old wide-tube boilers of other British military-built battleships. In addition, the Hud power plant demonstrated excellent longevity — despite the fact that during its 20 years of service, the boilers never changed and its power plant did not undergo major modernization, despite the fouling of the hull, the Hood was to develop 1941 nodes. We can only express regret that the British did not dare to immediately switch to thin-tube boilers - in this case (if you wish, of course!), The protection of their battle cruisers with 28,8-mm guns could be significantly enhanced.

The normal supply of oil was 1 200 T, full 3 895 T. The range on 14 nodes was 7 500 miles, with 10 nodes 8 000 miles. Interestingly, on the 18 nodes, the battlecruiser could go 5 000 miles, that is, he was not only a "sprinter" capable of overtaking any battleship or battle cruiser of the world in battle, but also a "stayer" capable of quickly moving from one ocean region in another.

The seaworthiness of the ship ... alas, does not allow him to give an unequivocal assessment. On the one hand, it cannot be said that the ship was excessively subject to rolling, from this point of view, in the opinion of the British sailors, it was a very stable artillery platform. But the same British sailors gave the Hood a nickname “the biggest submarine” deservedly so. It was more or less good with the forecastle on the deck, but still it “flew in” due to the fact that the huge ship tried to cut the wave through its hull rather than climb it.


Hud's nose at full speed


But the feed was poured constantly, even with weak excitement.



The huge length of the ship led to its poor turning, and the same could be said about acceleration and braking - both “Hood” did very reluctantly. Not the biggest problem in the artillery battle, but this battlecruiser was not intended to avoid the torpedoes from the torpedoes - fortunately, during the years of its service, he did not have to do that.

In the next article, we will compare the capabilities of the last British line cruisers built in the UK with the German Ersatz York.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Battle Cruiser: Fon der Tann vs Indefatigeble
Battle Cruiser: Fon der Tann vs Indefatigeble. H.2
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion. H. 2
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Moltke vs. Lion. H. 3
Rifle battle cruisers. "Seidlits" vs "Queen Mary"
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Derflinger vs. Tiger
Congo-class battlecruisers
Rifle battle cruisers. "Derflinger" against "Tager". H. 2
Rifle battle cruisers. "Derflinger" against "Tiger"? H. 3
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Rinaun and Mackensen
Line Cruiser Rivalry: Rinaun and Mackensen
Rifle battle cruisers. Large light cruisers "Koreydzhes"
Rifle battle cruisers. "Hood" and "Ersatz York"
Rifle battle cruisers. "Hood" and "Ersatz York". H. 2
115 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Potter
    Potter 17 July 2018 15: 42
    +1
    Thank! In the process of finalizing the Hood project, the British almost approached the class of high-speed battleships.
    But the remaining defense flaws left him in the class of battlecruisers and played a fatal role in total. We look forward to continuing.
    1. yehat
      yehat 18 July 2018 12: 18
      0
      I wonder what built-in battle cruiser can be called not only successful compared to others and the time of its construction and the situation as a whole, but also successful in terms of the design itself and its usefulness for fulfilling the tasks of the fleet? Wherever you look, everywhere there are some strange hybrids of hedgehog, snake and hippo.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        18 July 2018 16: 31
        0
        Quote: yehat
        I wonder what built-in battle cruiser can be called not only successful compared to others and the time of its construction and the situation as a whole, but also successful in terms of the design itself and its usefulness for fulfilling the tasks of the fleet?

        Von der Tann, Moltke. One could still recall the Derflinger if the British Queens had not built
        1. yehat
          yehat 20 July 2018 12: 02
          0
          is von der tann successful? something is not believed.
          Moltke ... maybe.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            22 July 2018 02: 03
            0
            Quote: yehat
            is von der tann successful? something is not believed.

            https://topwar.ru/138048-sopernichestvo-lineynyh-
            kreyserov-fon-der-tann-protiv-indefatigebl.html
            Can you argue reasonably?
      2. yehat
        yehat 23 July 2018 11: 03
        0
        about a few hours - I previously studied metallurgy in shipbuilding, I studied not as special, but still alloying metals, general chemistry, chemistry and physics of carbon and other impure alloys, I studied quantum physics, FTT, the theory of expansion and deformation of metal during heating for 2 years and a number of other applied theories. At NSU, he specialized in studying technologies for the resistance of materials to kinetic influences. So it took me a few hours. I don’t know how much you need, but hardly less.

        Finally, you are talking about English armor, but you can say whether it was possible by simple hydrolysis to improve its properties? Even before the WWII, this was quite accessible.
  2. Kuroneko
    Kuroneko 17 July 2018 15: 45
    +5
    A choice of nine 381-mm guns was offered in three three-gun towers, ten of the same guns in two three-gun and two two-gun towers

    By the way, I always wondered why the British stubbornly refused the 2x2 + 2x3 scheme. The Italians themselves practiced a similar scheme very often (and they had good ships - the British themselves admitted it ... sarcastically clarifying, however, that at the same time they simply do not know how to fight against them), and the Americans quite successfully tried it.
    On the same (not atypical for the British according to the gun scheme) 10-gun King George, again, there were towers with an even number of trunks - 2x4 + 1x2.
    Of course, shooting with even trunks (using the classical method) is easier, but it seems to me that it is unlikely that such unwillingness was caused only by this.
    PS By the way, Andrey ... What about a small bonus in the cycle? Add a comparison of Britons / Deutsch and pasta? At least superficial. After all, Italians also made very peculiar ships, and speed for them was one of the most important parameters, if not the most important. As I personally see the main accents of national programs, the Britons are the caliber, the Germans are the armor, the Italians are the speed.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 July 2018 15: 59
      +4
      Quote: Kuroneko
      Of course, shooting with even trunks (using the classical method) is easier, but it seems to me that it is unlikely that such unwillingness was caused only by this.

      Apparently, at that time, the British were afraid that the three-gun turret would not be very good in operation. Subsequently, they overcame this prejudice, and saw all of their battleships as nine-guns with the placement of HA in the towers according to the 3 * 3 scheme. As for King, the artificial caliber restriction (356 mm) led to the desire of the British to install a dozen such cannons, and taking into account the limited displacement, the scheme of three four-gun towers was optimal. When it turned out that they still do not fit in the weights, we replaced one of the towers with a two-gun
      1. Kuroneko
        Kuroneko 17 July 2018 16: 54
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As for King, the artificial caliber restriction (356 mm) led to the desire of the British to install a dozen such cannons, and taking into account the limited displacement, the scheme of three four-gun towers was optimal. When it turned out that they still do not fit in the weights, we replaced one of the towers with a two-gun

        Well, it’s interesting, but why wouldn’t you immediately do 2x2 + 2x3? This is a much more universal scheme, with a uniform distribution of firepower both in the bow and in the stern. In addition, the x4 towers of the British on George had disgusting reliability (not to mention what they should have understood - for all the benefits of the x4 towers, when they are defeated, the ship loses FOUR guns, which is very fraught). For a ten-gun launcher, the 3x2 + 2x2 scheme is really the most optimal (Japanese SRT is a slightly different matter, and this is SRT).
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Subsequently, they overcame this prejudice, and saw all of their battleships as nine-guns with the placement of HA in the towers according to the 3 * 3 scheme.

        In fairness, I can not help but notice that the “Vengard” (well, even though he didn’t have time for World War II) shows that after all, NOT everything. ^ _ ^
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 July 2018 17: 13
          +5
          Quote: Kuroneko
          Well, it’s interesting, but why wouldn’t you immediately do 2x2 + 2x3?

          Because two two-gun towers are much heavier than one three-gun tower (especially taking into account the barbet they need) and such a scheme does not have an advantage over 3 * 3.
          Quote: Kuroneko
          for all the benefits of x4 towers, when they are defeated, the ship loses FOUR cannons, which is very fraught).

          The problem is that both the British and Germans knew, and the WWII and WWII suggested that one successful hit could disable two adjacent GK towers at once.
          Quote: Kuroneko
          For a ten-gun LC, the 3x2 + 2x2 scheme is really the most optimal

          Generally not optimal. - the length of the citadel should be significantly increased, it will take a lot more armor to book the barbets of elevated towers, that is, we are not even talking about hundreds, but rather even an extra thousand tons of displacement.
          In addition, 2 * 2 and 2 * 3 are banal inconvenient for shooting (as well as 3 * 3, but the latter is much easier)
          Quote: Kuroneko
          In fairness, I can not help but notice that “Wangard”

          Vengard is a pure palliative, when the British realized that they could not build the head Lyon until the end of the war, (mainly due to the unpreparedness of new towers and 406 mm guns) they went along a simple path and converted the ship under 4 * 2 381 mm towers that were available (removed from Koreyjes and Gloriesa).
          1. Kuroneko
            Kuroneko 17 July 2018 17: 33
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Vengard is a pure palliative, when the British realized that they could not build the head Lyon until the end of the war

            This is yes, of course. But the fact remains. = 3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Because two two-gun towers are much heavier than one three-gun tower (especially taking into account the barbet they need) and such a scheme does not have an advantage over 3 * 3.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Generally not optimal. - the length of the citadel should be significantly increased, it will take a lot more armor to book the barbets of elevated towers, that is, we are not even talking about hundreds, but rather even an extra thousand tons of displacement.

            Mm ... That one would argue. The same Conte di Cavour and Giulio Cesare, for example (after modernization). A solid speed for the more so old LK, 10 320-mm guns of the GK, very compact dimensions - the citadel did not have to pull very hard. And although the reservation is not without drawbacks (they are always there), the Italians still managed to provide good survivability.
            And the Japanese did not steam at all - they stuck 6 x2 towers on Fuso. But nevertheless, the boat turned out to be very imagined. With good protection. And not even too slow.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              17 July 2018 17: 37
              0
              Quote: Kuroneko
              That one would argue.

