Fighting nuclear cruiser with battleship


Sea slaughter with the participation of the strongest. Steel and fire. Molten metal splashes in the swirling maelstrom of sinking debris. The names of the ships go to immortality, and the place of death remains in the format xx ° xx 'xx' 'of the specified latitude-longitude. This is a tragedy! This is the scale!

The recent discussion of the “Kirov” fight with the American “Iowa” could not pass unnoticed. Moreover, in the comments sounded the name of the author. And that means - time to answer to the honorable public ...

In my purely personal opinion, the American columnist of the “National Interest”, like his Russian opponent with “VO”, made a lot of misconceptions without paying attention to the most interesting Details. As a result, the simulation of the “Kirov” battle against “Iowa” presented in both articles turned into a terrible pseudoscientific fiction.

In the past, I managed to write a cycle of articles on the comparison of the battleship and TARKR, but none of the episodes affected the battle of these giants in the form of a knightly duel. It all came down to the analysis of design solutions and the search for the “missing” load. Why, with the same dimensions (250..270 m length), the displacement of the “Kirov” and “Iowa” radically differed in two and a half times. It is worth noting that the body of the battleship was “bottle-shaped” with a sharp narrowing in the extremities, and the width of the TARKR was unchanged (28 m) for the greater length of its body.

The answer turned out to be simple, just like the question - from the point of view of the designers of past epochs, the hull of a heavy missile cruiser corresponds in size to the largest battleships of the later period. At the same time, a large part of the “Kirov” building is OVER water, due to the “lightness” of the modern weapons, the low power of the nuclear power plant and the lack of full protection (for comparison, the “Iowa” carried 20 thousands of tons of armor, which, by the way, 300 railway wagons with metal). As a result, at the height of the freeboard 5 m, it “settled” into the water for whole 11 meters.

Like an iceberg, most of the battleship was hidden under water.

Fighting nuclear cruiser with battleship

The freeboard of the atomic “Kirov”, on the contrary, considerably exceeds its underwater part in height (11 ... 16 against all 8 meters of draft).

I think this issue will no longer be. Designed in different eras of ships, differed, like heaven and earth. Another question - What advantages would a ship created according to the norms of the first half of the twentieth century have received in the course of modernization modern rocket weapons?

The knightly duel of “Kirov” (20 “granites”) and “Iowa” (32 “tomahawk” + 16 “harpoons”) from a distance of a couple of hundred miles would have ended with the destruction of both. As of the end of 80-x, none of the opponents had the opportunity to reliably repel a massive attack of low-flying CDs.

Here it is worth refraining from loud epithets “ripped in half”, especially with regard to the strongest “Iowa” (sheathing thickness is up to 37 mm). I'm not talking about the strength of the power set, which was designed for the installation of 20 thousand tons of armor plates. No surface explosions are capable of sinking such a ship. AT stories There have been cases of the detonation of dozens of oxygen torpedoes with an 600 kg warhead (“Mikuma”) or six tons of rocket powder and explosives (BOD “Brave”), after which the ships remained afloat for long hours. At the same time, neither the Japanese cruiser, nor the Soviet patrol (BNK 2 rank) were close in size with the TARKR or the battleship.

But in general, the line of reasoning was correct: after 10 + hits of cruise missiles (Granite and Tomahawk-109B), both opponents will lose value as combat units.

But this is not a reason for any conclusions and the statement of the equal sign between the highly protected battleship and the designs of the nuclear-missile era.

If the ship allows dozens of anti-ship missiles to shoot themselves with impunity, then no armor will help him.

Last rocket

But what if ...

What if anti-aircraft cruisers can knock down 16 harpoons and 31 “tomahawk”, and the battleship intercepts 19 from 20 “Granites” launched on it? There will be only one rocket that will reach the goal.

The composition of the air defense system "Kirov" is known. The “American” is much sadder, the four “Falanxes” argument is weak. But do not forget about the EW. During the Arab-Israeli war 1973, none of the Egyptian anti-ship missiles 54 reached the target. Means of electronic warfare - one of the most effective areas in the creation of protection against high-precision weapons.

And so, there was only one rocket left. For “Kirov” even the only hit of “Tomahawk” is mortally dangerous, while for the battleship the single “Granite” is an unpleasant, but quite tolerable damage. Ships of this class were originally calculated to keep strikes.

The fairy tale about the “seven-ton colossus” flying at 2,5 speeds of sound has gotten orders. In the dense layers of the atmosphere, when approaching the target, the speed of any “Granite” for obvious reasons becomes much less than 2M.

Of the 7 tons of launch mass, after separating the 2-ton launch accelerator and producing fuel, there are hardly any 4 tons left - the aircraft and its 700 kg warhead. We can see from the chronicles of numerous air crashes what happens to an aircraft in a collision even with a relatively “soft” barrier in the form of land. aviation the constructions collapse like a house of cards, even their most durable elements - refractory turbine blades fly apart and lie on the surface.

Now it is not necessary to start about the "more dense layout of a cruise missile." Everything related to aviation, built with a minimum margin of safety, otherwise it will not take off.

For the most doubters - fragments of the intercepted over Syria KR “Tomahawk”. Nobody drilled mines, trying to find in the bowels of the earth the wreckage of American missiles. They were all lying on the surface, torn to shreds by hitting the ground.

You say it was a blow on a tangent. Have you ever thought - what are the chances that in a naval battle a cruise missile will hit the board along the normal ???

This is me to the fact that in matters of overcoming obstacles (in this case - armor), the mass of the aircraft is in last place. A plastic fairing, antennas, short wings, engine fuel fittings, an aluminum body, and electronics modules will all be flattened out in a split second.

Only the combat unit will try to pierce the armor. Egg-shaped thin-walled object with a filling ratio ≈70%, flying at one and a half speeds of sound. The pitifully similar 356 mm armor-piercing projectile sample 1911 g. Only in that the filling ratio was 2,5%, the remaining 97,5% accounted for an array of hardened metal.

747 kg projectile contained only 20 kg of explosives - 25 times less than the combat unit "Granita"!

You do not think that the designers of the Obukhovsky plant were stupid and did not understand the obvious things (more explosive content is stronger than damage)? The creators of the ammunition knew that the BB projectile should not have any significant cavities, slots and other elements that weaken its structure. Otherwise, he will not complete his task.

For these reasons, “Granit” (like any of the existing RPCs) cannot be considered as an analogue of the BB projectile. Its closest counterpart is a high-caliber high-explosive aerial bomb.

In practice, in the absolute majority of cases, the mines could not cause serious damage to the ship of the class “battleship”.

If you try to simulate getting “Granite” in “Iowa”, taking into account all known (and little-known) details, you get the following:

With a high degree of probability, the rocket will break the side plating (37 mm of “soft” structural steel) and explode without even reaching the armor belt. I think that most of those present know that the “Iowa” had an inner belt, which was behind the outer skin of the board. The main reasons are the simplification of the design (roughly hewn plates did not need to repeat the smooth hull lines) and the desire to increase the resistance against BB shells, due to the greater angle of inclination of the plates.

In modern conditions, this solution is ineffective. The explosion of the RCC warhead will “turn” the outer skin on an area of ​​several tens of square meters. m; the frames will be deformed and several armor plates will be torn off. A part of the equipment will be damaged by shaking for a short time. That's all.

When hitting the deck or superstructure, the antennas and open arms can be demolished without endangering the survival of the ship itself.

Outside the 140-meter citadel, there are no vital mechanisms (this is the essence of the citadel). A single bomb hit is not capable of causing any serious flooding.

