Soviet battleship K-1000. Do not lie and make fear!

138
"A strong falcon hides claws"

The Union did not boast of what it does not have. Union did not talk about what he has. And this silence, interrupted by a chorus of children's voices singing "May there always be sunshine," made the West numb with horror. Stronger than Hitchcock thrillers.



Soviet battleship K-1000. Do not lie and make fear!


Without any reliable information, Western experts themselves drew "cartoons about the Soviet super-weapon" and then themselves were amazed at their own work. The scientific and industrial potential of the USSR did not allow to doubt: much of what was drawn could turn out to be true.

The material presented below is dedicated to one of these “horror stories” of the Cold War period. Draft rocket-artillery battleship "Sovetskaya Byelorossia", better known under the designation K-1000.



The primary source of information about the K-1000 project is the directory of naval armaments Jane's Fighting Ships (periodically published catalog with orderly information about all the ships of the world). No further evidence of the existence of such a project was found.

Were there similar domestic developments or is it only the fantasies of Western experts? I think it's the last. The "Stalinist" program of building the "big ships" was curtailed, and any conversations on the topic of battleships were stopped immediately after the leader’s death several years before the first ship-based PKR complexes appeared. In other words, the components of the K-1000 project have no connection in time.

According to the author, the version with deliberate misinformation with the "sink" of secret development to the West looks the least realistic. Union was not seen in cheap productions.

The superlinker Sovetskaya Byelorossia was entirely designed overseas.

“Designed” - loudly said. On the basis of American projects of similar designation and taking into account Soviet ideas about the beautiful, a draft of the ship was made with a total displacement of 65-70 thousand tons with a mixed rocket and artillery weapons. Its main dimensions are presented and possible characteristics are derived.

Taking into account the development of technologies of that era, the following was obtained.

It was assumed that the ship would be armed with two rotary launchers with rail guides, whose appearance resembled installations for launching KSSC missiles. Launchers were covered with armored domes. In terms of protection, rocket weapons were not inferior to the artillery turrets of the main caliber.

The main artillery caliber itself was represented by six 406 guns or even 457 mm in two towers - one each, in the bow and stern parts of the battleship.

Auxiliary equipment consisted of 130-mm universal guns, paired and quadruple anti-aircraft installations caliber 45 and 25 mm.

Like the actually existing battleships, the K-1000 vertical armor protection could be in a wide range of 280-470 mm (belt), the total thickness of the horizontal protection (upper and main armor) was estimated as ≈ 250 mm. Differential defense towers GK and launchers of missiles was estimated at 190-410 mm.

Based on the characteristics of the battle cruisers and high-speed battleships of the late period, the ship’s speed could be within 28-33 knots.

Erudites from among Western analysts, predecessors of National Interest, came up with suitable Soviet names for all the representatives of the series: Sovetskaya Byelorossia, Strana Sovetov, Krasnaya Bessarabiya, Krasnaya Sibir ', Sovietskaya Konstitutsia, Lenin and Sovetsky Soyuz.

The construction of missile battleships was supposed to be conducted (now just do not laugh) at the Siberian shipyards.

What was the meaning of these assumptions? Was there any truth in that surrealism?

If we reject ridicule, all elements of the K-1000 project, in one or another interpretation, existed in practice.

In the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 50's. serial construction of heavy cruisers was carried out - in fact, linear cruisers of the “Stalingrad” type (82 Ave.), with a total displacement of 42 thousand tons. At the head of Stalingrad, by the time the construction was suspended, a building and a citadel had already been formed.




The turntable of the Stalingrad Tower used in the construction of antennas of the Pluto complex for remote space communications (Yevpatoria, Crimea)


The design of the domestic 406 and 457 mm caliber artillery systems was carried out throughout the 1930-40x. At the time of the events described, there was sufficient experience and working samples of all the necessary elements of the "Tsar Cannons". From the turntables of the thousand-ton towers to the experimental artillery system B-37 (mm 406), which showed itself in the defense of Leningrad.

The most interesting moment is connected with the battleship missile weapon. In its present form, the launchers resembled the design of the CM-59 for the KSST anti-ship missiles (the Shchuka ship projectile, one name could contusion the enemy).

The KSSC missiles were in service with 13 destroyers of the 56-EM Ave., 56-M and 57-bis. The upgraded destroyers of the 56 Ave., originally designed for artillery and mine-torpedo weapons, received one SM-59 with ammunition from 8 missiles each. The 57-bis project was created immediately as a missile carrier ship. Its armament included two CM-59 installations with ammunition of a dozen anti-ship missiles.



The characteristics of the Pike were not impressive - the range of 40 km firing was complicated by the time-consuming prelaunch preparation associated with filling the CRP with liquid fuel.

But the fact that ships with a tonnage of 4000 tons could produce a volley comparable in strength to a volley of naval artillery battleships caused great optimism.

Just a few years before the KSSC, the specified mass was delivered to the target (the Shchuks 620 kg warhead, of which 300 was directly the mass of explosives) required guns having a barrel weight of 70 tons (excluding the breech, pickup mechanisms and ammunition supply) . It was possible to install such guns only on very large ships.

Comparison of KSSch with large-caliber naval artillery is not entirely correct, because each type of weapon had its own specific features.



Surpassing 13,5, the high-explosive projectile quadrupled in terms of explosives (in this sense, the KSSch combat unit is an analogue of the 500-kg high-explosive aerial bomb), the missile was 2 times lower than the projectiles in speed. Even if the warhead of the Pike were entirely cast from metal, it would still not be able to compete with armor-piercing 343-mm projectiles. Not to mention the more powerful calibers.

The armor-piercing abilities of the KSSH were greatly exaggerated in the era of the “rocket euphoria” that began. Most often mention of shooting at the unfinished citadel of the MCT "Stalingrad" with the formation of holes "In the form of" eight "area 55 square. m »... Well, how did a subsonic rocket inflict such damage if it could not be repeated by large-caliber bombs or armor-piercing projectiles flying at supersonic speeds? Nothing even remotely similar to the whole history sea ​​battles.