              Why argue? :))) There are numbers, you take, you think, and everything becomes obvious :)))
              1. Kuroneko
                Kuroneko 17 July 2018 17: 44
                0
                Well, I remind you again (suddenly it was invisible), which is strictly for TENcannon project scheme 3x2 + 2x2 - optimal. Just because x3 towers are slightly more profitable than x2.
                Initially, I was talking about the misunderstandings of not applying this scheme if the 10-gun configuration was chosen. For 5x2 is always worse. Like 4x2 + 1x2 (and to be honest, I didn’t meet the 3x3 + 1x1 scheme ... the Omsk was the same “Conte di Cavour” with its 3x3 + 2x2, but this is 13 guns, not 10) .
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  17 July 2018 19: 20
                  +3
                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  Well, I remind you once (it was suddenly invisible) that strictly for the TEN-gun project the 3x2 + 2x2 scheme is optimal.

                  And once again I propose to take a calculator and calculate the mass of the AU and the barbets for them, as well as the increase in the length of the citadel - you, of course, will win a couple of meters because the diameter of the barbate of the three-gun tower is less than the four-gun tower, but you will lose 15 meters on the installation of the fourth tower :) )) Even 10 extra meters of the King’s citadel (381 mm for barbets) is almost 400 tons of odds on one leash of side armor. And the deck? And the second sublime barbet? And ... yes, in general, there is nothing to even talk about.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Potter
          Potter 17 July 2018 17: 57
          +2
          Vengard was built under the available in the arsenal of the tower. As far as I remember, filmed from light-line cruisers. This explains everything.
          On the eve of WWII, the Angles laid normal battleships, type Lyon, with 3x3x406mm towers. But they obviously did not have time to enter the system. And there were no resources for their construction. Vengard - Lyon in the hull and vehicles, but with the old artillery of the Civil War era.
          oops. Andrei has already given explanations about this ...
          While he was climbing the "sunset of the Lord of the Seas" Smith, while he was writing, it was a repeat.
          1. Kuroneko
            Kuroneko 17 July 2018 18: 04
            +2
            Quote: Potter
            Vengard - Lyon in the hull and vehicles, but with the old artillery of the Civil War era.

            I will correct it. "Wangard -" King George V "on the hull and cars." Although this is not true. Initially, yes. But...
            Vanguard had a number of distinguishing features that made it unique among other English battleships. In the original project, he almost exactly repeated the characteristic shape and shape of ships such as King George V. Most of the successful innovations appeared during numerous redesigns. First of all, the battleship managed to abandon the ridiculous demand for the 40s - the ability to fire directly at the nose at a zero elevation angle. Fulfillment of this condition worsened the seaworthiness of the King George V series battleships and it was still impossible to shoot directly at the nose without damaging the hull. Vanguard received an inclined stem and a noticeable increase in the direction towards it. Designed for speeds of up to 30 knots, it really could support a large stroke in almost any weather. There were three breakwaters on the upper deck. Along with lifting the hull near the stem, they played a role - the ship remained “dry” even with a very strong wave and wind. Vanguard's nose depth was significantly higher than that of all its predecessors. By all accounts, Vanguard had the best navigational qualities among battleships in the history of the British Navy.

            Quote: Potter
            but with the old artillery of the Civil War era.

            Main caliber
            Mk.I / N RP 12 gun turret
            The return to the use of 381-mm guns of the battle cruisers of the Glorious type had much more positive aspects than negative ones. These guns have been in operation for many years and made up the vast majority of the battleship towers in the fleet. 381-mm replaceable shafts were enough, which allowed replacing the inner pipes slowly. The advantages of the famous fifteen-inch can be attributed to high reliability and an almost complete absence of failures, although their device was quite complicated. In particular, it provided for loading in a wide range of elevation angles - a property that was abandoned in 14-inch battleships such as King George V. At the same time, a quarter-century installation also had its drawbacks. One of them was connected with the gun itself, which had a "wire" design. Therefore, the 381-mm gun was distinguished by relatively modest ballistic characteristics that were difficult to improve.
            Other disadvantages were associated with the design of the tower. Most of these shortcomings were eliminated during the modernization of the installation. We strengthened the reservation of the frontal plate, tower roof, tower floor. In the new thickened frontal plate, higher embrasures were cut, providing an elevation angle of 30 °. The observation tower of the commander was removed from the roof of the tower. The tower itself and the feed were equipped with additional safety screens against the flame, eliminating the design flaws of the tower, developed before the Battle of Jutland. For the first time in the British Navy, the towers had remote control for pointing in the horizontal plane, and the 4,6-meter rangefinders were replaced with new 9-meter ones. New installations could use modernized shells of greater length, weighing 879 kg with a large radius of the warhead. The “standard” initial velocity of the upgraded gun was 785 m / s. In terms of penetration of armor at long distances, the updated 381-mm gun was almost not inferior to the 406-mm gun of the Nelson battleship, and when using an enhanced charge it even slightly exceeded it. When compared with the 356-mm gun, which was the main armament of battleships such as King George V, there is a noticeable gain at all distances. But foreign 15-inch (with the exception of German) had the best ballistics. The maximum speed of horizontal aiming is 2 ° / s. Vertical aiming was faster - up to 5 ° / s. An important innovation was the full-fledged remote control of the main caliber towers - the only one of its kind in the British Navy. Technical rate of fire has not changed compared to the prototype and amounted to 2 rds / min. The new installation received the designation Mk.I / N RP 12.
            1. Potter
              Potter 22 July 2018 22: 48
              0
              only numbers.
              Kinga: standard displacement 36727t, length 227m, power TZA 110000l.s.
              Lions: standard displacement 40550t, length 241,7m, power TZA 130000l.s.
              Vengard: standard displacement 46100t, length 248,3m, power TZA 130000l.s.
              According to the technical specifications, everything is clear - they started production for the Lions. In the case, both Lyons and Vengard are the development of the King's, but obviously with the dimensions of an enlarged Lyon.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 20 July 2018 15: 15
          +1
          Quote: Kuroneko
          Well, it’s interesting, but why wouldn’t you immediately do 2x2 + 2x3? This is a much more universal scheme, with a uniform distribution of firepower both in the bow and in the stern. In addition, the x4 towers of the British on George had disgusting reliability (not to mention what they should have understood - for all the benefits of the x4 towers, when they are defeated, the ship loses FOUR guns, which is very fraught).

          Just for reference: the three-gun towers of Nelson and Rodney brought to mind 15 (fifteen!) Years. For the first time, it was possible to shoot 16 volleys without delay only in 1934. And all the main problems were eliminated only by 1939.
          At the same time, problems were with almost all the equipment of the towers, and especially the British got hydraulics, mutual closure systems (mechanical interlocks) and the design of the tower shoulder strap. The last joke happened at all: after the ship was handed over to the fleet, it suddenly became clear that the inner edge of the hull support ring cuts into the surface of the support rollers. It turned out that the tower had no means of preventing lateral displacement during rotation on the pitching - and the rollers walked freely with the tower along the support ring. After several unsuccessful attempts to invent a bicycle, the British nevertheless applied the standard solution - vertical support rollers and a vertical support ring. But to put this design had already finished ships.
          The funny thing is that history does not teach anything - recently, according to Discovery, they talked about a rotating tower in Glasgow, which was closed for repair shortly after delivery precisely because the thrust bearing on the axis of rotation of the tower experienced off-design lateral loads when exposed to the wind tower. And the design had to be supplemented ... yes, precisely with them - vertical support rollers. smile
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 July 2018 17: 16
      +7
      Quote: Kuroneko
      What about a small bonus in the loop?

      Let’s think. Generally speaking, I was thinking about someday starting a similar cycle on the battleships of England and Germany, but ... we'll see. In addition, I promised one of my critics a comparison of the standard LC of the USA and England
      1. Kuroneko
        Kuroneko 17 July 2018 17: 50
        0
        Anyway, thank you. I would also like to see the scoring and analysis of a completely possible version of the Huda explosion, not by Bismarck, but by Eugen.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 July 2018 19: 26
          +2
          Quote: Kuroneko
          I would also like to see the scoring and analysis of a completely possible version of the Huda explosion, not by Bismarck, but by Eugen.

          Option, alas, is impossible :))) And the analysis will be, where would it be without it
    3. yehat
      yehat 18 July 2018 09: 11
      0
      Italians emphasized rate of fire and in combat conditions there were quite a few technical problems and problems, while the British emphasized reliability.
      moreover, the Italian fleet made ships for completely different conditions - little autonomy and much less problems with the weather
      therefore, one cannot directly take the Italian experience and use it.
      but the construction of the King George 5 series shows that the British always remembered the Italian style of deploying artillery.
  3. Fagotron
    Fagotron 17 July 2018 16: 08
    +7
    I’m directly hooked on this cycle, I look forward to each new part. Respect to the author!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 July 2018 17: 14
      +4
      Quote: Fagotron
      Respect to the author!

      Thank! We will try :) hi
  4. prodi
    prodi 17 July 2018 17: 51
    0
    purely theoretically, but what if instead of a blunt reservation (with preservation thereof, of course) - outriggers with positive buoyancy, a smaller main midsection and a greater draft?
  5. Usher
    Usher 17 July 2018 18: 20
    0
    Quote: Kuroneko
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    As for King, the artificial caliber restriction (356 mm) led to the desire of the British to install a dozen such cannons, and taking into account the limited displacement, the scheme of three four-gun towers was optimal. When it turned out that they still do not fit in the weights, we replaced one of the towers with a two-gun

    Well, it’s interesting, but why wouldn’t you immediately do 2x2 + 2x3? This is a much more universal scheme, with a uniform distribution of firepower both in the bow and in the stern. In addition, the x4 towers of the British on George had disgusting reliability (not to mention what they should have understood - for all the benefits of the x4 towers, when they are defeated, the ship loses FOUR guns, which is very fraught). For a ten-gun launcher, the 3x2 + 2x2 scheme is really the most optimal (Japanese SRT is a slightly different matter, and this is SRT).
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Subsequently, they overcame this prejudice, and saw all of their battleships as nine-guns with the placement of HA in the towers according to the 3 * 3 scheme.