Studying the design of the “Iowa” and combat damage of ships of the same class, I do not find a single reason for which the battleship could die from getting one or two anti-ship missiles like the P-700 “Granit”.

And this is its main difference from modern “tin”, for which even fragments of downed rockets pose a danger.

Battle Fantasy

The plot of the confrontation of “Kirov” and “Iowa” is much broader than the boring exchange of “Granites” and “Tomahawks”.

If this happens at the line of sight (≈30 km), from a combat tracking position, the GK artillery will be used and, in response, C-300 anti-aircraft missiles aimed at the naval target. The only problem is in the very senselessness of the situation, from which it is unlikely that it will be possible to extract any benefit for further conversation.

In modern conditions, naval artillery is of interest only as a supplement to missile weapons, when firing ground targets. As regards the firing modes of the air defense missile system, anti-aircraft missiles on the Kirov are not effective against large surface targets, due to the lack of a contact fuse. The explosions of the combat units will occur at a distance, filling the deck of the battleship with a hail of small fragments.

You can try to destroy the battleship spetsBCH or simulate the battle, with the participation of his numerous escort, because the reacted “Iowa” always acted as part of the “battleship battlgrupp”, which, in addition to the flagship (LK), included the nuclear cruiser and escort ships of various classes.

In general, such alternatives do not cause the slightest interest. We just tried to extract the maximum useful conclusions from this dispute. The main ones are underestimation of constructive protection and overestimation of the capabilities of modern missiles.
Our news channels

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

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    23 August 2018 06: 41
    A recent discussion of the Kirov fight with the American Iowa could not go unnoticed. Moreover, the author’s name sounded in the comments.

    Black cloak!
    Just whistle - he will appear!
    1. +2
      23 August 2018 08: 25
      And I know the case when Peter the Great sank an aircraft carrier and US nuclear submarines ...

      And even in an artillery duel, the destroyer destroyed


      If anyone is interested, Alexander Pletnev described in detail (Orlan Project)

      In another book, he described the defeat of the USAG by a group of Japanese ships of the WWII era, although they did not have missiles, but there were battleships and a sudden appearance of artillery fire at a distance

      Everything is very similar to what Oleg wrote

      1. +2
        23 August 2018 18: 10
        Yes, in every book about fellow travelers, our enemies do not weigh childishly with their lyuli ... from loners to entire regions
  2. Cat
    23 August 2018 06: 59
    This is an epidemic!
    Aren't you all tired of being the "villain" storyteller?
    And if you throw bricks into the side of Peter the Great? What will happen? What is the composition of an administrative offense under Art. Administrative Code of the Russian Federation "petty hooliganism" - administrative arrest up to 15 days, that's what will happen.
    You can see this in the USA with Missouri. We are happy to see how it ends on TV !!!
    Well, the last. At the end of the 80s of the last century, the Pentagon calculated that it would cost them to stop the division of our heavy nuclear missile cruisers of the Kirov class at the rate of 4 aircraft carriers with AUGs and 4 of our cruisers with escort ships. The conclusion was disappointing. The Americans decided that they would win, but lose three of the four aircraft carriers. By the way, two granites that didn’t leave the schmt - this is just from that song. They gave a chance to the last American aircraft carrier !!!
    Sincerely, Kitty!
  3. +2
    23 August 2018 07: 14
    This entire article is a collection of erroneous views on the effects of weapons on ships.
    The fact is that although the accuracy of pointing modern missiles is simply amazing - they can fall into the open window, but in reality, with good electronic warfare and jamming, most missiles miss! The author of the article himself cited evidence of this:
    During the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, none of the 54 anti-ship missiles launched by the Egyptians reached their goal. Means of electronic warfare - one of the most effective areas in creating protection against precision weapons.

    And in fact, it may happen that not only 19 missiles out of twenty miss - but in general everyone will not hit the target! Moreover, this is not only due to the influence of radar countermeasures - but also due to the firing of interference - ordinary pieces of foil. But the armor-piercing shells of the battleship take away from the target ship there is no way.
    Moreover, most anti-ship missiles from different countries apparently have some kind of defects in the fuses: most of them - did not even explode when they hit the ship! For example, in the frigate Stark, or in the Anglo-Argentine war, many missiles did not explode.
    1. +4
      23 August 2018 07: 53
      From the fact that the Argentines were sold defective "Exocets", one should not conclude that
      Quote: geniy
      most anti-ship missiles from different countries apparently have some kind of defects in fuses

      Although, who knows. If a country does not fight for a long time and puts a bolt on live fire (expensive, crisis, save!), If it purchases unverified equipment for kickbacks, then everything can be. It is enough to recall the same USA in World War II: torpedoes that go to depth and do not explode when hit, lighting shells that do not fire.
      1. +1
        23 August 2018 08: 10
        From the fact that the Argentines were sold defective "Exocets", one should not conclude that
        Quote: geniy
        most anti-ship missiles from different countries apparently have some kind of defects in fuses

        And did anyone (except me, of course) from officials even notice the fact that most missiles did not explode? And was a financial lawsuit brought against the French manufacturer for defective missiles and the war actually lost for this reason?
        1. -1
          23 August 2018 15: 31
          It turns out that the Argentines sold defective rockets and Iraqis also sold missiles with marriage?
          On May 17, 1987, an Iraqi Mirage F1 fighter mistakenly attacked the USS Stark frigate with two Exocet missiles. As a result of the airstrike, 37 sailors were killed and another 21 were injured.
          At 21:09 a combat alert was announced on the Stark, and at 21:10 the radio intelligence post recorded the "capture" of the ship by the fighter's missile guidance system. Immediately after that, the Mirage turned sharply to the left and set off on a return course with a set of speed. Seconds later, the first Exocet anti-ship missile struck the Stark.
          Ammunition pierced the port side above the waterline, in the area of ​​the second deck, and got stuck in the interior of the ship without exploding. But 15 seconds later, the second missile hit the Stark - in practically the same place. The explosion occurred in the crew quarters, 35 people were killed on the spot. The frigate was de-energized and lost control, giving a strong roll to the port side. In addition, a fire broke out on board. An hour later, the American destroyers Waddell and Conningham arrived at the scene of the incident, helping the wounded and towing the ship back to the port of Manama.
          Saddam Hussein paid $ 400 million in compensation to the American side. The frigate commander, Glenn Brindel, was removed from office and received a written reprimand. He was accused of the fact that the Vulcan-Falanx shipborne anti-aircraft artillery system was not put into combat mode in time and could not shoot down the Exocets.

          It turns out that the French JUST made EKZOSET missiles of low quality, which was reflected in the results of the attacks of the Argentine and Iraqi Air Forces.
  4. +11
    23 August 2018 07: 28
    Instead of torturing the keyboard, the author could have read page 33 of the book "Cruise missiles of the USSR and Russia. Missile carrier weapons" by V.P. Markovsky.
    Then relaxed in a chair and smoke a cigar. There is absolutely no need to write so many letters. "Everything has already been stolen, up to you" (C)
    1. +1
      23 August 2018 08: 20
      There on page 33 there is an excellent photo of the holes in the armor left by the anti-ship missiles

      “While we are waiting for the moment when the truth will unite us, it separates us most of all” (c)
      1. +5
        23 August 2018 08: 42
        Quote: Santa Fe
        There on page 33 there is an excellent photo of the holes in the armor left by the anti-ship missiles
        There is no such photo in my edition. But there are letters: "A high-explosive cumulative warhead of type FC-2 of a meter transverse size weighed 840 kg and contained 681 kg of explosives, being able to penetrate twelve-inch ship’s armor"
        This is still the ancient DAC-2. If you think that after breaking through the armor it did not cause any damage to the ship, spending all the power only on these 12 inches, then this is sad. No need to make parrots from Soviet engineers. Such humor was not understood then. Also, do not think that after the DAC, by the time of the creation of Granites and Basalts, the power of warheads had decreased.
        In general, fantasize further.
        1. +1
          24 August 2018 07: 23
          And nowhere is this photo.
          Instead of armor penetration due to the energy and mechanical properties of the “supersonic engine”, it all came down to the effects of a high-explosive explosion)))

          Now Alex is interested in the issue of damage, in addition to local destruction of protection. I think the best examples are hitting torpedoes. The explosion in the water surpasses the destructive air. The explosion destroyed the PTZ bulkheads (analogous to the armor belt in the surface of the board) and the nearest compartments. The majority of large ships, such as Iowa under consideration, bravely endured such damage.