No less controversy exists in the description of the KSSH firing at the Nakhimov cruiser. A rocket with an inert warhead pierced the ship through, so that the lower edge of the exit hole (8 sq. M) was in 40 cm under water. This was recorded by the rescue team reaching the “Nakhimov” when the damaged ship had already received 1600 tons of water, received a heel and an increased draft. That is, it turns out that its constructive waterline was not at all where the hole was later discovered! The hole was at the top of the board. Later, after hours, the sinking ship tilted and the bottom edge of the hole touched the water. KSSH did not penetrate any armor, it passed above the waist and the main armored deck. Nobody doubted that the blank at 0,9M speed could penetrate thin bulkheads.

(Link to Articlewhere detailed analysis with schemes and calculations is given.)

Artillery, as a rule, is not capable of hitting a target from the first salvo. However, the reliability of target acquisition and noise immunity of the lamp-based seeker "Pikes" also raise doubts about the ability to get somewhere in the first shot in combat conditions.

The KSSH complex required a long recharge between launches, which in the theory of 10 took minutes, and in practice indefinite. Unlike large-caliber artillery systems, which could immediately give a second salvo, and then another and another.

However, the emergence of self-guided anti-ship assets was perceived by all as a new and emerging threat.

It will take several more years before the next generation of Soviet anti-ship missiles can be guaranteed to surpass large-caliber artillery systems in naval combat by offensive power.

But in the 1950s in the West, they knew only about the KJW. Realizing the potential of new weapons, they expected to see similar installations on all the newest ships of the Soviet Navy. Including the promising battlecruisers.

The fact that the construction of the “big ships” of the Stalin era would be so abruptly stopped and they would never see the sea again was not immediately understood by the Americans. The findings of overseas analysts have not kept pace with the logic of the Soviet leadership.

The K-1000 project was born as the quintessence of the Soviet priorities of the early 50's. Armor and missiles.

The design of the battleship itself is surprised by the absence of anti-aircraft missiles. When all overseas ships of that era were necessarily equipped with air defense systems. How did not provide for the imminent appearance of such funds in the Navy of the USSR?

* * *

If you look at the situation in the most impartial form, then the state in the middle of the 50-s. it was the only type of Soviet shipwhich could represent value for the US Navy. The only adversary that created a threat and would require appreciable efforts and means to fight him.

The Anglo-Saxons, who sank the Bismarck, Musashi and Yamato, learned the lesson and understood what kind of ship it was.

To stop the sea fortress, air armies and squadrons are required. But even the local conflict of the Korean War type was no longer similar to the situation in the Philippine Sea in 1945, where 11 aircraft carriers, which they had thrown into battle with Yamato, were idle.

In order to monitor movements and provide the opportunity to deal with K-1000 in a short time, it would be necessary to divert forces from all theaters, “baring” other directions. What would not fail to take advantage of the enemy. This is the main advantage and strategic importance of "sea fortresses".

Leaving it without attention was an even worse idea. First of all, the ship created threats as a possible carrier of nuclear weapons. He could shoot the nearest base (for example, in Japan), the caliber 406 mm opened up broad prospects for the creation of ammunition with specials. CU.

Unfinished building

Project K-1000 did not appear on an empty place. Back in September, the first proposal for the conversion of an unfinished Hawaii battle cruiser and the Kentucky battleship into missile carriers was sounded in the US 1946.

The first project, bearing the designation Study CB-56A, was associated with the deployment on board of the Hawaii (LKR type "Alaska") twelve ballistic missiles - captured German "V-2". Subsequently, these plans were revised in favor of the Triton supersonic long-range cruise missiles. The rapid evolution of rocket weapons has aged this project even at the stage of sketches. The new proposal was connected with the installation of the Polaris BR mines at the site of the third main-caliber tower, combined with two Talos air defense systems and two Tartar short-range air defense systems. The final proposal was the restructuring of the "Hawaii" in the command ship amphibious forces.



For the Kentucky rocket battleship (of the Iowa type), several rearmament options were also discussed. Among them (1956 year) was supposed to create a strike ship with 16 "Polaris". At the same time, the design of an air defense squadron with 4 long-range Talos launchers (320 missiles) or a 12 short-range anti-aircraft missile system Tartar (missile kit - 504) was studied.

A sharp reduction in the military budget of the Navy led to the collapse of both projects by the end of the 50-s. Successful conversion could be carried out only by ships of a lower rank — heavy cruisers of the Baltimore type and light cruisers of the Cleveland type.


Former Albany artillery cruiser, which became a missile carrier (early 60-x). Towers with eight-inch artillery gave way to 4 anti-aircraft systems "Talos" and "Tartarus" with a total ammunition (84 + 102) missiles

However, the resulting units had a very mediocre relationship to earlier projects of highly protected ships with rocket and artillery weapons.

The combat stability of those cruisers was not provided with anything. Their protection scheme, designed for action in artillery battles, did not respond to any of the threats of the new time. And because of the total overload of their armored belt finally went under water, having lost its value. Antenna posts and massive add-ons “Albany” and “Little Rock” did not receive any protection, and no such goal was set at all. Only their rocket cellars had local anti-splinter protection (30 mm).

* * *

Who can know in advance the direction of technical progress?

The story develops in a spiral. According to another version, it is similar to the oscillations of a pendulum. From the extreme positions - to the center, in search of the legendary "golden mean".

Can we expect the emergence of large and survivable ships that can not be disabled in a short time a limited outfit of strength?

The last of the famous missile battleship projects dates back to 2007. The project, bearing the designation CSW (Capital Surface Warship), was proposed by the department of reforming the Pentagon's armed forces. The ship's total displacement is estimated at 57 thousand tons, and the cost is at 10 billion dollars. Weapons control is subordinated to the proven Aegis system. As for operating costs, they, according to the authors, "Much closer to the cost of operating the Ticonderoga cruiser than to the cost of maintaining the aircraft carrier and its wing".