    In fairness, I can not help but notice that the “Vengard” (well, even though he didn’t have time for World War II) shows that after all, NOT everything. ^ _ ^

    Too heavy a scheme, the battleships of Italy fought in the Mediterranean, this is not the Atlantic. And the range was not so hot.
    1. Kuroneko
      Kuroneko 17 July 2018 18: 43
      0
      The Hochseeflotte also had very modest requirements for seaworthiness and autonomy (not for all boats, but for many). Each country makes ships under its own doctrine and geopolitical realities, right? That's just the interest. ^ _ ^
      By the way, just the concepts of LC, KR and EM of Italy became the basis of our Soviet ship school. From learning experience to direct orders.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        17 July 2018 19: 09
        0
        Quote: Kuroneko
        By the way, just the concepts of LC, KR and EM of Italy became the basis of our Soviet ship school.

        Nah, they didn’t. We actually almost copied the EM, the KRL was developed taking into account the Italian shipbuilding experience (but it was conceptually different and had very little in common with the Italian cruisers), but the LC had nothing to do with them at all (except for the Pugliès tube, except)
        1. Kuroneko
          Kuroneko 17 July 2018 19: 25
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, LK had nothing to do with them at all (except for the Pugliès tube, except)

          I do not see any contradiction here.
          The third stage was associated with the development of the "Big Construction Program of 1938", according to which the base of the Navy was growing from small ships to battleships with large-caliber artillery. For 10 years, it was planned to build 30 large artillery ships and 28 light cruisers, hundreds of surface and submarine ships, as well as support vessels. It was at this time that domestic shipbuilders began to create project 23 battleships (such as the "Soviet Union").

          Of course, for such a large-scale project, own experience was not enough, so it was adopted abroad. In the book of A. Vasiliev and A. Morin, “Stalin's Super Linkors,” there is information that a corresponding proposal from the Italian company Ansaldo was received in March 1936. After that, Soviet specialists visited the Apennines, where they managed to acquire valuable materials on the construction of battleships and cruisers. An agreement was also reached on the possibility of using underwater protection systems on Soviet ships, similar to those used on Italian ships.

          LCR "Kronstadt":
          Kronstadt, surpassing its potential enemy Scharnhorst in the main caliber, was inferior to it in the number of barrels of mine and anti-aircraft artillery (8 152 mm and 8 100 mm versus 12 150 mm and 14 105 mm). And the very presence on our large ships laid down in the late 30s of two “medium” calibers - 152 mm anti-mine and 100 mm anti-aircraft - can be considered a serious drawback. Not having enough experience, Soviet designers turned to foreign firms for help. The greatest assistance to us was given by Italians. "Italian school" was reflected in the choice of weapons. Our heavy ships - both Italian and German - carried anti-mine artillery and long-range anti-aircraft guns. British and American battleships, built in the second half of the 30s, had 16-20 universal guns (127 mm for the Americans and 133 mm for the British) in twin mounts. The French Dunkerque, which was considered one of the potential opponents of the "Kronstadt", was also armed with 16 130-mm universal guns. Our designers and sailors knew about the installation of universal artillery on American and British ships. Moreover, in 1937-1939, the American company Gibbs & Cox, commissioned by the Soviet side, completed several battleships. They differed in displacement, dimensions, caliber of the main artillery, but all had 127-mm universal two-gun mounts. The issue of equipping heavy ships with universal artillery was also debated at the naval academy. As you can see, the supporters of the Italian and German paths of naval artillery development won in these disputes. This led to an increase in the range of fire control devices and combat posts.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 July 2018 19: 32
            0
            Quote: Kuroneko
            After that, Soviet specialists visited the Apennines, where they managed to acquire valuable materials on the construction of battleships and cruisers.

            Yes, and ours even got the LC project designed by Italians. Only in the project of the "Soviet Union" practically nothing remained of the Italian project.
            1. Kuroneko
              Kuroneko 17 July 2018 19: 35
              0
              Kronstadt, on the other hand, received the Italo-German artillery scheme of the PMK (I added this clarification a bit later).
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                17 July 2018 20: 32
                0
                Quote: Kuroneko
                Kronstadt, on the other hand, received the Italo-German artillery scheme of the PMK (I added this clarification a bit later).

                Which the Japanese also used. So what?
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 20 July 2018 15: 20
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Yes, and ours even got the LC project designed by Italians.

              Two projects on the LC and two projects on the Kyrgyz Republic.
              The group managed to acquire materials that were quite valuable to us at that time on a 29,5-node battleship with a standard displacement of 28 tons (with nine 000-mm guns) and large cruisers with a displacement of 343 and 22 tons (with 000-mm artillery) . In addition, on the instructions of V.L. Brzezinski's firm Ansaldo developed a battleship project with a standard displacement of 19 tons with nine 000 mm main guns, an armored belt of 254 mm and a speed of 42 knots. An agreement was also reached (which required the conclusion of a special intergovernmental agreement) on the possibility of using underwater protection systems on Soviet ships similar to those used on the ships of the Italian fleet (that is, the Pugliès system). All these materials served as a guideline for assigning the displacement of the battleships “A” and “B” in the development of the technical design specifications for their design, and were also used in further work on the design of these ships.
              © Vasiliev
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                20 July 2018 15: 22
                0
                The project of 28 tons was related more to the design of the battleship B, rather than SovSoyuz, so I did not mention it
        2. Potter
          Potter 17 July 2018 19: 28
          +1
          Pr 26 from the Italian prototype Raimondo Montecucolli has a fully Italian powerplant (on Kirov, the rest is licensed) and body contours. But structurally, Maslov completely redesigned the case. Construction technology with Italian influence and the participation of Italian experts. In the sense of artillery, this is another ship.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 July 2018 19: 31
            0
            Quote: Potter
            Pr 26 from the Italian prototype Raimondo Montecucolli has a fully Italian powerplant (on Kirov, the rest is licensed) and body contours.

            This is not entirely true. That is, the Italian EU - yes, but the contours of the hull (theoretical drawing) for Kirov were separate and did not coincide with Montecucolli in any way, although the Italians did it for Kirov, and we only made corrections when we decided to set 9 * 180 mm).
        3. yehat
          yehat 18 July 2018 09: 17
          0
          the cruiser Kirov (there are a lot of things in it), destroyer leaders and destroyers, torpedoes, something in torpedo boats - all this is Italian technology
          Engines for modern transports are also not without the participation of Italy.
          Manufacturing technologies for light ship superstructures - also some experience was taken in Italy
          mini-zenith anti-aircraft mounts (such as universal wagons) are Italian and on their basis tried to push their developments.
          The role of Italy and Germany in the formation of the USSR fleet before the war is very noticeable.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            18 July 2018 11: 30
            0
            Quote: yehat
            cruiser Kirov (a lot of things in it)

            Specify that in addition to the EU and the theoretical drawing (edited by us) there was Italian
            Quote: yehat
            destroyer leaders

            Really? :))) And what Italian was in the leaders of projects 1 and 38?
            Quote: yehat
            destroyers, torpedoes

            Yes, here the Italian trace is clearly visible
            Quote: yehat
            Thing in torpedo boats

            And here, alas, again you write something strange
            1. yehat
              yehat 18 July 2018 12: 14
              0
              Kirov: combined cradles of guns, some details of the methodology for calculating the contours of the hull, etc. you can read here - more than enough
              http://armedman.ru/korabli/1919-1936-korabli/legk
              ie-kreyseryi-tipa-kirov-proekt-26.html
              about leaders - for example, Tashkent had direct Italian roots
              torpedo boats - planes like the G5 were developed precisely because of the influence of Italian fashion and their successes in WWI.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                18 July 2018 16: 42
                0
                Quote: yehat
                Kirov: combined cradle of guns

                The Italians and where? :)))) Or maybe the Americans? They, too, in bulk had "one-cured" installations.
                In fact, two-gun towers with separate cradles were developed for Kirov, and there, as far as I know, we took some consultations from Italians (exactly some, as we designed ourselves). But then suddenly an understanding came that it was possible to play the third cannon by making the installation one-armed, we decided that it was cool and did it. Themselves.
                Quote: yehat
                some details of the calculation method for body contours, etc.

                Not “some details”, but a theoretical drawing, although generally speaking, even this is a moot point. What else?
                Quote: yehat
                you can read here - more than enough

                You can read here - it will be more serious :)))
                https://topwar.ru/98731-kreysera-proekta-26-i-26-
                bis-chast-2-italyanskiy-sled-i-osobennosti-klassi
                fikacii.html
                Quote: yehat
                about leaders - for example, Tashkent had direct Italian roots

                We built 2 series of leaders - project 1 and project 38 (6 ships) completely independently, and then bought a single ship of this type in Italy (Tashkent)
              2. Potter
                Potter 22 July 2018 22: 17
                0
                The author of the Kirov three-gun installation in 1 cradle is the Metal Plant. So there were tower developers from imperial times, there was someone to come up with.
                Tashkent - Italian built.
                Torpedo boats are a completely different concept! Nothing Italian! In the Civil War, a dozen English torpedo boats were captured, namely planing, redannes. Until the mid-1930s, they were part of the Navy. And dancing from them (55-foot Tornicroft), Tupolev began designing and building first the Firstborn (GANT-3), 1927, then the Sh-4 (GANT-4) - almost 60 serial ones, 1929-1932, and only then G- 5 (GANT-5).
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 20 July 2018 15: 27
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Really? :))) And what Italian was in the leaders of projects 1 and 38?