          About the parrots and the dispute with the designers, you came up with it yourself, I have never claimed that the 700 kg of explosive explosion of the most powerful of the existing RCCs could not violate the integrity of the protection. It can, but what's next?
          1. 0
            24 August 2018 12: 37
            Bravo! Sumptuously! Entirely and completely agree with your opinion !!!
      2. -2
        23 August 2018 09: 28
        There on page 33 there is an excellent photo of a hole in the armor plate left by the PCs; they leave either internal off

        Unfortunately, I did not read this book and therefore did not see this photograph. The fact is that I have strong suspicions that armor penetration is interpreted completely incorrectly. That is, armor-piercing and high-explosive ammunition act in completely different ways: if armor-piercing ammunition is designed to penetrate armor and explode behind it, then high-explosive explosives simply explode outside the armor, and often do not penetrate it, but leave behind everyone a visible dent and charred paint that is clearly visible to everyone. So - there is an assumption that even when armor-piercing shells hit the armor at insufficient speed, they bounce back from it, but at the point of impact they leave either an internal spall or even a through hole. And during World War II, the Germans shot down tens of thousands of Soviet tanks. Moreover, the Germans fired from armor-piercing types of ammunition with shells - blanks - that is, without explosives at all. And in theory, such a projectile having broken through the armor should remain inside the Soviet tank, and then when the tank was sent for repair, then thousands of German blanks had to be taken out and photographed. But for some reason, out of tens of thousands of such facts, there is not a single photograph of a German shell taken out of a Russian tank. And therefore, I believe that German armor-piercing shells did not always penetrate inside Soviet tanks, but more often bounced off the armor, but they hit the tankers and lit the tank with internal armor spalls.
        That is, in addition to photographs of a hole in the armor, you also need to provide evidence that the ammunition penetrated beyond the armor. Of course you have no such evidence.
        But most importantly - in order to penetrate the armor, it is required that the missile shell or warhead be very durable - that is, with a large wall thickness. Because of this, all armor-piercing ammunition in the world (except for cumulative) have an explosive weight of about 2,5%, and a metal weight of 97,5%. Whereas in high-explosive ammunition the opposite is true: in missiles, the weight of the metal of the warhead is 30%, and the weight of explosives is 70%. But the steel walls are very thin - unable to penetrate thick armor! And unscrupulous people often make the substitution: they show a photograph of the armor made by an armor-piercing warhead with a minimum percentage of explosives, and everyone boasts that the explosive weight is like a high-explosive warhead - supposedly about 70% - that is, an obvious fraud. Either wear underpants - or remove the cross. That is, say that if you shoot missiles with armor-piercing warheads - then they will have a miserable explosive weight, or with high-explosive ones - then they will not penetrate armor.
      3. +3
        23 August 2018 12: 49
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Am on the 33 page there is an excellent photo of a hole in the armor plate left by the RCC

        No. There is a photo of the broken nose of the target ship
  5. rum
    23 August 2018 07: 41
    Everything seems to be in chocolate, but if you sniff it, then no
    “Most of all, we love giving completely unnecessary advice and arguing over trifles.” - Akutagawa Ryunosuke, "In the Land of Water."
  6. +2
    23 August 2018 07: 44
    underestimation of constructive protection and overestimation of the capabilities of modern missiles.

    plus an assessment by the criterion of cost \ efficiency \ need wink
  7. 0
    23 August 2018 08: 24
    But in general, the line of reasoning was correct: after 10 + hits of cruise missiles (Granite and Tomahawk-109B), both opponents will lose value as combat units.

    Is that so? Of course, all readers are well aware of the history of the last century, when ships died in battle. But the fact is that few people understand the difference: sea water flows only into underwater holes, and surface holes, although clearly visible from the outside, are almost not harmful to the buoyancy of a ship. That is, all connoisseurs need to understand that if a ship drowned - then it is lost forever - the fact is that on any ship there are a lot of copper or aluminum parts that cause severe electrochemical corrosion - in one month, the steel is destroyed at the location of the copper parts.
    But if the ship did not sink, it turns out that almost any external damage in the surface part was repaired in a relatively short time - within about one month. so it was as a result of the battles of the Russian squadron during the Russo-Japanese war when it was being repaired in Port Arthur, in contrast to the fact that even the newest Russian ships sunken in Tsushima were lost forever. It was also after the Battle of Jutland - most of the damaged German ships were repaired within one to two months. And now compare this with the construction of a new ship instead of the sunken one: the construction takes 5-10 years, that is 60-120 months, and it takes 1-2 months to repair damaged in battle.
    For example, the Soviet cruiser "Molotov" ("Glory") - tore off the stern. So in the dock they simply docked the stern of another (unfinished) cruiser!
    1. +1
      23 August 2018 11: 19
      The drowned people of Pearl Harbor were raised by the 44th year, "Arizona", it seems, only stains the ocean with fuel oil until now. Repairs can take months. Especially if you gouge it specifically, and not a single hit.
      1. 0
        24 August 2018 11: 03
        Pearl Harbor Drowned by the 44th year raised,

        The point is that you mix surface - that is, projectile - and underwater - torpedo hits into one heap. Because underwater holes are formed during torpedo hits, and a torpedo ship can only be repaired by docking it. And this is a very expensive operation. And the area of ​​torpedo holes is very large - about 6x8 meters. And the repair of the underwater skin is very laborious. In contrast, surface projectile hits are much easier to repair. For example, the battleship Eustathius received several hits from Goeben, which caused cracks in the armor plates - so they did not even change them - but simply hammered steel plugs into the holes. And by the way, many Soviet tanks during the Great Patriotic War were also repaired in a similar way - a steel plug was simply hammered into the place of the hole, with a reasonable justification that the shell did not hit the same place. But it is very difficult to repair underwater damage to the skin. Suffice it to recall the cruiser "Oleg" which jumped out on the rocks and was docked for many months.
        And in the case of the battleships sunk in Pearl Harbor even worse. Despite the fact that the depth of this bay is small and approximately equal to the draft of the battleship, nevertheless, these ships with their bottoms got to the bottom of the bay - that is, they were actually sunk. And get such damage in the open ocean, they would sink to the ocean floor. moreover, the hatches and necks were all open, which is why the water flooded all the compartments. As a result, these ships were not just repaired, but were first engaged in a lengthy ship-lifting operation, and then repaired by docking. Moreover, in addition to the actual repair of the casing, there was a washing of many electric motors. the fact is that copper in electric motors when flooded with salt water causes rapid electrochemical corrosion. Actually, combining copper plates with iron ones, you can get a good electric battery. I remember the case when, after the war, one modern vessel was transporting copper ingots and water got into its hold, so in one month, electrochemical corrosion penetrated through the steel bottom of this vessel.
        And in Leningrad, during the floods after the revolution, ordinary trams were flooded - so their electric motors had to be washed with alcohol for several weeks and repaired. That's why battleships flooded at Pearl Harbor have been under repair for so long. And ordinary surface damage to a ship can be repaired very quickly.
        1. 0
          24 August 2018 11: 21
          Duc who can argue that. But the same "Tirpitz" did not come out of the repairs until the moment of the final fading. And the notorious "Stark" after catching "Exosets" was repaired for a year. In addition, the fire on the "Otvazhny" seems to be also not underwater damage, however, the ship heeled and eventually sank. I don’t remember, myself, or they finished it off, but the fact of the roll was noted, that is, the water was coming inside. In general, the problem of any repair is that it requires lengthy research work. It is always much easier to assemble from known good parts in the optimal order.
          1. -1
            24 August 2018 14: 59
            Duc who can argue that. But the same "Tirpitz" did not come out of the repairs until the moment of the final fading. And the notorious "Stark" after catching "Exocets" was repaired for a year. In addition, the fire on the "Otvazhny" seems to be also not underwater damage, however, the ship heeled and eventually sank. I don’t remember, myself, or did they finish it off, but the fact of the roll from