The assignment is said directly - a scarecrow that can attract too much attention and make the enemy divert significant forces to counter.

Ignore the neolinkor will not work - by the number of missiles on board, it is comparable to the mix of missile destroyers.

How much time and effort it takes to ward off such an attack, no one knows. The uncertainty factor plays a role. The last time to fight with sea fortresses had seven decades ago. And the results of all the battles testified that these were "difficult targets." They kept so many hits from which ships of other classes would have disappeared long ago, littering the seabed with debris.

"They are able to resist any form of aggression, like no other ship in the Navy."


Such combat units are ideal for patrolling in hot spots. CSW is not afraid of any provocations, and it is unlikely to receive significant damage from a sudden attack from several enemy aircraft.

At the same time, the author of the article is convinced that no one has ever conducted an assessment test of modern missiles against such protected targets. And the absolute majority of countries will never be able to create anything that would be able to withstand CSW.

As long as the opportunity remains to launch the Tomahawks with impunity, being hundreds of kilometers from the Syrian coast, there is no need for rocket battleships. But that may change when the fleet meets with an enemy capable of conducting retaliatory naval operations that pose a threat to ships.

Our news channels

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

138 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    25 March 2019 05: 54
    Neo "Monitor" with missiles ... not a bad idea. Only - "no money."
    1. +1
      25 March 2019 06: 16


      Our unfulfilled hope, battleship of project 23 "Soviet Union" ...

      And his weapon, being built in Kramatorsk, is now again occupied.

      1. +1
        25 March 2019 06: 23
        These boxes ceased to be any "hope" exactly at the beginning of the Second World War. If suddenly they were her before.
        1. 0
          25 March 2019 06: 26
          Quote: Kuroneko
          These boxes ceased to be any "hope" exactly at the beginning of the Second World War.

          And just because they weren’t built (I'm trying to soften the aggressive pessimism of your comment).
          1. -4
            25 March 2019 06: 30
            Quote: Separ DNR
            aggressive pessimism

            Well, where Russia and the Russians are, there is always aggression and aggressiveness - what can you do. = _ = '
            But even if they were built, they would not have done much in their puddles. And even more so no one would let them into the ocean.
            1. -2
              25 March 2019 06: 37
              Quote: Kuroneko
              But even if they were built, they would not have done much in their puddles. And even more so no one would let them into the ocean.

              If it had been possible to complete the construction before the start of the Second World War, then nothing (and no one) would have prevented passing through the Bosphorus to the Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet. And there was where to turn around ...
              1. +1
                25 March 2019 07: 00
                Quote: Separ DNR
                If it had been possible to complete the construction before the start of the Second World War, then nothing (and no one) would have prevented passing through the Bosphorus to the Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet. And there was where to turn around ...

                And the Amyrykans would still be piled on!
                I know what it smells like.

                No, the book is good (unlike the second part), but ... fiction it is fiction.

                PS
                then go through the Bosphorus to SF or Pacific Fleet

                By the way, do not tell me, why the hell would Soviet battleships in the Pacific Ocean have forgotten, having a non-aggression pact with Japan and a full-scale continental war with a European country?
                1. +2
                  25 March 2019 07: 32
                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  By the way, do not tell me, why the hell would Soviet battleships in the Pacific Ocean have forgotten, having a non-aggression pact with Japan and a full-scale continental war with a European country?

                  Wait a minute! stop The war did not immediately become World and Patriotic, and Japan's "neutrality" was vividly captured in provocations.
                  1. 0
                    25 March 2019 07: 44
                    Quote: Separ DNR
                    Wait a minute! stop The war did not immediately become World and Patriotic, and Japan's "neutrality" was vividly captured in provocations.

                    Well, she was more than enough with purely land teeth from Khasan and Khalkhin-Gol. After that, they did not even come to us at the most critical moment in the defense of Moscow - when the so-called "Siberian divisions" arrived, exposing the entire Far East (although Germany was trying to persuade the samurai to do so). But they didn’t climb, tk. and those admonitions were enough.
                    So the question remains valid.
                    1. +1
                      25 March 2019 07: 46
                      Quote: Kuroneko
                      they didn’t reach us even at the most critical moment during the defense of Moscow

                      Because they were elementary connected with the war with the USA ...
                      1. 0
                        25 March 2019 07: 56
                        Not therefore, firstly (well, okay - just a reluctance to fill out sheets of text ... if you are not aware of the moods and intentions of the Japanese generals and the Cabinet at that time, then I don’t want to chew on him), and secondly even if - well, suppose - and were connected (which in itself is very ridiculous, since the war with the States only began on December 7, 1941, and the Battle of Moscow on September 30), all the more so - what would the Soviet Union surrender to the battleships Pacific Ocean? Those. question everything remains in force. ^ _ ^
                      2. 0
                        25 March 2019 08: 08
                        Quote: Kuroneko
                        why would the Pacific Ocean surrender to battleships of the USSR? Those. the question is still valid. ^ _ ^

                        On such a "lyad", for which he (the Pacific Ocean and the Far East) is now the Russian Federation and previously needed the USSR.

                        Do not forget that of the 3 TARK built in the USSR, one ("Frunze"), "for some reason uselessly dangled" (based on the direction of your thoughts from the commentary) at the Pacific Fleet ...
                        And in the Second World War, the Pacific Fleet was equipped with the then latest destroyers "sevens", which, however, later, due to the decrease in the threat from Japan, were transferred to the Northern Fleet ...

                        "Secondary theater of operations"? By no means No. ... The Pacific Fleet was reinforced as best they could. Another thing is that resources and time were simply not enough before the Second World War. What I wrote about the battleship Sovetsky Soyuz.

                        I consider your possible subsequent questions on this topic unnecessary and unpromising.