              EMNIP, it was based on the results of the construction and testing of LDs pr. 1 and 38 that it was decided to order the Italians pr. 20I (Tashkent) from the Italians, and then convert the already under development project 48 from “improved” Leningrad to “localized and imported” Tashkent " For one in one "Tashkent" could not be repeated with us.
              1. Potter
                Potter 22 July 2018 22: 31
                0
                Well, a slightly different sequence of events. 20 the project has already received serial numbers and names, the ships were preparing for the tab. But here it became clear both the need for a radical restructuring of the technology, and the difficulty with turbines of 110000 hp. on 2 screws.
                As a result - project 48, as the development of 38 housing projects and a 3-screw power plant according to project type 30. With artillery in 3 towers, like in Tashkent. I have laid down, I recall, 5 pieces, another 5 were preparing for construction, but only 2 more were continued to be built. Project 35 destroyer appeared.
        4. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 29 July 2018 07: 01
          0
          They forgot about Tashkent.
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 17 July 2018 19: 34
        +1
        With Italian projects, everything is simple. Over the years of ruin, shipbuilding in all aspects has come to a complete zero. There were practically no one to develop new projects. It was necessary to start with something. And no one was in a hurry to cooperate with the Bolsheviks, except for the Italians. So they used their experience. I had the opportunity to work as Americans and Germans - also did not disdain. They did everything right. And some fleet got experience.
        And the doctrine had nothing to do with it.
        1. Potter
          Potter 17 July 2018 21: 01
          0
          Shipbuilding in the USSR came to almost complete zero in the revolution and citizen. Since 1925 the construction of the merchant fleet began. After 1930, 10-15 large sea vessels were built each year - timber carriers, dry cargo vessels, and tankers. Since 1927, military shipbuilding was resumed. At first, patrolmen and submarines type D, then L, Shch, P, M, and then the leaders of Minsk. The USSR collaborated with the Germans even as. The project of boats C (initially H, German) and the mechanisms of the first 3 pieces are German. In general, they cooperated with the Germans in everything, they put several complete artillery plants for us under anti-aircraft guns and divisional guns. The Americans bought a GAZ plant and equipment for ZIS. So with the Bolsheviks did not want to cooperate (as now) mainly Poles, well, French with the Angles.
          s. 1. From England bought 2 sets of mechanisms for EM project 7, alternative to Italian energy. The amers, GIBBS and KOKS, projects battleships, hybrids (LK-AV) and destroyers. And the mechanisms in the dimensions of the EM project 30, which were then very useful.
          s.s 2. We need to finish offtopic, we’re not talking about the topic of Andreev.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 July 2018 21: 18
            +2
            Quote: Potter
            So with the Bolsheviks did not want to cooperate (as now) mainly Poles, well, French with the Angles.

            Yes, how can I say ... the French, by the way, were ready, but they asked for extraordinary money for their ship projects. The Americans did sell equipment to us with entire factories, but the fleet was completely unprepared to offer modern ship designs and categorically refused to share modern equipment (for some reason they were sure that we would merge this with the Japanese). The British - well, these did not refuse to supply turbines, and indeed - we bought 6-ton Vickers from them. And we bought more mechanisms for 7-ok.
            1. Potter
              Potter 17 July 2018 21: 37
              +1
              Yes, memory failed by 1 wrong! Metro-Vickers and Parsons bought 12 sets, the ships got sort of like 10 pieces, all on the 7th.
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 6 August 2018 17: 01
              0
              By the way, I remembered. At VMM in St. Petersburg there is a model of the cruiser "Linder". Good quality. Presented by the British. I think that for a reason. Does anyone know the history of this model?
      3. mmaxx
        mmaxx 17 July 2018 19: 38
        0
        In general, a lot of things are on the battleships of different countries. But for the Germans there is nothing PMV. That's it, that's it. Who did, why - nothing. Anles and Franks exported documents and destroyed?
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 17 July 2018 20: 09
          0
          Quote: mmaxx
          And for the Germans, the WWII is nothing

          C'mon, a whole site for the Germans !!!
          seawarpease
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 July 2018 21: 24
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            seawarpease

            wassat Andrey, do you believe it? I didn’t know this site. Thank! drinks
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 17 July 2018 22: 44
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Believe it or not - did not know this site

              belay belay belay Come on!!!!
              I thought that you also draw information from there what
              By the way, pretty decent and informative smile
              1. anzar
                anzar 18 July 2018 14: 15
                0
                Thanks too for the link
                By the way, pretty decent and informative

                Perhaps, but I immediately stumbled upon some errors in numbers (they also appear on navweaps), that is, you need to read "critically" :))
                For example, for a BBO of the Siegfried type, the weight of the gun 240mm / 35 is indicated in 13t (!) And the number of PM- 3shtuki (with two screws)
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 17 July 2018 19: 21
    +1
    Article plus. hi
    The relatively simple description of the Huda construct will be interesting to many readers, saving them from searches in monographs.
    From myself I will say throughout the cycle. No offense, of course, all the more so since Andrei Nikolaevich is a very successful author at VO. For me personally, the comparison of the confrontation between the British and the Germans ended on the “Derflinger” with the “Tiger”. For this rivalry has yet passed the test of battle. The rest is all from an “iffirsty” hypothetical comparison on paper. Reading deserves for general development (for those interested in the history of the fleet), but it is the competitive part that has already been exhausted. especially not verified in practice. Well, also Mackensens, which, being launched and you basically repeating the Hindenburg construction, can be compared with Ripals (well, or as far-fetched Quins, even though they are battleships and formally opponents to them in another class, rather than battle cruisers, classic). The rest is all .... request
    So you can get to absolutely paper projects for which even metal was not ordered ....
    And so the cycle is interesting, especially until about the middle. Well this is for me hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 July 2018 19: 25
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And so the cycle is interesting, especially until about the middle. Well this is for me

      It’s like someone, dear Rurikovich. You read what was interesting to you - and wonderful. But other people are interested in reading even about Ishmael, although the latter are neither German nor British and generally unfinished and about the latest projects of the LCR of England and Germany and even the USA. Why not, one asks? And you, since you are interested in precisely the built ships, I then invite you to the next material that I plan to complete at the end of this cycle - a comparison of English and American standard battleships. Although ... maybe a German for one pull
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 17 July 2018 20: 04
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        It’s like someone, dear Rurikovich. You read what was interesting to you - and wonderful

        I read all yours wink And even recommend to others yes And the same comparisons of Izmailov with peers possible by years of launching are certainly interesting.
        But it was for me that the confrontation between the British cruisers and the German ended on Jutland smile But we will consider my opinion subjective to others. Although it is a real conflict that is most valuable in that it confirms or refutes paper comparisons. They are based on real examples (albeit from past wars) and are not always correct due to a bunch of subjective factors that can I remember reading that the British claimed that the “Hood” destroyed the defective Bismarck shell, because on paper the normal shell had to explode before it reached the ship’s cellars.
        That is why the alleged comparisons confirmed in real combat are much more interesting than hypothetical hi
        Any further your article will undoubtedly be read by me. drinks I just don’t want to get involved in alternative discussions based on speculation rather than discuss real examples (battles, shootings, etc., not an alternative) smile
        And I’m still not dabbling about the “Varyag”, because it’s interesting to fully see the material, in a compartment with comments (all the more, there are those that deserve attention) to draw conclusions for themselves and dispute them .. .
        Yours faithfully, hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 July 2018 21: 20
          +1
          That's not a question, I will always be glad to hear your comments - there and then, where and when you find it convenient to formulate them :))) I often leave them unanswered for one simple reason - I have nothing to object to and nothing to supplement you with, but I read your feedback is always hi
  8. NF68
    NF68 17 July 2018 19: 21
    +1
    Interesting stuff.
  9. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 17 July 2018 21: 51
    0
    supposedly, the projectile, punching the side belt, loses much speed, partially deforms, plus changes the angle of incidence (when the vertical armor is pierced, the projectile turns to its normal, that is, deviates from its original path to a plane located 90 degrees to the pierced armor plate), and all this indicates that such a shell in the deck armor either will not hit at all, or will fall, but at a very small angle and will ricochet from it.

    In the case of firing from long distances (a shell comes in vertical armor "from above"), the highlighted statement is highly controversial for 1916. This issue is discussed in great detail on the forum tsushima.su in the topic about the death of that Hood) I sketched a diagram of the projectile trajectory:

    I redid the well-known scheme) to the conditions of our task, the red arrows are the forces acting on the projectile, the black is the trajectory after breaking through. The pierced projectile “bites down” during penetration, the projectile with armor-piercing tips seems to normalize. Only bad luck, at the time of the design of Hood, no one had shells with an armor-piercing tip (red-hot welded head, not to be confused with the Makarov cap) which allowed the shell to normalize normally.
    I bring the original revised scheme, you can check the forces and their focus.
    1. Bormanxnumx
      Bormanxnumx 17 July 2018 22: 43
      +1
      Pictures miraculously evaporated (I will duplicate the redone scheme
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        17 July 2018 23: 09
        0
        Quote: BORMAN82
        In the case of firing from long distances (the shell comes in vertical armor "from above"), the highlighted statement is highly controversial for 1916.

        Considering the fact that then the long range was 80-90 kb from the force, there is nothing controversial in this statement, because the shell does not enter the plate from above
        Quote: BORMAN82
        Only bad luck, at the time of the design of Hood, no one had shells with an armor-piercing tip (red-hot welded head, not to be confused with the Makarov cap) which allowed the shell to normalize normally.