            So everyone needs to understand the difference between surface hits and damage to underwater casing. I am too lazy to look for the history of Tirpitz, but he didn’t have a single shell hit at all. And they blew it up either with saboteurs who laid about two tons of explosives at the bottom and created underwater holes, or giant 9-ton bombs, most of which fell near the ship and created an underwater shock wave, which created underwater holes, and there was no dock for Tirpitz.
            The destroyer "Brave" was on fire - a rocket cellar, and it was flooded with water, which reduced stability, but most importantly - the fire spread to the stern and a supply of depth charges exploded there, and because of this underwater hole it sank.
            And the notorious Stark was repaired for a year because it is in peacetime, when everyone is in no hurry to do their job - and so that everything is repaired perfectly smoothly, cleanly and beautifully. In contrast, when the Molotov cruiser was being repaired in 1943, the feed of the other cruiser categorically did not fit the contours - it was 100 mm higher than that of Molotov and the repairmen simply did not give a damn about it and welded as it turned out. And in Leningrad there were two destroyers torn in half - one did not have a bow, and the other had a stern. so these parts from different destroyers were combined together, and we got one destroyer. and American aircraft carriers, when bombs fell on their decks, they simply made temporary wooden flooring in the place of holes on the flight deck and continued to fight. Similarly, the ships of the Japanese squadron after Tsushima - put temporary wooden shields in the places of the holes, and prepared the next day again for battle. So even if a rocket hits a modern ship and doesn’t drown it, they simply cut off the curved sheets of steel and hastily put temporary straight sheets in these places. .
  8. -5
    23 August 2018 09: 03
    And one more counterargument. Most of the so-called "experts in naval history" stupidly do not understand why warships were actually sinking in battles and battles. And personally, I have an assumption that in most cases, when there was a purely artillery battle (without the use of torpedoes, which, as you remember, inflict underwater hits, and the shells are mostly surface ones, and the armor belt is located on the waterline and reduces the damage from a shell hit ), and so during an artillery battle, ships often received not fatal damage, but seeing the hopelessness of the situation in view of the enormous superiority of the enemy, their crews probably sank their ships themselves.
    For example, this happened with the cruiser "Rurik" - at the end of the battle, large armored Japanese cruisers left it, and it was surrounded by enemy light cruisers, which could not penetrate its armor, but Russian sailors themselves flooded their cruiser... The same happened with the Dmitry Donskoy cruiser. This heroic ship withstood the hardest hours-long battle with 6 Japanese cruisers, but was not going to sink and was able to swim to Dazhelet Island, where the whole crew was taken to the shore by boats, and the cruiser itself was deliberately smashed against the rocks of the island. The battleship "Sisoy the Great" - received a torpedo and was sunk by its crew. Cruiser "Svetlana" - after a battle with Japanese cruisers was flooded by her crew. The battleship "Admiral Ushakov" was damaged as a result of the battle and, due to the hopelessness, the pumping turbines were blown up and the ship was flooded by its crew. In fact, the cruiser Varyag and the gunboat Kreets were flooded by their crews.
    Everyone knows that the heavy cruiser "Admiral Graf Spee" successfully withstood the battle with three English cruisers and came to port, but was blown up and flooded by her crew. And I have suspicions that although the German cruisers Scharnghorst and Gneisenau were damaged in a battle with British ships of the line, they were sunk not by the hits of British shells, but by their teams.
    Also getting bomb hits burned out four huge Japanese aircraft carriers "Kagi, Akaga, Hiryu and Soryu. Probably they would have remained afloat for a long time, but they were torpedoed and flooded by the Japanese themselves - instead of being towed to Japan and repaired. Of course, opponents will argue what to tow. It was impossible, but the fact is the fact - and these ships were finally sunk by the Japanese themselves. And the Americans - although Lexington turned into a flaming torch - but still the final point was set by the Americans themselves, sinking it with explosions of 4 torpedoes. Few of you know that the command of the fleet believes that underwater holes are still much more dangerous than fires on ships.
    And finally - everyone knows that the German battleship Bismarck was sunk. But I believe that the Germans in an artillery battle against two British battleships used up almost all the shells and all the towers were destroyed, and the German team flooded their ship itself, in addition, the English cruiser fired point-blank torpedoes at it, but the German team also took part in it. drowning.
    So I believe that most warships were actually sunk by their teams.
  9. -1
    23 August 2018 09: 19
    A good chance to blow half a ton of cc at the base of the Iowa pipe
    1. -1
      24 August 2018 07: 28
      And in the tin do not even have to carefully aim. It is all like the base of the pipe))
      1. +1
        24 August 2018 20: 51
        Quote: Santa Fe
        And in the tin do not even have to carefully aim. It is all like the base of the pipe))

        In Iowa, too - the armored belt is low, the rocket will turn the tin over the boiler rooms. Even a 20mm phalanx pierced this foil at the end
  10. 0
    23 August 2018 09: 40
    I heard that Golovko-class cruisers had missiles designed to destroy battleships.
    Like it or not, I don’t know, but can anyone in the know?
    1. +2
      23 August 2018 10: 23
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Like it or not, I don’t know, but can anyone in the know?

      Nobody knows for sure, tk. almost everything is classified. But I was interested in this issue and it can be considered an established fact that almost all Soviet anti-ship missiles, especially early ones, were equipped with a high-explosive cumulative warhead capable of penetrating up to 300 mm of armor and causing serious destruction in the armor space. More or less this is revealed only for the aviation anti-ship missile system KSR-2 for which there are exact figures. In principle, this is confirmed by logic - in the 60s, the US Navy had many armored ships, incl. battleships of the "Iowa" type and several other cruisers of the Second World War in reserve. All of these ships were a real threat that could not be ignored.
      And all this is classified most likely because modern warhead anti-ship missiles are the development of those that stood on the P-35 and the KSR. Therefore, no one is in a hurry to tell anything about them. And that "egg" in section, which is usually shown as an example of the warhead "Granit", is most likely an ordinary high-explosive fragmentation version.
      1. -8
        23 August 2018 10: 47
        I already wanted to shut up and no longer speak on this topic, but this post deeply outraged me with the fact that there is a general misconception:
        almost all Soviet anti-ship missiles, especially the earliest ones, were equipped with high explosive-cumulative warheads capable of penetrating up to 300 mm of armor and causing serious damage in the armored space. More or less, this is disclosed only for aviation RCC KSR-2 for which there are exact numbers.