                        Point.
                      3. +4
                        25 March 2019 09: 26
                        Gentlemen, Gray and Kuroneko Chii
                        you argue about anything

                        The Japanese needed oil
                        The nearest oil was only in the Philippines. The seizure of these deposits meant a war with the United States; all events of the beginning of the war in the Pacific are connected with this

                        The attack on the Soviet Far East was not considered in this context.
                      4. -2
                        25 March 2019 09: 42
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Gentlemen, Gray and Kuroneko Chii

                        I don’t know how Kuroneko Chii, but I know that gentlemen Pans in Kiev.
                      5. 0
                        25 March 2019 10: 36
                        In fact, just in Kiev, lackeys are sitting, meow. Well, maximum, with a couple of Gauleiters. = ^ _ ^ =
                      6. -1
                        25 March 2019 10: 38
                        Quote: Kuroneko
                        Actually, it’s just in Kiev that the lackeys are sitting,meow

                        Slaves are jumping, and the gentlemen are sitting profits believe Scatter.
                      7. 0
                        25 March 2019 10: 45
                        Quote: Separ DNR
                        Scatter.

                      8. -1
                        25 March 2019 10: 51
                        Quote: Kuroneko
                        Quote: Separ DNR
                        Scatter.



                        So you are a young lady? belay Then forgive generously love .
                      9. +1
                        25 March 2019 10: 47
                        Yes, that's right, the Japanese need resources, but they aren’t available in the Far East, you won’t even get slaves)) But Sakhalin oil, and so on, doesn’t need to fight for it in the concession.
                      10. +3
                        25 March 2019 12: 00
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        The Japanese needed oil
                        The nearest oil was only in the Philippines.

                        Not in the Philippines, but in the territories of Southeast Asia, controlled by Britain and Holland.
                        But the problem for the Japanese was that it was impossible to fight only with Britain and the Dutch East Indies. Judging by the actions in Europe and the oil embargo, it was clear that Britain and the United States are allies, despite the US declared neutrality. As for the Dutch, in 1941 they openly crossed the "arm" of the United States, breaking off all negotiations with Japan on oil supplies. So in order to get its oil, Japan had to fight the United States too.
              2. 0
                26 March 2019 12: 12
                And what is there to do in the Pacific? Unless due to the ability to help the Americans and the British. There, the scale of action was hundreds of aircraft carriers, battleships and heavy cruisers. But destroyers - and not retell.
            2. +3
              25 March 2019 06: 43
              Quote: Kuroneko
              Well, where Russia and Russian, there is always aggression and aggressiveness - what can you do.

              What Russian aggressiveness is))) what are you talking about))) hahahahaha 90% of Russian men haven’t seen weapons in life, culture of handling weapons is absent, martial arts, fighters and wrestlers are a national sport and a national interest
              you probably confused with Caucasians


              100 weapons

              reminded the joke "they don't even give them machines, only shovels"
              aggression, animals)))
              1. -2
                25 March 2019 07: 02
                Quote: Santa Fe
                national interest

                I’m not a hypocrite, but this, Oleg, is an excess ...
              2. +3
                25 March 2019 07: 02
                And these are aggressive Russian revolutionaries of the XXI century, as Putin aptly put it - "contraceptives", processions of white tape
                funny fools


                This is not Egyptian Tahrir, where Bosko is cut and burned with napalm.


                And not black riots in the suburbs of Paris

                And not even the Maidan "New instructions are being sent to you - and here we have the fires of the uprising"

                They laugh at where Russians are - there is Aggression)))) in Russian culture, in principle, there is no concept of vendetta, vendetta, and so on. Tinch, typical of most other nations, already 100 has no weapons and even no desire to receive them, only combat sofas of aggressors and tomato war
                1. -1
                  25 March 2019 07: 25
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  They made laugh where the Russians are - there is aggression))))

                  Oleg, especially for you - a picture that was meant by my words.

                  If you haven't noticed that the obligatory and as frequent emphasis as possible on the "aggressiveness" of Russia is now a global trend among all the dishes of the "shining City on a hill".
                  PS
                  in Russian culture, in principle, there is no concept of blood feud, vendetta, etc., the tin, characteristic of most other nations

                  And here you are wrong. It was so. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian
                  Blood vengeance

                  True, Yaroslav sanctioned blood feud, but limited the circle of avengers to certain close relatives of the murdered. Art. 1 of the Brief Truth: “To kill the husband of the husband, then to take revenge on the brother of the brother, or the sons of the father, like the father of the son, or brother-brother, like the sister of the son; If anyone does not take revenge, then 40 hryvnia per head. ” Brothers could take revenge for the murder, brother for son, son for father, father for son, nephew for uncle. In other cases, as well as if the avenger was not found, the killer was obliged to pay the virus - a fine for the murder in favor of the prince. In the third quarter of the 2th century, blood feud was legally prohibited by the sons of Yaroslav the Wise (Article XNUMX of the Universe of Truth).
                  1. +8
                    25 March 2019 07: 35
                    Quote: Kuroneko
                    It was so. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russkaya_Pravda

                    11 century what it is about

                    the tradition of revenge exists in other nations to this day
                    the same Corsican vendetta - met everywhere in 19 and even 20 century

                    In traditional Russian clothes there are also no daggers, sabers and any hint of weapons.
                    1. -3
                      25 March 2019 07: 46
                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      in Russian culture, in principle, no concepts of blood feud

                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      11 century what it is about

                      I applaud your ability to change shoes on the fly. ^ _ ^
                2. -1
                  25 March 2019 07: 35
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  And these are the aggressive Russian revolutionaries of the XNUMXst century

                  To write about liberoids as "Russian revolutionaries" is too much. Write better, Oleg, about the ships.
                  1. 0
                    25 March 2019 07: 37
                    And we have no other revolutionaries))))
                    1. 0
                      25 March 2019 07: 44
                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      And we have no other revolutionaries))))


                      But you don’t need your own No. . It is necessary to change a lot in the country, but without rocking the situation.
                      VOSR and the bloody GW that followed, for edification. And only if something like this happened now, at the same moment the "collective West", and not only it, will do what they did not dare to do during the period of devastation in the Civil War ...
                      The existence of Russia as a state of one and indivisible is at stake.