        But professor L.G. Goncharov, the author of a textbook on artillery in 1932, for some reason believes that at a meeting angle with an armor plate of 0-50 degrees from the normal, any shell, including HE shells, is normalized. (p. 133)
        Quote: BORMAN82
        I bring the original revised scheme, you can check the forces and their focus.

        Only here is one caveat - textbooks of anti-tank guns are unsuitable for modeling the impact of naval artillery. Do not repeat the mistakes of Nathan Okuna
        1. Bormanxnumx
          Bormanxnumx 18 July 2018 00: 07
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Considering the fact that then the long range was 80-90 kb from the force, there is nothing controversial in this statement, because the shell does not enter the plate from above

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Only here is one caveat - textbooks of anti-tank guns are unsuitable for modeling the impact of naval artillery. Do not repeat the mistakes of Nathan Okuna


          We take a German 305mm gun, for a range of 16000m the elevation angle is 13,5 °, the angle of incidence of the projectile is about 20 °, not quite along the flat “anti-tank” trajectory, but quite close. Therefore, the word "from above" was specifically taken in quotation marks. Concerning the "Bugs of the Perch," you will not be difficult to point out the fundamental
          errors in the diagrams given by me as applied to the conditions under consideration?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But professor L.G. Goncharov, the author of a textbook on artillery in 1932, for some reason believes that at a meeting angle with an armor plate of 0-50 degrees from the normal, any shell, including HE shells, is normalized. (p. 133)

          Interesting, if everything was so good, then why, starting from the 20s, "rush" with blunt armor-piercing tips?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            18 July 2018 01: 22
            +1
            Quote: BORMAN82
            We take a German 305mm gun, for a range of 16000m the elevation angle is 13,5 °, the angle of incidence of the projectile degrees is about 20 °,

            And we understand that schemes in which the angle of incidence of the projectile differs from the normal by more than 45% are not suitable for us
            Quote: BORMAN82
            It’s easy to point out the fundamental
            errors in the diagrams given by me as applied to the conditions under consideration?

            Perhaps I will not risk it - I am not too good in physics. But the bottom line is that the projectile ceases to normalize relative to the armor plate at an angle of 65 from the normal - at angles greater than the specified, normalization becomes negative (that is, the projectile that falls below 70 degrees to the normal will move in the slab under 72 degrees to the normal). Maximum normalization - falling under 40 degrees, from 40 to 65 it again decreases to 0
            Quote: BORMAN82
            Interesting, if everything was so good, then why, starting from the 20s, "rush" with blunt armor-piercing tips?

            I can assume that they increase the angles at which normalization occurs, but
            this is just a hunch
            1. prodi
              prodi 18 July 2018 06: 48
              +1
              in my opinion, the impact of a heavy, large-caliber projectile on a relatively not thick armor should tend to cram and break, and not bite, in any case, the mechanism for normalizing the projectile should look different than in the figure
          2. yehat
            yehat 18 July 2018 09: 20
            +1
            I want to ask - do not tell me on what trajectories Bismarck put shells in the hood?
            all important hits were on deck, not on board. This is about the issue of persistence.
            1. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 18 July 2018 15: 09
              +2
              Quote: yehat
              I want to ask - do not tell me on what trajectories Bismarck put shells in the hood?
              all important hits were on deck, not on board. This is about the issue of persistence.


              True true:
              At about 06:00, before completing the turn, the cruiser was salvoed from Bismarck from a distance of 8 to 9,5 miles (15 - 18 km). Almost immediately, a gigantic fire fountain appeared in the area of ​​the main mast, after which there was a powerful explosion that tore the cruiser in half.


              The commander of the battle cruiser knew the "Achilles' heel" of his ship - insufficient horizontal armor protection and sought to reduce the distance.
              However, the Bismarck gun 38 cm (14.96 ") SK C / 34 at a distance of 15000 m had approximately the following ballistics:
              elevation angle 8.1 degrees
              projectile fall speed 568 mps (m / s)
              the angle of incidence of the projectile is 10.4 degrees, even adding the roll of the vessel at the time of the turn — the total angle of the projectile meeting the deck would be less than 20 degrees.
              Penetration with armor-piercing projectiles at a distance of 19,685 yards (18,000 m) for vertical armor 16.50 "(419 mm), for deck 2.96" (75.0 mm)

              Perhaps getting into the tower, who knows ...
              At a distance of 15000 m, the penetration rate of Bismarck's armor-piercing shells for vertical armor also exceeded 450 mm - for Hood this distance was also disastrous.
              (according to http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34
              .php)
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 18 July 2018 15: 36
                +2
                In tests in 1920 conducted on compartments specially built for this purpose and depicting a part of the body in full size, it was noted that its cellars were in danger of being blown up as a result of contact with 15-inch shells that could penetrate the 7 "belt. They are stored in the archive several diagrams compiled from the results of these tests, including prophetic, showing how a 15-inch shell could get into the cellar


                The death of the battlecruiser Hood
                W. J. Lawrence
                Original article by The loss HMS Hood - a Re-Examination, by WJ Jurens published in Warship International 2-1987

                On board the Hood, artillery sailor Robert Tilburn was probably in the best position on the left side of the boat deck, just in front of the 4 ”bow directly on the nose beam traverse. He saw an explosion of a shell, the first that occurred on the edge of the port side directly at stern 4 "installation. He heard a sailor standing nearby said: This is a hit for us ....

                In his opinion, the shell was small caliber; the deck in this place was thick, although in his opinion a large shell could pass through it. At the commission he was asked the question: Can you answer which of these two shells pierced the deck and which did not? He could not give an exact answer to this question, but he was sure that the flash of flame after the explosion occurred due to the ignition of the cordite. However, he could not say for sure which of the two shells set fire to the oil for the boats. Two or three dozen gallons in barrels and a large barrel on a slip. In his opinion, the flame spread a little further into the nose due to ignition of the oil. An order was given to extinguish this flame immediately, but almost immediately this order was canceled as ammunition exploded. The explosion was of a small force, like a Chinese clapperboard, and could not be the cause of the fire that spread further. He was asked the question: Was the feed pipe cover for 4 "guns at the stern pipe level open or closed ?, to which the answer came: It was closed. I asked the officer about this and he ordered me to close it.
                Sailor signalman Albert Briggs was at the time of the battle on the compass deck Hood and word for word conveyed the content of the conversations that were held here. When the first shell hit the ship, the artillery officer said: He got into the boat deck and ignited the shells in the boxes for universal artillery. The admiral then ordered: Leave her until the ammunition exploded. After that, according to the signalman, contact with posts on the top of the foremast was lost. Although he actually did not see the hit, Briggs said that in his opinion it was most likely on the starboard side: ... because we all landed on the starboard side.

                Immediately after that, the hood exploded.
                (translation here https://vk.com/topic-557049_4127411)
              2. NF68
                NF68 22 July 2018 18: 53
                +1
                The commander of the battle cruiser knew the "Achilles' heel" of his ship - insufficient horizontal armor protection and sought to reduce the distance.


                The projectile could also get into the upper belt whose thickness is 177 / 127 mm. and then punch 50 mm. deck or shell could explode when breaking through this 50 mm. decks, after which large fragments of the shell can get into the cellar.

          3. NF68
            NF68 18 July 2018 15: 20
            0
            We take a German 305mm gun, for a range of 16000m the elevation angle is 13,5 °, the angle of incidence of the projectile is about 20 ° degrees, not quite along the flat "anti-tank" trajectory, but quite close.


            Close enough does not work out because the flight path of even a modern anti-tank projectile hit at a distance of 2-3 km. and flatter due to the high initial and final projectile flight speeds, as a result of which the projectile hits the target at an incidence angle much closer to 0 ° than to 20 °.
  10. mvg
    mvg 17 July 2018 23: 32
    0
    hi
    Respect, for this cycle ...
  11. kvs207
    kvs207 18 July 2018 06: 45
    +2
    Thanks to the author.
    For Hood, has always been the most unknown of the known ships. Now, thanks to the author, another “white” spot has been erased. In general, German pragmatism is somehow closer to me than English conservatism.
    1. NF68
      NF68 18 July 2018 15: 32
      +1
      Quote: kvs207
      Thanks to the author.
      For Hood, has always been the most unknown of the known ships. Now, thanks to the author, another “white” spot has been erased. In general, German pragmatism is somehow closer to me than English conservatism.


      German pragmatism caused the Germans in the years before the WWII and after the WWII began, yet only followed the British in terms of the caliber of the GK battleships and battle cruisers, and not vice versa. It would seem to the Germans perfectly understanding that they cannot compete on an equal footing with the British in the number of battleships and battlecruisers should make sure that the battleships and battlecruisers built by the Germans in opposition to their peers would be better off not only in terms of protection, but also with regard to the power of the GK itself, it was quite possible even if the Germans built battleships and battle cruisers armed with approximately the same GK and their English counterparts-305 mm. / 50 against the English 305 mm. / 45 / 50, 350 mm. / Xnumx / xnumx versus a English 45 mm. / 50, 343 mm. / 45 versus English 380 mm. / 45. In this case, German pragmatism clearly gave a glitch, and the negative consequences of the glitch were very serious for the Germans.
      1. yehat
        yehat 20 July 2018 12: 15
        0
        the Germans wanted a larger GK, but they got projects of ships with such a monstrous displacement that they did not dare to make a single one.
        1. NF68
          NF68 20 July 2018 16: 01
          0
          Quote: yehat
          the Germans wanted a larger GK, but they got projects of ships with such a monstrous displacement that they did not dare to make a single one.