        I affirm that none of the so-called "experts in military history" even understands the essence of the operation of cumulative ammunition. Many people generally think that they are "Armor-Burning". But even those who know that the cold pestle pierces the armor, still do not understand anything about what is happening to the object. The fact is that the effect of cumulative ammunition on tanks is very different: sometimes it happened in Berlin, and during the Chechen campaign several cumulative ammunition got into the tank: sometimes up to 5-7, and the tank remained intact and did not lose its combat effectiveness, and the entire crew remained alive. And sometimes on the contrary - the tank exploded with terrible force! And there was also a third option - when the tank remained completely intact - but absolutely the entire crew died inside it - while inside the tank the engine continued to work at idle, the radio was working. So what was really going on there?
        Read and remember my words as the words of God, because I am the only person on earth who has figured out the principle of operation of cumulative ammunition.
        1. -9
          23 August 2018 11: 00
          In fact, the cumulative stream is quite cold - almost everyone knows this. And it does almost no harm inside the tank, unless it hits the ammunition stack. That is, the cumulative stream is not only cold, but also thin - approximately like a sword, but as you know - if the sword hits the target, past the person, then it does no harm. And that's why the tank can easily withstand the hit of 5-7 cumulative ammunition if they do not fall into the ammunition shell.
          But if the cumulative jet breaking through the armor hit a shell with gunpowder, then it will certainly set it on fire! And then two options are possible: either it will cause an explosion of gunpowder in just one sleeve, or it will ignite the entire ammunition. In the first case, the release of burnt gunpowder instantly fills the entire space inside the tank, and the whole crew of the tank instantly suffocates. but no more harm will happen - and the engine will continue to work, and the radio station! That is, the tank will be fully operational.
          But if for some reason a fire inside the tank occurs from a jet, then after a few minutes all the shells will reach the temperature of spontaneous detonation, and then an internal explosion of enormous force will destroy the whole tank!
          So, if you hit a cumulative ammunition, 3 options are possible:
          1 if there is no direct hit in the warhead, then the tank has almost no harm.
          2. If a cumulative jet gets into one shell, then the entire crew instantly suffocates and dies.
          3. If a cumulative jet caused a fire, and all shells and shells were heated, then an ammunition explosion occurred inside the tank.
          1. -9
            23 August 2018 11: 18
            So - the majority of "experts" do not even understand how the ship differs from the tank. The fact is that a tank is an armored object, inside of which there is a very dense arrangement of various mechanisms, and, most importantly, ammunition. And if enemy ammunition penetrates into the tank, it often causes a fire, and then an explosion of ammunition.
            And unlike a tank, any ship in its surface part is just a big hostel for the crew of the ship. Although experts will certainly say that on any ship there are guns and missiles, in reality they try to attribute towers with guns from the sides of the ship, and even more so mines with missiles. Therefore, the towers and missile shafts are located from the side of the ship (crew cabins are located on the sides) over a long distance - about 5-7 meters. And the length of the cumulative jet is small - only 3 meters. Therefore, the crew cabins on the ship perfectly protect the missile silos from the cumulative jet. And this is in contrast to the fact that the cabin bulkheads are so thin (sometimes only 1 millimeter thick) that they do not represent any obstacle from a real armor-piercing projectile! And the cumulative stream itself is so thin that the hole from it is only slightly thicker than a pencil, that is, you can simply plug such a hole with your finger! And the cumulative hole does not carry any danger from the point of view of water leakage to the ship. From this it is clear that the effect of cumulative ammunition on the tank and on the ship is fundamentally different!
            Thus - only round fools could have thought of firing missiles with HE-explosive warheads on ships!
            1. +12
              23 August 2018 12: 08
              Quote: geniy
              Thus - only round fools could have thought of firing missiles with HE-explosive warheads on ships!

              Of course, I would not want to argue with the deity. Moreover, everything that you wrote about anti-tank cumulative ammunition is true.
              But I think that the Soviet engineers and the military, adopting ammunition capable of penetrating 300 mm of ship armor, did not deceive each other. It is hard to believe that the designers pushed fake combat units into the military that were not capable of performing the stated tasks. For such tricks, even in Khrushchev's times, it was possible to change the place of residence, and none of the designers, as we know, was punished. So when making calculations on your knee, you should always keep in mind the idea that the "deity" who has cognized the nirvana of cumulative ammunition is simply not sufficiently informed.
              In fact. As you know, the thickness of armor penetration is roughly about 5 diameters of a cumulative ammunition. An RPG shot weighing about 2 kg and a diameter of 72 mm penetrates 400 mm of armor. Warhead anti-ship missiles with a diameter of about 1 meter, therefore, with a similar design, in theory, it can penetrate 5 meters of armor. Not sickly, right? However, we see that some ridiculous 300 mm are actually declared for the anti-ship missile warhead. Only. In theory, to pierce these unfortunate 300 mm ammunition with a diameter of 60 mm is enough. It turns out that the power of a giant cumulative ammunition in the form of an anti-ship missile warhead is simply negligible. Why? Because the concept is cumulative - it means "concentrated". In ATGM and RPG all the energy of the cumulative effect is focused on an extremely small area - the hole is only 20-40 mm. And at the warhead of the anti-ship missile, due to a different design, the focusing is less sharp, over a larger area. The task is nonsense - to break through the 300-mm armor, ridiculously thin for such a mass of explosives, there is no need to make a cumulative jet as sharply directed as an ATGM. It is not casual that warheads are called not "cumulative", but "high-explosive cumulative". This is just a high-explosive warhead with concentrated directional detonation. If it had not been directed action, then the explosion energy would have diverged in all directions evenly, but here it is all collected in an impact core and directed into the side, albeit not as sharply as in ATGM. 300 mm is just foil for her. As for conventional ATGM armor BMP or armored personnel carriers. With such incomparable thicknesses of armor, a relatively gigantic mass of explosives, a synergistic effect is manifested, causing not just penetration, but breaking through of armor over a large area. And all this debris and explosion energy fly into the ship, making a light vinaigrette there. So everything is fine there, don't worry. In the USSR, they did not do anything stupid.
              1. -8
                23 August 2018 12: 32
                I think that Soviet engineers and military, taking into service ammunition capable of penetrating 300 mm of ship's armor, did not deceive each other. It is difficult to believe that the designers shoved fake combat units to the military that were not able to carry out the stated tasks.

                The answer to this objection is your own
                Reliably no one is aware, because almost everything is classified.

                That is, in fact, there were no explosively cumulative warheads - this is just your erroneous assumption of their existence. And I would not describe in detail the idiocy of using such warheads, if the vast majority of profane people did not have the same point of view that they could sink a ship with cumulative ammunition.
                And although you rushed there below to argue that the hole from the cumulative could be much larger, but this is also a delusion. The fact is that for a ship, large-diameter holes are important - like torpedoes or mines - about the size of a gate, and such. a trifle such as a hole diameter of 100-200 should not be taken into account at all. Because on every ship there are means for sealing small holes - for example, wooden conical chop plugs. Or, cement with wooden formwork can be used to seal holes with a diameter of about one meter.
                And holes in the surface part are not significant at all, because even the diameter of the open porthole in the light is at least 380 mm.
                And there is no synergistic effect - all these are your inventions.
                1. +7
                  23 August 2018 12: 38
                  Quote: geniy
                  And there is no synergistic effect - all these are your inventions.