                      No need to joke with this.
                      1. -1
                        25 March 2019 08: 04
                        Quote: Separ DNR
                        There is much to change in the country, but not swaying the situation.

                        Nobody is going to change anything, let everything be and remain as is
                      2. 0
                        25 March 2019 08: 12
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        let everything be and remain as it is

                        Yes, for God's sake ... Master-master.

                        Just keep in mind, then you will not see missile battleships ...
                3. 0
                  26 March 2019 15: 31
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  They laugh at where Russians are - there is Aggression)))) in Russian culture, in principle, there is no concept of vendetta, vendetta, and so on. Tinch, typical of most other nations, already 100 has no weapons and even no desire to receive them, only combat sofas of aggressors and tomato war

                  Well, yes, well, yes, especially if we recall the 17th and subsequent massacres, up to the death of the mustachioed ... And in Chechnya, how many "Samashki" were there ?! Remind me what happened in Samashki? Why lie to ourselves?
              3. +3
                25 March 2019 09: 54
                Unfortunately, that’s right now.
                Gone are the days when in each school there was a class of NVP with a gun room, and even girls disassembled the machine gun for speed, firing from AKM in the 9th-10th grade was mandatory.
                I'm not talking about a shooting range in the basement of each school and shooting competitions between schools for firing from small-caliber weapons.
                In those days, if you didn’t shoot a hundred rounds of 22 caliber in the evening, then it went in vain; by the 8th grade I had a rifle discharge, despite the fact that the school was a township.

                Caucasian "horsemen" in my department had absolutely no shooting training.
                That is, in Soviet times, we were somewhat superior to the United States in general rifle training.

                In the USA, the gunnery is the lot of enthusiasts (in the sense that there is no compulsory educational system of military training). Most of the population did not hold weapons in their hands and did not know how to handle them.
                But the mass of other enthusiasts, completely compensates for the peace of others.
                A huge number of shooting clubs in the United States, shooting galleries, shooting associations and shooting competitions in various forms - the cheapness of weapons and ammunition, this can only be envied.
                Weapons cult, promoted in shows such as Best shooter, American weapons and many others.
                By the way, the number of trunks, per unit of population, does not mean how prepared the population is - someone keeps one short barrel, someone collectors with a hundred trunks, but this is orders of magnitude more than now in the Russian Federation, since they have passed the USSR / RF army and are able to handle combat weapons, there is less and less, compared with nerds, nothing but counter-strike games that do not know how.
              4. -2
                25 March 2019 10: 11
                Quote: Santa Fe
                fighters and wrestlers - national sport and national interest

                The nationalities are just cheaters. They manipulate with age and so win, and then it seems that there are many of them.
          2. +1
            25 March 2019 15: 19
            Quote: Separ DNR
            Quote: Kuroneko
            These boxes ceased to be any "hope" exactly at the beginning of the Second World War.

            And just because they weren’t built (I'm trying to soften the aggressive pessimism of your comment).


            Even if these battleships were completed, then under the dominance of German aviation, these battleships would at best be damaged or hijacked as far as possible from German aviation, and in the worst case, German aviation and submarines on the Black Sea would these battleships are a real hunt and it is not known whether these battleships could be preserved. Having built these battleships, the USSR would have built fewer tanks, planes and cannons and who knows how the fate of the USSR would have developed in the 1941-1942's.
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 11: 03
              That's right. One battleship is a couple of tank armies from boots to, in fact, tanks.
        2. 0
          26 March 2019 08: 50
          The guns even managed to undermine. And that is a fact. Learn the story.
      2. +1
        26 March 2019 10: 59
        The 406 mm gun is not entirely true. It has been located on the Rzhevsky training ground near St. Petersburg from the 30s to the present day. Entered into the system art. defense of Leningrad in the Second World War and even made several dozen shots. It was possible and more, there were simply no shells.
  2. +3
    25 March 2019 06: 19
    Oh, Oleg's favorite horse is "armored vehicles". It has been a long time. Already nostalgia for the soul takes.
  3. +3
    25 March 2019 07: 07
    Oleg, you forgot one important thing ... The tests of nuclear weapons showed that even if the corps withstands the effects of a nuclear explosion, there are no people. Measurements of the induced radiation showed this very well, but without a crew these drifts, alas, are unnecessary.
    PS The difference from the anti-nuclear defense of tanks is that they pass through the area where the explosion was made, and are not there at the time of the explosion.
    1. +3
      25 March 2019 07: 16
      Measurements of induced radiation showed this very well, and without a crew these gaps,


      On the deck of the target cruiser Pensacola, a few days after the nuclear explosion
      The radiation danger is indicated by the clothing of those present)))

      If even the sailors receive a dose and subsequently die from leukemia, they will have time to complete the task in this combat campaign. Or are you going to live long in the world nuclear war?)))


      Crossroads tests have just shown that a nuclear explosion is not terrible for ships, details in the series of articles "ships and nuclear explosions"

      The results of nuclear tests on the Bikini Atoll were exaggerated in order to preserve the entourage of nuclear weapons as a non-explosive weapon. In fact, the newest super-weapon turned out to be a “paper tiger”. The total number of 5 from 77 of ships hit by the attack was the victims of the first explosion of “Able” - only those who were in close proximity to the epicenter (less than 500 meters).

      It should be noted that the tests were conducted in a shallow lagoon. In the open sea, the base wave height would be less, and the destructive effect of an explosion would be even weaker (by analogy with tsunami waves, which are almost imperceptible far from the coast).