          Rather, the Germans did not have time to build these ships or to begin construction. As for the battleships, battleships of the L-20 type were developed taking into account a thorough study of everything that was connected with the Battle of Jutland and these battleships were planned to be built after the Bayers: it turns out that in this case the Germans decided to go the same way as the English:

          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BD%
          D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%
          D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%
          D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_%C2%ABL-20%C2%BB

          This article in Russian indicates the maximum speed of the new battleship only in the 22 node, although most other sources indicate the much greater ability of the control system and, accordingly, this power of the control system maximum speed in 26 nodes.
    2. Potter
      Potter 18 July 2018 20: 33
      0
      There is enough information. But Andrei collected and filed it in a nice, concise, but informative style.
      1. NF68
        NF68 19 July 2018 17: 38
        0
        Quote: Potter
        There is enough information. But Andrei collected and filed it in a nice, concise, but informative style.


        I do not argue with that. But the Germans made mistakes in terms of choosing the GC for battleships and battlecruisers, and not only them, indeed. And if on armored cruisers armed with 105 mm. HA could be replaced by 105 mm. guns on 150 mm., on EM 88 mm. to replace the guns with 105 mm, then it was already impossible to do the same with the already built battleships and battlecruisers and in terms of increasing the caliber of the GK, the Germans really only caught up with the British.
    3. yehat
      yehat 20 July 2018 12: 10
      0
      German pragmatism? Did you see how huge the Bismarck crew is?
      11 people served the anti-aircraft machine - it's hard to call it pragmatism.
      Yes, and questions to the artillery system of the Bismarck Group of Companies
      And the operation itself - why was Bismarck's exit so poorly restricted?
      I think the British had much more pragmatism.

      How can you plan a raider with such a large crew?
      no autonomy. Compare with the American Iowa project.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 20 July 2018 15: 49
        0
        Quote: yehat
        German pragmatism? Did you see how huge the Bismarck crew is?
        11 people served the anti-aircraft machine - it's hard to call it pragmatism.

        Did anyone have so much - a single-barrel Flak 2 cm-SK-C / 30 or a quadruple Flak 2 cm-SK-C / 38 (there were no other types of machine guns at Bismarck)?
        It seems to me that half or a third of the calculation is the loaders and ammunition carriers. Because MZA are rare gluttony.
        By the way, the staffing of the usual Maxim machine gun is 7 people.
      2. NF68
        NF68 21 July 2018 15: 03
        0
        Quote: yehat
        German pragmatism? Did you see how huge the Bismarck crew is?
        11 people served the anti-aircraft machine - it's hard to call it pragmatism.
        Yes, and questions to the artillery system of the Bismarck Group of Companies


        On American battleships, after a significant increase in anti-aircraft artillery, the crews also became healthy.

        What are the questions for Bismarck Group of Companies? 4-linearly elevated towers with 2-guns in each, 2 in the bow and stern is the best option for battleships or battle cruisers-uniform distribution of salvos forward and backward, the ability to fire 4-gun salvos, one gun at a time in each tower or shoot from the bow or stern groups of the GK towers. The shells for their caliber are not very heavy, but the Germans deliberately went to this in order to achieve a somewhat greater accuracy.
        1. yehat
          yehat 21 July 2018 16: 59
          0
          GK guns were relatively poorly adapted to penetrate fully armored battleships, the layout of the guns was classic, time-tested, but the weight of the salvo was relatively small. Comparing with the weapons of Iowa, which is far from being the most powerful, I personally come to the conclusion that the artillery was successful among the Americans - both in terms of the guns themselves and in terms of deploying 3 gun turrets.
          By the way, it would be interesting to compare with the French 4 gun turrets with Richelieu, but this ship was in a different weight category. Further, the Germans did not solve the problem of generalists, because of which it took a lot of resources to deploy different artillery.
          Of course, it is nice to compare the German with the slightly modernized LC PMV Hood of the German, but modern ships are another matter for him.
          As for the size of the crews, the Germans went for multiple duplication of functions and separation of roles in the crew, which, in my opinion, could only strategically be allowed by the British, Italians and maybe the USSR, for the doctrine of Germans, Japanese, Americans, autonomy was an important factor, which contradicts the big the number of crew.
          1. NF68
            NF68 21 July 2018 20: 32
            0
            GK guns were relatively poorly adapted to penetrate fully armored battleships, the layout of the guns was classic, time-tested, but the weight of the salvo was relatively small. Comparing with the weapons of Iowa, which is far from being the most powerful, I personally come to the conclusion that the artillery was successful among the Americans - both in terms of the guns themselves and in terms of deploying 3 gun turrets.


            Tirpitz and Bismarck were originally designed for raids in the Atlantic, and for this reason the Germans booked the extremities and provided for careful local reservations, and the importance of this reservation was demonstrated in practice. In addition, the German cemented armor Krupp of the KS brand was not much inferior in quality to the best Wangley cemented armor of the KS brand in the world at that time, and the cemented ship armor produced in all other countries of the world was significantly inferior in quality to German and English armor.

            By the way, it would be interesting to compare with the French 4 gun turrets with Richelieu, but this ship was in a different weight category. Further, the Germans did not solve the problem of generalists, because of which it took a lot of resources to deploy different artillery.


            So compare. By the way, the standard displacement of Bismarck and Richelieu is not so different, but at the same time Richelieu has ONE steering wheel, Bismarck has 2 steering wheel and Richelieu 6 steam boilers are located in TWO boiler rooms, and Bismarck has SIX. 4 towers of Bismarck Group of Companies is much more difficult to disable than all 2 towers of GC Richelieu and if one successful hit in the tower of GC Richelieu can immediately deprive this battleship of 50% of the barrels of GK, then Bismarck with one successful hit in GK towers will fail only 25% of GK guns. Bismarck’s ammunition load for 960 shells, and Richelieu only 800 shells. As for the universal caliber, the Germans deliberately decided before the war to divide the auxiliary caliber into 105 mm. anti-aircraft and 150 mm. To fight EM, since then the Germans believed that the universal caliber 120-127 mm. will not allow you to effectively deal with EM, but later the Germans nevertheless developed a very good universal 128 mm caliber by the standards of the first half of WWII:

            http://www.germanfleet.narod.ru/html/artlinkor.ht
            m

            But by this time, the requirements for a significant increase in ground-based air defense and anti-aircraft guns of the caliber 128 mm had come to the fore. began to enter ground defense.

            Of course, it is nice to compare the German with the slightly modernized LC PMV Hood of the German, but modern ships are another matter for him.


            It is enough to remember how many hits they got before they went to the bottom of the German battleships Bismarck and Scharnhorst, and after how many torpedo hits went to the bottom, the Prince of Wales and the much larger Yamato and Musashi.

            As for the size of the crews, the Germans went for multiple duplication of functions and separation of roles in the crew, which, in my opinion, could only strategically be allowed by the British, Italians and maybe the USSR, for the doctrine of Germans, Japanese, Americans, autonomy was an important factor, which contradicts the big the number of crew.


            Your opinion is your opinion, however, see the paragraph above for the survivability of battleships. The "doctrine" of the Germans as well as the doctrine of the Americans were similar - to significantly strengthen the air defense of battleships, it was necessary to install much more than originally envisaged, small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery installations and to service these MZA installations, it was necessary to increase the number of crews accordingly. Otherwise, the ship’s air defense system cannot be made more powerful.
            1. yehat
              yehat 22 July 2018 01: 24
              0
              Bismarck need not be cited as an example of a good PTZ - this is not so. The same Yamato was better protected. As for the reservation - there was already a debate not so long ago
              Germans had good armor when using not thick layers of armor, but were not very good at thickening due to high hardness and low viscosity (for example, the Germans didn’t keep the armor of equal thickness as good as the Americans), therefore, in general, they steel grades were not in the lead, approximately on a par with the USSR.
              But among Americans and Japanese, steel for thick plates of armor had almost ideal characteristics. English armor was good, but slightly inferior to the two. The British since the WWI have lost unconditional leadership in this area.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                22 July 2018 02: 02
                0
                Quote: yehat
                Bismarck need not be cited as an example of a good PTZ - this is not so

                This is exactly so, and German ships have confirmed this many times.
                Quote: yehat
                The same Yamato was better protected.

                The same Yamato was corny larger, and the lack of PTZ he had more than enough. Although his PTZ was good too
                Quote: yehat
                Germans had good armor when using not thick layers of armor, but were not very good at thickening due to high hardness and low viscosity (for example, the Germans didn’t keep the armor of equal thickness as good as the Americans), therefore, in general, they steel grades were not in the lead, approximately on a par with the USSR.

                Horror :)))) Where is it from? :)))))
                1. yehat
                  yehat 22 July 2018 02: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                  Horror :)))) Where is it from? :)))))

                  study the question more deeply than on wikipedia.
                  claiming that English armor was the best is a stamp that you, to my surprise, broadcast. As for the German armor - it was very good for all types of ships, except for the LC due to its features. I would like to recall a batch of tigers whose frontal plates were made from a disassembled hull of a light cruiser. Their durability was noticeably higher than ordinary armor.
                  But for thick armor plates other properties are needed.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    22 July 2018 10: 26
                    0
                    Quote: yehat
                    study the question more deeply than on wikipedia.

                    Clearly, that is, you yourself do not know what they said.
                    Quote: yehat
                    I would like to recall a batch of tigers whose frontal plates were made from a disassembled hull of a light cruiser. Their durability was noticeably higher than ordinary armor.

                    This fact is unknown to me, but admissible. And why could this happen, you understand? Looks like no
                    1. NF68
                      NF68 22 July 2018 15: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Quote: yehat
                      study the question more deeply than on wikipedia.

                      Clearly, that is, you yourself do not know what they said.
                      Quote: yehat
                      I would like to recall a batch of tigers whose frontal plates were made from a disassembled hull of a light cruiser. Their durability was noticeably higher than ordinary armor.