                  Ok, so be it)))
                  1. +1
                    24 August 2018 07: 36
                    The definition of a high-cumulative warhead is doubtful. The KUM effect is either there, or it doesn’t exist, and you get a bomb. As far as I know, in case of any violation of the cone geometry, the effect completely disappears.

                    My opinion - the concept of cum-high-explosive warheads was invented by military journalists, whose materials are full of inaccuracies and exaggerations. Most likely we are talking about a DIRECTED explosion, but still it is weaker than a torpedo explosion under water. In this case, a single torpedo hit extremely rarely had catastrophic consequences. Large ships could maintain full combat capability

                    And here you are all talking about how 500-600 kg of explosives in an air blast on 12-inch protection should lead to some damage (based on the context of posts) incompatible with life
                    1. 0
                      24 August 2018 13: 58
                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      The KUM effect is either there or not, and it will be a landmine

                      I won’t say anything about the 60s, but in modern anti-bunker solutions, such as the KEPD 350, a tandem warhead is used. The cumulative stream burns through the defense, after which a landmine passes for protection.
                      1. 0
                        24 August 2018 17: 57
                        The cumulative stream burns through the defense, after which a landmine passes for protection.

                        Here you explain to everyone: how can a landmine pass for protection? After all, the fact is that any cumulative ammunition pierces a hole 5 times smaller in diameter than its caliber! 5 (FIVE) times less!!!
                        So the second charge is even larger in diameter than the first - and even more so it will not be able to penetrate through an opening with a diameter of only about 50 mm!
                    2. -1
                      24 August 2018 17: 51
                      Golden words in Santa Fe !! +1! The only participant who understands the essence of this topic.
                      1. +2
                        26 August 2018 15: 13
                        Good lysul. Probably myself.
                    3. +1
                      27 August 2018 10: 40
                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      My opinion is that the concept of high-explosive warhead was invented by military journalists, whose materials are full of inaccuracies and exaggerations.

                      Not high-explosive cum-explosive, but FUGASNO-CUMULATIVE. Moreover, this designation for the KSR rocket was a service one - a warhead of the "FK" type. There were no journalists around. I am thinking of decoding why F and K are not needed?
                      Large ships could maintain their combat capability in full
                      Large ships and wet in large. For such a goal as Iowa, it’s not a pity to send the Tu-16 regiment with the DAC in full force. It’s necessary to somehow have common sense. Boats are not stoked by massive attacks of missile-bearing divisions. Battleships and aircraft carriers do not drown single aircraft.
                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      And here you are all talking about how 500-600 kg of explosives in an air blast on 12-inch protection should lead to some damage (based on the context of posts) incompatible with life

                      God forbid. One DAC is certainly not enough for Iowa. For such a goal it is necessary to withdraw an entire MRA regiment. Which is shot by five dozen missiles. You look 4-5 will hit. She will burn after that as cute. Just how many of them, "Iowa" then? And for some LKR type "Cleveland" and 1-2 DACs for the eyes. According to Senka and a hat. A large ship has many large rockets.
                      1. 0
                        28 August 2018 06: 17
                        To wet in a large way, smash the forces of the air armies

                        Here on the situation - and cover, and aircraft tankers (at the rate of 1: 1), and the forces for coordination and reconnaissance. And missile ammunition, at a cost like a missile cruiser. For a salvo launch of the 50 DAC for a limited time, the regiment will not be enough - where there is a chance that all participants in the operation will be able to detect and reach the target from the first time in time.

                        It is unlikely that the Air Force of at least one country of the world could, in practice, with the natural tension of the battle, conduct a similar operation, with precise coordination of dozens of planes against a naval target with unknown coordinates, at a great distance, if there are threats of air defense and enemy planes in the air. The absolute majority of countries in the world did not have missile-carrying aircraft with 5-ton missiles even in their dreams.

                        Alex, as always, passed by the truth. The purpose of protection is not to create super-non
                        vulnerable ship. The goal is for the enemy to spend a lot of effort on his destruction, and ofigel from costs and losses.
                        And especially, spent time, which decides everything in war.

                        and all this - not against the atomic cruiser, not against the aircraft carrier, but against the ancient lohani 1943. in which (if not to take into account its PR image, art, and even a negligible rocket armament by the standards of 80), there was one decisive difference from tin cans. She was not afraid of single (and even double) hits of the heaviest of Soviet missiles. And in order to throw her rockets - would have to throw into the battle all the available missile-carrying aircraft
                      2. 0
                        28 August 2018 06: 30
                        From large to smaller matters

                        Alex, it is not necessary to attach great importance to the classification, designations and indices of military equipment. All this convention. And their interpretations in the military history literature are generally dark

                        Descriptions of damage from "high-explosive-cumulative" anti-ship missiles never correspond to the concept of cumulative b / p. A hole in the skin covering an area of ​​20 sq. M is a directional high-explosive explosion.

                        Otherwise - a cumulative jet across a few meters, not very funny?
              2. +3
                23 August 2018 13: 00
                Alexey, that’s not fair. I was tormented here, I wore out the keys, and you were almost word for word before me (in fact). No, it's just unforgivable of you.
                1. +3
                  23 August 2018 13: 08
                  Quote: Avenich
                  Alexey, that’s not fair. I was tormented here, I wore out the keys, and you were almost word for word before me (in fact). No, it's just unforgivable of you.

            2. +10
              23 August 2018 12: 27
              Quote: geniy
              So - the majority of "experts" do not even understand how the ship differs from the tank.
              Thus - only round fools could have thought of firing missiles with HE-explosive warheads on ships!

              You hung me, from the heart. Well, it is not given to me to distinguish a tank from a ship, I am stupid by nature. Only this is the matter, dear, until now, they say that certain creatures walk on the earth, geologists are called. So they sometimes shoot these very shaped charges at Mother Earth. What for? And who knows, it seems like wells do that. So they have two types of charges for these wells: one makes a wide, but shallow, and the second narrow, but deep. They differ in these drills by the shape of the very cone, which creates a cumulative jet. A tank shell might be happy to make a larger hole in diameter, but why, the effect of the shaped charge against armored ground vehicles has not been canceled, and there are restrictions on caliber weight, etc. But the anti-ship missile ... there are slightly different scales, and there is a need to create an armored effect. Those. it is necessary to choose the shape of the cone, count. BB in such a way that it would be guaranteed to pierce the armor belt and even create the notorious "armor effect". Although now everything is simpler, a 200 kg projectile, upon contact with a target, an accelerating charge of up to 4 max + 2 max mines when approaching. Woo ala, just reliably angry, because armor is on modern ships, they say, and not at all (only about this to anyone, this is me so in secret).
              1. +4
                23 August 2018 12: 42
                Quote: Avenich
                So they have two types of charges for these wells: one makes a wide, but shallow, and the second narrow, but deep.