      Also played a role in the crowded location of the ships at the anchorage. In reality, when traveling in an anti-nuclear order (when the distance between the ships is at least 1000 meters), even a direct hit by a bomb or a missile with a YABCh in one of the ships would not have been able to stop the squadron.

      1. +2
        25 March 2019 10: 18
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Also played a role in the crowded location of the ships at the anchorage. In reality, when traveling in an anti-nuclear order (when the distance between the ships is at least 1000 meters), even a direct hit by a bomb or a missile with a YABCh in one of the ships would not have been able to stop the squadron.


        You describe the elementary things that are characteristic of a surface nuclear explosion.
        It should be noted that although not all the ships in the epicenter of the explosion sank, but the burst of gamma and neutron radiation in a radius of 1000 m was very high, the crews on decks died instantly, staying in the hull within 3-5 days.

        Then already describe the second test of Crossroads (Baker object) - underwater, when a number of ships could not deactivate.
        As a result of the tests, there was a radioactive infection of all the ships used as targets in the Baker underwater explosion. This was the first time that there was an immediate concentrated local radioactive contamination as a result of a nuclear explosion.
        The third planned explosion, Charlie, scheduled for 1947, was canceled due to the fact that the US Navy could not deactivate ships after the Baker test.

        In a combat situation, crews caught in the epicenter and affected by underwater or shallow depth of explosion factors will receive lethal doses of radiation within 3-7 days.
        1. +1
          26 March 2019 02: 22
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          , crews in the epicenter

          It is incredible to think that they are doomed
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          due to the fact that the US Navy could not deactivate ships after the Baker test

          Why carry out decontamination of ships that are designed for further nuclear tests ??
          the burst of gamma and neutron radiation in the radius of 1000 m was very high, the crews on the decks died instantly, being in the hull - during 3-5 days.

          during tests on at. Bikini direct victims of a nuclear explosion was a third of experimental animals. 25% died from the impact of the shock wave and light radiation (obviously, were on the upper deck), about 10% died later, from radiation sickness.

          Test statistics on Novaya Zemlya shows the following.

          There were 500 goats and sheep on the decks and compartments of the target ships. Of those who were not instantly killed by an outbreak and shock wave, a severe form of radiation sickness was noted in just twelve of them.

          It follows from this that the main damaging factors in a nuclear explosion are light radiation and a shock wave. Radiation, although it poses a threat to life and health, is not capable of causing rapid mass death of crew members.
          1. 0
            26 March 2019 10: 23
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Why carry out decontamination of ships that are designed for further nuclear tests ??


            Well, here decontamination is a big term, in fact, it is a flush from the deck with a stream of seawater :) - Alexey RA posted the correct photo from "Prince Eugen".
            And decontamination is necessary in order to correctly measure the level of primary exposure of structures and animals. And if the ship is not deactivated, then the secondary exposure will give a large measurement error - not to mention the strong re-exposure of specialists.

            Quote: Santa Fe
            It follows from this that the main damaging factors in a nuclear explosion are light radiation and a shock wave. Radiation, although it poses a threat to life and health, is not capable of causing rapid mass death of crew members.


            Perhaps you are right that I swung at the factors for the later - neutron weapons.
            But you, Oleg, are operating with data of more than half a century ago for a particular tactical case (attack of the fleet at the anchorage by strategic weapons) and accepting them as initial data for developing the concept of the future ship and its tactics, while the next one as part of the warrant will be used tactical weapons with completely different accuracy and equipment.
            You have chosen an erroneous argument.

            The concept of a protected ship is outdated and useless, since tactical means of destruction can deliver warheads exactly to the target, and special warheads with an accuracy of tens of meters that will leave no chance of constructive integrity of the ship, unless it stands ashore and filled with a half-meter layer of concrete. A torpedo with special warheads during a deep-sea explosion in lateral projection will break the hull of a large vessel and from 200-500 m, or overturn. The wake also has little chance of surviving a ship of this size.

            The issue of distance from the epicenter.
            In the Able test, the bomb missed the predicted epicenter by 500 m, which explains the small number of sunken ships.
            Oleg - you know, modern tactical weapons have much greater accuracy than a bomb dropped by parachute from the B-29.
            In modern conditions, it is unlikely that the fleet will defend in the Navy during the escalation of the conflict (which does not save the Navy from the status of priority goals).

            As for tactical weapons:
            For a neutron charge of 1 kt (high-altitude explosion) - all those who are not sheltered in rooms of 500 m will die instantly (death under a ray), all those who are not sheltered in rooms will die within a radius of 1000 m within a week. Sheltered crew will receive radiation sickness to a mild degree.
            Metal hulls will receive strong induced radioactivity (cannot be decontaminated), which will slowly kill the crew (a mild form of radiation sickness, will gradually turn into medium), but if some rules are observed, they will survive within a month.
            Several cases of direct over-irradiation with gamma-ray bursts are also known, but with subsequent intensive treatment (bone marrow transplant), the victims could live for a very long time on hematopoietic drugs.
            Even with the appearance of "nuclear sunburn" and vomiting, the crew will be able to carry out their duties for some time, despite weakness and bloody diarrhea, it all depends on motivation.

            A 10 kt special charge can be delivered to a priority target with a very high probability of destruction, with an accuracy of tens of meters - it does not matter how much armor will or will not be on the main target.
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 22: 34
              decontamination is necessary in order to correctly measure the level of primary exposure of structures and animals. And if the ship is not deactivated, then secondary exposure will give greater error in measurements

              Judging by similar tests on New Earth, these are artificial problems.