                      This fact is unknown to me, but admissible. And why could this happen, you understand? Looks like no


                      Andrew. Does this “reservation specialist” remind you of anyone?
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        22 July 2018 15: 31
                        0
                        Quote: NF68
                        Does this “reservation specialist” remind you of anyone?

                        This is not him, but it looks like you are right here :)))
                  2. Senior seaman
                    Senior seaman 22 July 2018 11: 52
                    +1
                    claiming that English armor was the best is a stamp that you, to my surprise, broadcast.

                    stop Even if this is a stamp, it was broadcast by his colleague NF ...
                    study the question more deeply than on wikipedia.

                    Usually after such a phrase, proofs follow
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                  3. NF68
                    NF68 22 July 2018 14: 59
                    +1
                    Quote: yehat
                    study the question more deeply than on wikipedia.


                    Yeah. Where do you need Andrew, the great special. The mere fact that Andrey has posted on VO his materials on battlecruisers speaks for itself.

                    claiming that English armor was the best is a stamp that you, to my surprise, broadcast. As for the German armor - it was very good for all types of ships, except for the LC due to its features. I would like to recall a batch of tigers whose frontal plates were made from a disassembled hull of a light cruiser. Their durability was noticeably higher than ordinary armor.


                    Right now they took this light cruiser case, and how was it taken and installed on the “tigers” as front plates? Is it nothing that the steel used in the construction of ship hulls and armor are completely different steel grades with different strength and other characteristics?
                    1. yehat
                      yehat 22 July 2018 22: 50
                      0
                      you don’t know a whole series of well-known episodes of the war, but at the same time you are also trying to build some kind of logic. This is a rare arrogance and lack of logic.
                      with regard to English armor, study the question. You obviously don’t understand what you’re talking about. There are many sources written by experts; they say different things, but many professional sources unequivocally deduce that the best is not English and certainly not German.
                      because they do not compare the hardness of steel, but the totality of its characteristics and application features. I killed on the study of the issue for several hours, reading the analysis. And you cannot spend less to make up your rational, not religious, opinion.
                      So read, because I see - you didn’t even leave.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        22 July 2018 23: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: yehat
                        but many professional sources unequivocally deduce that the best is not English and certainly not German.

                        Name at least one.
                        Quote: yehat
                        because they do not compare the hardness of steel, but the totality of its characteristics and application features. I killed on the study of the issue for several hours, reading the analysis.

                        :)))) A specialist. :))) A FULL HOURS to study the question :))) Where are we, the many-sinful :)))))
                      2. NF68
                        NF68 23 July 2018 16: 29
                        0
                        Quote: yehat
                        you don’t know a whole series of well-known episodes of the war, but at the same time you are also trying to build some kind of logic. This is a rare arrogance and lack of logic.
                        with regard to English armor, study the question. You obviously don’t understand what you’re talking about. There are many sources written by experts; they say different things, but many professional sources unequivocally deduce that the best is not English and certainly not German.
                        because they do not compare the hardness of steel, but the totality of its characteristics and application features. I killed on the study of the issue for several hours, reading the analysis. And you cannot spend less to make up your rational, not religious, opinion.
                        So read, because I see - you didn’t even leave.


                        You didn’t confuse VO with the tribune for an hour? Already if you make such clever statements, then give specific sources from which you learned all this.
              2. NF68
                NF68 22 July 2018 14: 51
                +1
                Bismarck need not be cited as an example of a good PTZ - this is not so. The same Yamato was better protected. As for the reservation - there was already a debate not so long ago


                It seems that you still didn’t understand that the German battleships Bismarck and Scharnhorst were sunk after they were thoroughly handled by the British battleships of the British and after hitting a large number of torpedoes fired by English surface ships, and these torpedoes, I remind you, charge The explosive is much larger than the aircraft torpedoes, with which the Americans drowned the Japanese battleships. Is it really that hard for you to understand?

                Germans had good armor when using not thick layers of armor, but were not very good at thickening due to high hardness and low viscosity (for example, the Germans didn’t keep the armor of equal thickness as good as the Americans), therefore, in general, they steel grades were not in the lead, approximately on a par with the USSR.


                Yeah. But nothing that the Americans themselves after the WWII found out that worse than their cemented ship armor was only Japanese?

                But among Americans and Japanese, steel for thick plates of armor had almost ideal characteristics. English armor was good, but slightly inferior to the two. The British since the WWI have lost unconditional leadership in this area.


                All clear. Your hard case.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 23 July 2018 10: 19
                  0
                  Quote: NF68
                  Yeah. But nothing that the Americans themselves after the WWII found out that worse than their cemented ship armor was only Japanese?

                  And only for plates of large thickness, which, moreover, according to the statement of the Japanese, were defective.
                  Oh yes, the Americans made their conclusion on the basis of only two shots.
                  Evaluation of the low quality of Japanese armor type VH (as 0.86 from American Class A armor, according to other sources, as 0.839) was made on the basis of only two shots at one armor plate.
                  © V. Sidorenko. Some comments on the article by V.N. Chausova "Artillery and armor."
                  But the Americans had no complaints about the armor of the Japanese cruisers.
                  At the same time, the Americans also tested another shell of VH armor with a thickness of 183 mm, which was recognized as the best plate of all that has ever been tested by the American fleet (probably American?) In a range of 6-8 ".
                  © ibid.
                  1. NF68
                    NF68 23 July 2018 16: 45
                    0
                    And only for plates of large thickness, which, moreover, according to the statement of the Japanese, were defective.


                    And where is the test data for other, non-defective boards?

                    Oh yes, the Americans made their conclusion on the basis of only two shots.


                    On battleships with plates of large thickness, the most important structural elements are protected.

                    Oh yes, the Americans made their conclusion on the basis of only two shots.


                    Are you so sure that the Americans tested only these 2 defective boards?

                    But the Americans had no complaints about the armor of the Japanese cruisers.


                    This armor is significantly longer than on battleships.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 23 July 2018 18: 05
                      0
                      Quote: NF68
                      And where is the test data for other, non-defective boards?

                      But not them - for thick armor. One plate and two shots. After which it was concluded inferior in all respects to Japanese armor.
                      Moreover, similar Japanese tests of the same plates were completed without any claims to their quality.
                      1. NF68
                        NF68 23 July 2018 20: 18
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Moreover, similar Japanese tests of the same plates were completed without any claims to their quality.


                        Japanese plates and Japanese shells. You do not assume that Japanese and American shells can also differ in their characteristics?
              3. NF68
                NF68 22 July 2018 15: 14
                0
                Quote: yehat
                Bismarck need not be cited as an example of a good PTZ - this is not so. The same Yamato was better protected. As for the reservation - there was already a debate not so long ago
                Germans had good armor when using not thick layers of armor, but were not very good at thickening due to high hardness and low viscosity (for example, the Germans didn’t keep the armor of equal thickness as good as the Americans), therefore, in general, they steel grades were not in the lead, approximately on a par with the USSR.
                But among Americans and Japanese, steel for thick plates of armor had almost ideal characteristics. English armor was good, but slightly inferior to the two. The British since the WWI have lost unconditional leadership in this area.


                It should be said that in the full sense of the word, the "straightforward" location of the side armor was largely offset by the exceptionally high quality of the material. In the 30-ies, the British achieved a significant improvement in the characteristics of their armor, which already from the end of the 1-World War had excellent qualities, being the best in the world. The alloy containing nickel, chromium and molybdenum, developed by Albion's metallurgists, made it possible to harden plates to a depth of 30-35% of their thickness instead of the usual 20-25%. A decrease in carbon content increased the viscosity of the material with a slight decrease in hardness. The presence of a thick hard hardened layer increased the chance to crack a projectile, which even if it pierced the plate, was in a state of unsuitability for a full gap. (The British believed that preventing the explosion inside the ship was a more important factor than ensuring the formal non-penetration of the waist armor.) As a result, we managed to create hardened plates that are superior in resistance to similar American (armor "class A") and German (the famous armor "Wotan" " Wh ") by approximately 15-20%. Given the quality factor of armor, invulnerability zones calculated in relation to the “standard” Krupp armor expanded at least by 1,5 - 2 miles. The excellent qualities of the British cemented "Krupp" armor justified its use not only for flat belt plates, traverses and frontal and side walls of towers, but also ring structures of barbets.

                http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/KGV/04.htm
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  22 July 2018 15: 37
                  0
                  Well, I’ll add a little
                  Due to the critical situation in the production of armor, especially cemented armor (such as CC), at the end of 1939 an attempt was made to purchase it in Germany. By April 1940, the company Krupp agreed to supply armor, but offered it worse quality than supplied by the German Navy. It is interesting to note that our (accepted as far back as 1916) technical specifications (TU) for accepting armor were tougher than the corresponding German ones. It turned out that the armor proposed by Krupp was obviously worse than rejected on
                  our factories. (Battleships like SovSoyuz Vasiliev)

                  In other words, I would not risk asserting that the domestic ship’s armor was worse than the German one, rather, there is something near-par
                  1. NF68
                    NF68 22 July 2018 18: 56
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Well, I’ll add a little
                    Due to the critical situation in the production of armor, especially cemented armor (such as CC), at the end of 1939 an attempt was made to purchase it in Germany. By April 1940, the company Krupp agreed to supply armor, but offered it worse quality than supplied by the German Navy. It is interesting to note that our (accepted as far back as 1916) technical specifications (TU) for accepting armor were tougher than the corresponding German ones. It turned out that the armor proposed by Krupp was obviously worse than rejected on
                    our factories. (Battleships like SovSoyuz Vasiliev)

                    In other words, I would not risk asserting that the domestic ship’s armor was worse than the German one, rather, there is something near-par


                    The Germans can and willfully not sell their best armor, much less will not share with the USSR the technology for making this armor.
                    1. Potter
                      Potter 22 July 2018 23: 03
                      0
                      The manufacturing technology of armor back in Russia before the PMV was Kruppovskaya. We had enough good metallurgists. Before WWII, the armor characteristics of the USSR and Germany were comparable. The Germans sold us the TKR Luttsov (Petropavlovsk), which was being completed in Leningrad using German technology. So there weren’t any secrets - the sample specialists could decipher both the chemical composition and the technology.
                      In the war, all the armor went to the tanks. In M. Svirin, in the 2 and 3 books of his tank trilogy, one can read about changes in the chemical composition and properties of German armor during the war - the Germans had tight alloying additives. Fortunately, we captured the trophies, and the Germans, and there were no secrets.
                      1. NF68
                        NF68 23 July 2018 17: 04
                        0
                        Quote: Potter
                        The manufacturing technology of armor back in Russia before the PMV was Kruppovskaya. We had enough good metallurgists.