                Exactly. And these charges are even in manufacturers' catalogs open to the whole world. ))) But Gd does not read directories)))
                1. 0
                  24 August 2018 07: 43
                  is it again about micro charges?
                  We analyzed this moment, it is incorrect
              2. -4
                23 August 2018 15: 28
                You hung me from the heart. Well, it’s not possible for me to distinguish a tank from a ship,

                Exactly - this is the correct recognition! That is, to see the picture in the picture and say what is painted there: a tank or a ship - this is negligible for a professional connoisseur of military equipment.
                So I’ll tell everyone here a little how the ship differs from the tank.
                The most terrible death of any military object, like a land fortress, tank or ship, is the explosion of its own ammunition depot. And the ship differs from the tank in that in particular they have such a circumstance that the ammunition cellars on any ship of the artillery era were always located below the waterline. And this gave the ships a very big advantage compared to both fortresses and tanks. Firstly, because the shells mostly fly quite hollow to the horizon, and the cellars are much deeper than the waterline, in fact, sea water overboard plays a good role as armor, because that the projectile even stuck into the water, quickly slows down and loses its kinetic energy.
                The second factor is that there is an unlimited amount of sea water outside the ship, and in the event of a fire in the ammunition cellars, the simplest valve simply opens, and rain begins to pour from the top of the cellar = so-called irrigation, which can extinguish a gunpowder fire. But if this does not help, then another valve opens - and the entire cellar is flooded with water, preventing the heating and explosion of shells. This is how, for example, the cruiser Krasny Kavkaz was saved from an explosion - when a German shell pierced its bow turret, so that the ship would not explode, the cellar of this tower with all the sailors in it was flooded. And the cruiser continued the battle.
                But the tanks do not have such an opportunity. if an enemy shell hit the tank and a fire broke out inside it, then during WWII the only way to save it was to get out of the tank and run away from it until it exploded.
                So, even in spite of such a wonderful opportunity - often there were deaths of ships from the explosion of ammunition - because either the force of fire from above occurred too instantly, or for some other reason. For example, the battleship Borodino, the battleship Marat, the British battlecruisers Invincible, Queen Mary, Hood exploded. ”But in all these cases, the fire penetrated into the ammunition cellar from above, and not horizontally, like in tanks.
                And one more difference: if the tank has one combat volume, in which all the crew members and ammunition are located next to them, that is, in fact, the tankers sit on a barrel of gunpowder. That is not the case at all on ships: the entire crew of the ship is distributed in different rooms, and there can be about a thousand of these rooms. And from one to three to four thousand crew members. That is, a fire broke out in the tank and gunpowder caught fire, then all the crew members will die. And on the ship there are many ammunition stores, and even if there is a fire in one of them, but there was no explosion, then most of the crew will remain alive. For example, on the German battle cruiser Seydlitz, two aft main turrets were completely burned out - but the ship did not explode. And also on "Derflinger" there was a fire in the aft tower of the GK, but the cellar did not explode, and the "Krasny Kavkaz" I mentioned did not explode either.
                But if you think that I told you as kids about all the differences between ships and tanks - then you are mistaken. I just won’t tell.
                Because now I am considering the difference between the effects of cumulative ammunition on a tank and on a ship.
                1. +1
                  23 August 2018 22: 58
                  Quote: geniy
                  Firstly, because the shells mostly fly quite hollow to the horizon
                  This was true at the time of nuclear weapons and battle distances in a pair of cable, and during Iowa, shells mainly hit the deck (one of the reasons why battleships depreciated).
                  Quote: geniy
                  that the projectile even stuck into the water, quickly slows down and loses its kinetic energy
                  if the shell pierced the water, it did not hit the deck, because flew at a good angle, and if in your opinion, "gently", then the projectile "slaguschet" from the water, at least - ours, in the Second World War, bombed ships with a bounce.
                  Quote: geniy
                  in case of fire in the ammunition cellar
                  Pressure and temperature increase wildly. A hit in a powder cellar usually burns it out (more like an explosion).
                  Quote: geniy
                  This is how, for example, the cruiser "Krasny Kavkaz" was saved from an explosion - when a German shell pierced its bow turret, so that the ship would not explode, the cellar of this tower with all the sailors in it was flooded.
                  Sadly, it’s a pity for the sailors, but maybe 10 meters from the tower to its cellar. A shell would hit the cellar and the tower would pop out.
                  Quote: geniy
                  if an enemy shell hit the tank and a fire broke out inside it, then during WWII the only way to save it was to get out of the tank and run away from it until it exploded.
                  They already knew about fire extinguishing systems. Even the automatic ones were.
                  Quote: geniy
                  For example, on the German battle cruiser Seydlitz, two aft main turrets were completely burned out - but the ship did not explode.
                  Those. You do not know the design of the tower GK? On the same Iowa, a powder charge exploded, 47 people burned in the tower, and in the cellar the people managed to scatter while the fire spread. And Iowa is not the tallest tower.
                  Quote: geniy
                  And one more difference: if the tank has one combat volume
                  Not anymore. T-14 tongue
                  Quote: geniy
                  That is, a fire broke out in the tank and gunpowder ignited, then all crew members will die
                  Not at all obvious.
                  Quote: geniy
                  Because now I am considering the difference between the effects of cumulative ammunition on a tank and on a ship.
                  A warhead that combines two types of damaging effects - high-explosive and cumulative. This type of charge is used on anti-ship missiles designed to destroy two types of targets - ships and arenas. The large mass of the warhead (500-1000kg) provides a good striking high-explosive effect.
                  Uranus, Basalt, Granite, Onyx almost all Soviet missiles had and have a high-explosive cumulative warhead, with the jet striking at an angle downward.
                  Simply put, due to the density of the layout, it’s enough just to pierce the tank, and the ship - pierce and rush inside. It affects the ratio of the mass of armor to the reserved volume and the ratio of the battleship is not at all in favor of the tank.
                2. +1
                  24 August 2018 03: 31
                  Too many letters I and big words like GOD .... do not find?
                  battleship "Marat"

                  read it more carefully .... and then tell us how it all happened .... how a land mine sank a battleship .....
        2. +4
          23 August 2018 13: 50
          Read and remember my words as the words of God, because I am the only person on earth who has figured out the principle of operation of cumulative ammunition.