              Rattling and so forth. They hollowed several times, without being bothered by decontamination. The fact that all these ships still stand there, in the shallows, without having noticeable damage, still speaks of the resistance of the ships to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons

              Increasing the power of the charges will not give much, the blast wave weakens in a cube from the distance. You can sink one ship, but the rest of the squadron will continue to perform the task
      2. 0
        25 March 2019 11: 56
        An electromagnetic pulse will burn the electronics of the squadron ships.
      3. +4
        25 March 2019 12: 13
        Quote: Santa Fe
        On the deck of the target cruiser Pensacola, a few days after the nuclear explosion
        The radiation danger is indicated by the clothing of those present)))

        The clothes of those present are not indicative of anything. For example, here's what happened on the deck of the Prince Eugen after the Baker test:

        Everything seems to be fine ... only after this decontamination, the "Prince Eugen" was declared unsuitable for testing even as an unmanned target ship - due to the excessively high level of radiation.
        These are the first 15 years of the atomic era, then you didn’t bother with radiation safety issues - work until you fall.
        1. 0
          26 March 2019 02: 16
          Quote: Alexey RA
          after this decontamination, "Prince Eugen" was declared unsuitable for testing even as an unmanned target ship

          On this account there is other information:

          The Americans towed “Prince Eugen” to the Kwajalein Atoll for the purpose of further use as a target during nuclear tests. Finally, five months later, December 21 bilge pumps stopped and the last of the German heavy cruisers was bent on the reefs of the atoll Kwajalein.

          What does the phrase “bilge pumps stop” mean? For their work requires electricity, which means - the presence of people in the engine room. How does this fit in with the words about “impossibility of decontamination”?

          Why do they deactivate a ship that is intended for further nuclear tests?

          The logical explanation may be the following. The wounds of the old “Prince” were insignificant and did not pose any danger to the ship. Its complete decontamination was not carried out, due to the absence of any meaning in this. The trophy German cruiser was towed to Kwajalein and left without any supervision, where its body slowly, for several months, was filled with water until it overturned and sank.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          These are the first 15 years of the atomic era, then you didn’t bother with radiation safety issues - work until you fall.

          QED
          Squadron will perform the task
          1. 0
            26 March 2019 11: 43
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The Americans towed “Prince Eugen” to the Kwajalein Atoll for the purpose of further use as a target in nuclear tests. Finally, five months later, on December 21, water pumps stopped and the last of the German heavy cruisers bent on the reefs of Kwajalein Atoll.

            What does the phrase “bilge pumps stop” mean? For their work requires electricity, which means - the presence of people in the engine room. How does this fit in with the words about “impossibility of decontamination”?

            Good question - because the descriptions of Operation Crossroads say that after the test of the Baker there was no permanent crew aboard the Eugen.
            According to the results of the decontamination of the ship, the radiation level was recognized so high that it was not only a permanent team on board, but it was decided not to send repairmen to eliminate the leaks. Pumps for some time coped with the incoming water, and then stood up. The ICC, instead of sending repairmen to restore the functioning of the pumps, the Yankees tried to tow the SRT aground. To no avail.
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Why do they deactivate a ship that is intended for further nuclear tests?

            They tried to decontaminate "Prince Eugen" in order to carry out at least minimal repairs and eliminate leaks. Because the Yankees needed target ships for the next test, the Charlie. But this test did not take place - precisely because the technical services of the test site, instead of preparing it, spent a lot of time on the decontamination of the ships, which as a result was unsuccessful. And the Yankees didn't have enough "clean" targets.
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 22: 23
              He was first towed to Kwajalein, where he was left to wait for the next test.

              When after a couple of months he began to dangerously roll and sink from small holes (with such a slow flow of water - these were just rivets that had flown out), they tried to turn them to the ground at the last moment but it was too late

              In any case, all this fuss with Eugen and other targets confirms that the ships with honor suffered close nuclear explosions. And no deadly radiation capable of destroying the crew in a matter of days is a myth and nothing like that has been observed.

              Subsequent tests of this scale with the participation of 70 ships were not conducted, because it was enough a couple of times. Re-demonstrate the powerlessness of miracle weapons did not make sense
      4. 0
        26 March 2019 02: 29
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The radiation danger is indicated by the clothing of those present)))
        fool The clothes of those present speaks only of the correct assessment of this danger! Most of the deactivators got serious problems, which the US government decided not to solve - there were no "liquidators" there.
  4. 0
    25 March 2019 07: 13


    It has always been interesting: how can IT explode, destroying the grate and double bottom?
    1. +3
      25 March 2019 07: 21
      What is this?

      destroy double bottom? With that amount of water entering, a couple of fragmentation holes were sufficient.
      1. 0
        25 March 2019 07: 36
        Turbojet engine AM-5. How can he destroy the grate with an explosion? and then the double bottom request
        1. +1
          25 March 2019 07: 39
          Tank and fuel fittings, blades collapsing turbine
          1. 0
            25 March 2019 08: 18
            Are you seriously ? fifty liters of fuel and engine blades? Grids and the bottom of the foil or what?
            the ship's blank probably broke through
            1. +3
              25 March 2019 08: 27
              Quote: Tlauicol
              fifty liters of fuel and engine blades?

              Ivan, it's hard to argue without numbers or less close analogies
              How much fuel is the KSSH?
              how the boiler Nakhimov

              such a moment - an explosion of benz / kerosene vapor, a half-empty tank is more explosive than a full tank
              1. 0
                25 March 2019 08: 37
                they hit on tank tanks - there are tens of grams of fuel and gasoline fuel cells, with 20-25% of fuel in the tank
                1. +2
                  25 March 2019 09: 36
                  Tank example unfit
                  Combustion in a closed volume, + fire measures, pressurized exhaust gases. Low, self-extinguishing rarely possible

                  car's gas tank explosion, on 1: 55
                  TE tens of grams?
                  1. 0
                    25 March 2019 11: 03
                    Tens of grams at best - even the glass did not fly out.
                    you can see the turbojet explosions - neither the plane, nor the cruiser’s bottom, nor the grate will break there
                    1. 0
                      26 March 2019 02: 11
                      1. Glasses flew out
                      2. Nexia fuel tank - not KSSH
                      1. 0
                        26 March 2019 04: 44
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        1. Glasses flew out
                        2. Nexia fuel tank - not KSSH