                        If there were many good metallurgists in Russia, then why did Russia order so many products related to steel production abroad? In the same France or England? And why did AvtoVAZ do a few decades after the FDA “good” metallurgists for a long time could not achieve acceptable quality / wear resistance in the manufacture of engine camshafts? After all, the Italians provided the USSR with all the necessary documentation and equipment? e and the beginning of the 90's, something I saw with my own eyes there.

                        So there weren’t any secrets - the sample specialists could decipher both the chemical composition and the technology.


                        This alone is not enough. You must still be able to produce all this.

                        Krupp armor is not the only one grade / brand. Each of the countries made armor, taking into account its capabilities and skills.

                        In the war, all the armor went to the tanks. In M. Svirin, in the 2 and 3 books of his tank trilogy, one can read about changes in the chemical composition and properties of German armor during the war - the Germans had tight alloying additives. Fortunately, we captured the trophies, and the Germans, and there were no secrets.


                        Tank armor is not the armor of battleships. If only because the maximum thickness of the armor of the tanks is much less than the armor of the belt, barrels, turrets of the Civil Code or the felling of battleships and to produce high-quality cemented armor is large, up to 12 "and more than inches is much more complicated than tank armor.
                2. anzar
                  anzar 22 July 2018 20: 40
                  0
                  NF68 (Nikolai.) Writes:
                  (The British believed that preventing the explosion inside the ship was a more important factor, than ensuring formal non-penetration of belt armor.)

                  The phrase is clumsy, I can not imagine the explosion inside without being there. Perhaps they wanted to say that the British allowed "formal" stay (without internal explosion) in the name of reducing thickness and armor weights.
                  In the 30s, the British achieved a significant improvement in the characteristics of their armor ...

                  Well, but this miracle armor is thinking of new ships (Prince of Wales). On the previous ones, the reservation was modernized (mostly horizontal), but I don’t know the ship to which the GP was changed. Or am I mistaken?)) Lighten me, please.
                  1. NF68
                    NF68 24 July 2018 16: 07
                    0
                    Quote: anzar
                    Well, but this miracle armor is thinking of new ships (Prince of Wales). On the previous ones, the reservation was modernized (mostly horizontal), but I don’t know the ship to which the GP was changed. Or am I mistaken?)) Lighten me, please.


                    I'm trying to lighten. As far as I know, the British either because of a lack of funds, or because of the desire to first build a large number of new battleships, and only then to upgrade the old ones, were very wrong with forecasts that Hitler would decide on a full-scale war. The fact that Germany is not able to compete with England in the number of battleships the British knew. Perhaps all this, to one degree or another, was the reason that the British were not able to fully implement the modernization of the old battleships.
                3. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 23 July 2018 10: 25
                  0
                  Quote from Koffman? Everything would be fine, but here's the catch - the real characteristics of the English armor placed on the KGV are unknown. smile
                  But here is what A. Raven and J. Roberts write in their study “British Battleships of World War Two” (1976 edition) about battleships of the “King George V” type: “The armor material developed in the 30s was used cemented armor alloy with improved properties. Until today, very little is known about this alloy. One can only assume that it was a nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy made and processed by special technology. From such armor plates were made for the main armor belt (within the citadel) and armored traverses, as well as for the barbets of the towers and the front plates of the towers themselves (frontal armor and front side plates).
                  At the beginning of 1936, even before conducting experiments with new armored plates, it was assumed that the improvement in resistance to armor-piercing shells could be correlated with an increase of about 1400 meters in firing range (when an enemy shell pierces the plate). Based on this, the designers calculated that the armored belt of the King George V battleship would successfully withstand 381 mm shells at combat distances of up to 12.3 km (381 mm plates) and up to 14.3 km (356 mm plates) with normal (90 degrees ) hit angles.
                  The results of experiments conducted with new armored plates have not been published and are still unknown. ”
                  So, professional British researchers directly write that the data on tests of the new English armor are unknown, and an assessment of the improvement of its quality is a theory. In light of this, I would not dare to say that British armor is REALLY the best in the world.
                  © V. Sidorenko. Some comments on the article by V.N. Chausova "Artillery and armor."
  12. Potter
    Potter 18 July 2018 22: 01
    0
    I re-read Koffman's monograph. However, there are more beautiful pictures there! An interesting fact is that literally from the beginning of the service, it was proposed to modernize the ship with enhanced protection, including reinforcing the deck above the cellars up to 152 mm. And with the removal of unnecessary torpedo weapons.
    But all the modernization concerned only the strengthening of anti-aircraft artillery. As a result, overload increased. The metacentric height became completely unsatisfactory - 0,88m - an extremely small value for such a large ship.
    KTU has not been modernized.
    A large modernization was planned for 1941 ... We did not have time.
  13. Samara_63
    Samara_63 18 July 2018 22: 29
    0
    How easily Hood Bismarck was sunk ... A terrible picture ...
    1. NF68
      NF68 20 July 2018 16: 17
      +1
      Quote: Samara_63
      How easily Hood Bismarck was sunk ... A terrible picture ...


      The Bismarck could have been sunk almost as easily. One of 356 mm. Prince of Wales shells fell at the side of Bismarck against the boiler rooms. This shell did not explode, but damaged the anti-torpedo bulkhead because of which the Germans had to disconnect the boilers located in this boiler room. And one of Bismarck’s 380 shells passed along the same path as the English 356 mm shell, but already in the Prince of Wales corps, and also, fortunately for the British, the German shell did not explode, depriving the Prince of Wales crew a decent portion of thrills.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 20 July 2018 16: 59
        0
        Quote: NF68
        One of 356 mm. The “Prince of Wales” shells fell at the side of the Bismarck against the boiler rooms. This shell did not explode, but damaged the anti-torpedo bulkhead, because of which the Germans had to disconnect the boilers located in this boiler room.

        Ahem ... it seems that the ninth volley of the "Prince" gave a full-fledged hit with an underwater gap below the armored belt, on the anti-torpedo bulkhead (the second direct hit on the account - the first was on the sixth volley and opened the bow of the tank). Through the hole flooded KO No. 2 and the department of generators No. 4.
        The shell exploded against the 45-mm armored bulkhead amidships below the waterline and main belt in section XIV. This causes flooding in the No. 4 port electric plant and the adjacent No. 2 boiler room. Further oil leaks were also seen.
        © bismarck-class.dk
        1. NF68
          NF68 20 July 2018 20: 06
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: NF68
          One of 356 mm. The “Prince of Wales” shells fell at the side of the Bismarck against the boiler rooms. This shell did not explode, but damaged the anti-torpedo bulkhead, because of which the Germans had to disconnect the boilers located in this boiler room.

          Ahem ... it seems that the ninth volley of the "Prince" gave a full-fledged hit with an underwater gap below the armored belt, on the anti-torpedo bulkhead (the second direct hit on the account - the first was on the sixth volley and opened the bow of the tank). Through the hole flooded KO No. 2 and the department of generators No. 4.
          The shell exploded against the 45-mm armored bulkhead amidships below the waterline and main belt in section XIV. This causes flooding in the No. 4 port electric plant and the adjacent No. 2 boiler room. Further oil leaks were also seen.
          © bismarck-class.dk


          Maybe getting to the “Bismarck” below the waterline was not one? After all, if 356 mm. the shell exploded on a torpedo bulkhead, then he would do the devil knows that, and so the “Bismarck” escaped with relatively little damage. All the same, one of the design engineers who took part in the design of battleships of this type was right: he proposed extending the belt, which had thinned downwards. But because of the need to limit the already much larger than permitted by the contracts displacement of this extra supply, the Germans were forced to refuse.
          1. yehat
            yehat 22 July 2018 01: 29
            0
            another circumstance played a role here - firing with underwater projectile damage was practically not used in the WWII, and this factor, although it was known, was underestimated.
            1. NF68
              NF68 22 July 2018 15: 00
              0
              Quote: yehat
              another circumstance played a role here - firing with underwater projectile damage was practically not used in the WWII, and this factor, although it was known, was underestimated.


              Good broadcast specialist. Everything is clear with you. To get started, see what, unlike you, Andrei knows about booking battleships,

              http://alternathistory.com/optimalnaya-skhema-bro
              nirovaniya-linkorov-vtoroi-mirovoi

              and only then, if you can figure out what and how, start your abstruse discussions about the far side of the moon.
              1. yehat
                yehat 22 August 2018 23: 49
                0
                Have you read at least one ship’s magazine describing an artillery duel?
                Find at least one attempt to shoot with underwater hits.
  14. monster
    monster 13 October 2018 19: 26
    0
    There is something mystical in the ships of that era, especially in the battleships of Germany and Japan.