          Nice, and most importantly, not intrusive. "GOD" and that's it.
        3. 0
          23 August 2018 20: 06
          Thick, dear, very thick. It’s necessary to troll thinner.
  11. +2
    23 August 2018 10: 51
    It seems to me that modern missiles are quite adequate to the combat missions facing them. What ships, such and missiles. hi Already several years ago, the VO website discussed issues why Russia has large, powerful RCCs, and the states do not. Russia does not have a large number of large ships, therefore, it makes no sense for the states to develop large anti-ship missiles and vice versa. bully Plus, when the Iowa were being designed, the concept of artillery combat at line-of-sight distance was still strong, and the air defense systems were unable to counteract shells flying on ships. Accordingly, a powerful passive protection was needed, whose role was played by armor. With the development of rocket weapons, the algorithm for constructing a missile attack on a ship began to develop along the way. The author does not want to see this point-blank. And what the author does not want to see is that even in the days of the "steel giants" it became clear that weapon guidance and control systems cost more than the guns themselves, their calibers and the weight of the shells. drinks Not in terms of money, but in terms of their influence on the outcome of the battle. Quite illustrative examples of the "heroic death" of the same "Bismarck" and "Scharnhorst". That the first, that the second quickly put out of action the OMS, and then they did what they wanted with them. Wanted, popularized with shells. As tired, finished off with torpedoes. Moreover, it does not matter whether the Germans themselves took part in the sinking of these ships or not - their ships lost their combat value, it only remained to ritually finish off. How many hits did Bismarck have in their last fight? And the Scharnhorst? So here: well, let’s say, a missile will not get into an armor belt. Why does she need it? Let him get into the conning tower. Further, all these vaunted 1,2 ton carcasses of shells become nothing more than useless scrap metal. The effectiveness of firing guns without radars and computers was very well shown by the Battle of Jutland, when British destroyers literally circled around the German battleships, and they could not hit at close range. Again, how many times it has been discussed that it will not be possible to book radar antennas with armor with a decent thickness, and with unarmored antennas, the presence of any armor belt is a senseless undertaking. The crew of the South Dakota took glasses all night during the famous battle. Because the radars are out of order request And what a happiness it was when the dawn broke ... Actually, that's why there was a "underestimation" of constructive protection. What to defend? Components and assemblies that have become secondary in modern combat? Well, yes, with the destroyed superstructures you can escape. And if again "Bismarck"? Or his recent counterpart to Prince of the Wells? What to do with a stray torpedo hitting the propeller shaft or rudder? And if the hit is not crazy, but deliberate? Remember the attack algorithms? How long does it take to rewrite the software for the rocket? Both the "chancellor" and the "prince" had an armor belt! Did it help them a lot? One was sentenced to an almost canvas biplane, which the super-duper air defense system could not cope with. The second one was "lucky" a little better: the plane was bigger, newer. And the end is the same. So it is here, in modern times: no one interferes with the algorithm of the Granite attack aimed at disabling the control system and the extremities, so that the enemy's ship would lose speed and controllability. And then ... The owners themselves will drown ...
  12. +1
    23 August 2018 11: 14
    Why do you want to drown him so? Well, it crawls and crawls, the tin is thick, while it crawls, aviation and air defense missile systems with anti-ship missiles on ships will sort it out among themselves, sending all sorts of "Arlie Burkees" to the bottom, after which the battleship can at least fall asleep FAB-250, destroying everything on it that provides weapons. Or calmly give a dozen torpedoes from a submarine, which he will do against them without an escort.
  13. 0
    23 August 2018 11: 34
    Therefore, the most effective weapon against a battleship such as Iowa will be one that hits from top to bottom or hits so that the hole goes below the waterline. In the first case, the Iskanders are needed, and in the second, Uranus. There are no Iskanders on Kirov ... So far ... But Uranus can be, because they are part of UKKS, and their range is more than two hundred miles.
  14. +2
    23 August 2018 11: 36
    Ships of different eras, and were built for different tasks. Why is this a meaningless comparison? request
  15. +3
    23 August 2018 14: 49
    I'm afraid that the explosion of a high-explosive warhead of 600-700 kg in the armored belt will lead to severe damage to the ship. After all, this explosion will be equivalent to at least ten 16-inch HE shells. Most likely the plates of the armored belt will fly inside the hull, destroying everything around, like armor-piercing shells.
    1. 0
      24 August 2018 06: 16
      Quote: DHO_N1
      Most likely the plates of the armored belt will fly inside the hull, destroying everything around, like armor-piercing shells.
      Granite has a high-explosive cumulative warhead (as usual). She will pierce the armor belt and a significant part of the explosion will act behind the armor.
  16. +2
    23 August 2018 15: 03
    Just repeat my comments from the previous article:
    1) Of the 20 missiles, 4-6 have specials. Warhead. The battleship will simply evaporate along with the surface layer of water. 200 kT on board is not 20 kT for 4 km, as was the famous test.
    2) 1144 has torpedo tubes. If a torpedo is shoved in there, and not a Waterfall, then even without the Granites, Iowa could very well rake in from a distance exceeding the range of its artillery.
    3) Ordinary Granite was made just taking into account the requirements of breaking through the Iowa armor, so it will take the armor - it’s calculated. Here is a proof on how to achieve this:
    1. +2
      23 August 2018 15: 33
      Quote: bk0010

      Both on! I am quoted)))
      To be honest, this is just an amateur study. Much of what is written there as a result of further research has lost relevance. Somehow you need to write an updated version of that article)))
  17. +3
    23 August 2018 21: 58
    I understand everything, but how can you discount the fact that there ALWAYS were missiles with a "special combat unit"? As far as I have heard (I have not seen it myself, I do not argue), such missiles were not even unloaded at parking lots and minor repairs (they were always sealed).
    And the most important thing is that "Peter the Great" has its own helicopters, but "Iowa" does not! tongue ... That is, if this is a "knightly duel" then the TARK with the help of helicopters "sees" the "Iowa", "presents" all the missiles to it and dumps it from its course (Ibi, what for to find out). What will "intercept" the aionva, or even more so that it will "withstand" even without nuclear warheads, God only knows, but the fact that she is "blind and deaf" without aviation "this is a fact of Mis Duke" (c) tongue good
  18. 0
    23 August 2018 22: 01
    A thin-walled egg-shaped object with a filling factor of ≈70%, flying at one and a half sound speeds. A pathetic semblance of 356 mm armor-piercing projectile sample 1911 g.

    Inspired. From a schoolboy's diary: "She is a pitiful excuse for a left hand." wassat
    Probably still had to use shells?
  19. +4
    23 August 2018 22: 07
    Not considered a couple more situations hi Ram / hard bulk / and boarding sparring wassat
  20. +1
    24 August 2018 06: 11
    A hit on the ground and a hit on a metal plate, even if armored, as they say, are two big differences.
  21. +3
    24 August 2018 13: 08
    The article correctly noted. Iowa is armored on an all-or-nothing basis. Her reserve volume is small. The body kit and equipment stick out, just like modern tin ships. Even worse, because there is no room for backup and fire fighting equipment. As a result, Iowa may fail the combat mission after the first hit. Like Kirov. Well, yes, Iowa is more tenacious due to the armor. But Kirov has a much larger buoyancy reserve. Those. here whoever fires first and hits, that and sneakers.
    Therefore, one should pay attention to more important characteristics - air defense and seaworthiness. And with seafaring, battleships traditionally do not matter. The storm for the battleship is definitely bad, because its fighting ability begins to tend to zero. While full-fledged modern warships use the storm as a cover for movement.
    Actually, therefore, they refused from irons. Drowning ships is not required, disrupting the performance of a combat mission is much more important. With the advent of cruise missiles, coastal defense intensified significantly, and offshore, even small ships were able to inflict serious damage on enemy ships. Those. Some Iowa will cross the ocean only in order to get in the face from the first guard, interrupt the combat mission and return back to the base for a long and expensive repair. Well, why do you need a tub, like Iowa, if it really can’t fight or cover, but it’s eating like crazy? If she had at least the best technical class in her class, she could carry a gold reserve on it. And so it is not.
  22. +2
    24 August 2018 13: 35
    Only Kaptsov can carry such nonsense, by order of the Pentagon or the CIA. All of his articles are nonsense. Let even one rocket fall into the conning tower. Who will control the ship? In short nonsense.
  23. 0
    24 August 2018 14: 18
    !!!! what argue that? Read the 1946 reports online !!!
  24. 0
    27 September 2018 02: 23
    I see a possible “spherical in vacuum” collision in this way.
    Option 1: a battleship equipped on the model of 1945. He is doomed. Say, “Granites” will not even be worth it - the “Waterfall” missile torpedoes with the conventional warhead in the form of a 324-400mm torpedo detonating under the bottom of the ship are enough.
    Option 2: Iowa class LC equipped with the 1990 model. Target designation both receive from AWACS aircraft. Here, the missile cruiser should stay away from the Harpoon anti-ship missile coverage area (of which there are 16, a full salvo can become fatal) and shoot the entire ammunition of heavy anti-ship missiles, probably significantly undermining the battleship’s combat effectiveness and depriving it of speed / slowing it down. Next - raise a pair of anti-submarine helicopters and assess the damage. If necessary, “add” torpedoes without entering the Vulkan-Falanks and MANPADS coverage area. And there is always the opportunity at full speed to get away from a wounded, but dangerous and tenacious enemy.

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

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