                        Where in the car? good
                        Launch range 68km, maximum 100. 220kg kerosene, 70 left - this is 90l at best. TE like RGD-5
                      2. 0
                        26 March 2019 05: 57
                        I thought you about the glass in the house
                        The grenade has no heavy shards
  5. 0
    25 March 2019 08: 54
    Kaptsov disguises himself. Previously, from the first lines of the apologetics of battleships, his style was visible, and you could not read further.
  6. +3
    25 March 2019 09: 04
    Interesting article. Although, in my opinion, to live like a ship without air defense cover is accurate until the time when aircraft carriers pay attention to it. And even the USSR could not afford to build a large and expensive disposable ship.
    Nevertheless, the construction of the battleship implied its repeated use in the interests of the country.
    So - the hypothesis is interesting, but nothing more.
    1. -1
      25 March 2019 14: 59
      Quote: Corsair0304
      Although, in my opinion, to live like a ship without air defense cover

      And without PLO, so in general these monsters became half-racial.
    2. +1
      25 March 2019 18: 22
      Although, in my opinion, to live like a ship without air defense cover is very good until the time when aircraft carriers pay attention to it


      And how to live aircraft carrier without air defense and air defense?
      1. 0
        26 March 2019 02: 22
        Quote: Olezhek
        And how to live aircraft carrier without air defense and air defense?
        1-2 rockets to the deck and it’s just like a ram scary, you can leave it for later.
  7. +1
    25 March 2019 09: 17
    HOORAY!!!!!!! He is back! With new powers burn napalm for armor! I can only welcome this! More battleships, god of battleships!
  8. 0
    25 March 2019 10: 08
    Ahhhhh! I want to go to a parallel universe. Look at these beauties embodied in metal! The sight should be monstrous. I understand Oleg’s love for these beauties of a bygone era. I share.
    1. 0
      26 March 2019 02: 17
      Quote: garri-lin
      Look at these beauties embodied in metal! The sight should be monstrous.
      Sworn friends have as museums: Missouri, New Jersey, Iowa ... whereby they contain such that advertising stands are thrown out, load ammunition and coal, recruit a team and go into battle.
      1. 0
        26 March 2019 09: 41
        I know. It's a shame that the Union did not do the same. Pennants with a military history were enough, but few museums. At the same time, we can save ships, one Kruzershtern is worth what. But Aurora is already a copy of the copy.
        1. 0
          26 March 2019 12: 21
          Quote: garri-lin
          But Aurora is already a copy of the copy.
          Here, there is no need for tears: after an epoch-making shot, they did not preserve it / turned it into a museum, but it continued its military career. And in the Second World War, it was not just idle - the guns were used to the fullest.
          And they remember only a blank shot.
          Well, visitors need to be allowed to screw something quietly (they will screw it anyway, but let it not be a rarity).
          1. 0
            26 March 2019 16: 26
            Well, Aurora is a special case, a symbol, he is a symbol. In the Union, in addition to the Aurora, there were a lot of ships worthy of becoming museums. "Landing cruiser" in the Crimea would be relevant. And the story is heroic and looked militant.
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 17: 12
              Quote: garri-lin
              "Landing cruiser" in Кeye would be relevant.
              Hardly. Can you imagine what would happen to him?
              1. 0
                26 March 2019 17: 19
                During the occupation by the fraternal Slavic people? 50/50 that scrap. But maybe he would have survived.
                1. 0
                  26 March 2019 18: 32
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  50/50 that scrap.
                  50 - scrap, 50 -? ... rust ...
  9. -1
    25 March 2019 11: 15
    Imagine if Kaptsov turned out to be the main thing in the USSR, they would have built battleships!
  10. 0
    25 March 2019 12: 15
    For those who doubt the ability of a cruise missile with an inert equivalent to the warhead to sink or disfigure a ship such as a light cruiser or destroyer beyond recognition:
    - target ships before firing carefully converted and removed from them everything that could burn;
    - the missiles were often reconfigured a little before firing so that they hit the center of a radar or thermal target (without the obligatory belittling to hit the waterline); this was done so as not to drown the target at once and other "arrows" could shoot at it;
    - even if the rocket fell above the waterline, then due to its large kinetic energy (several tons at supersonic or transonic speed), it tore off the devices and mechanisms of the target ship from the foundations or deformed them so that the casing diverged below the waterline; the superstructures were simply demolished, - the destroyer of the 56th project saw the missile tossing all the superstructures from bow to stern; and this is without a high-explosive cumulative warhead, the cumulative jet of which is focused forward and downward;
    - very much parts of the target ships after rocket firing could not be pulled to the base, and they were drowning, which greatly upset the fleet rear management responsible for their preparation (in the era of active combat training, targets were in short supply).
    1. 0
      26 March 2019 02: 50
      Quote: Yuri Malyshko
      For those who doubt the ability of a cruise missile with an inert equivalent to the warhead to sink or disfigure a ship such as a light cruiser or destroyer beyond recognition:
      As I understand it, the author of the idea that the RCC will crash like this plane:

      And the shell will break the aircraft carrier in half.
      1. 0
        26 March 2019 03: 31
        KSSH will leave even smaller dent
        In the bow there is no 600 kg steel blanks (motor)
        1. 0
          26 March 2019 07: 59
          Quote: Santa Fe
          In the bow there is no 600 kg steel blanks (motor)
          Simulator CU of balsa?
          1. 0
            26 March 2019 08: 08
            Quote: Simargl
            Simulator CU of balsa?

            From sand
  11. +1
    25 March 2019 12: 17
    Were there similar domestic developments or is it purely a fantasy of Western experts? I think, after all, the last. The "Stalinist" program for the construction of "big ships" was curtailed, and any talk about the battleships was stopped immediately after the death of the leader a few years before the appearance of the first ship-based anti-ship missile systems.

    In "Gangut" there was a publication on the early Soviet development of missile ships. Serially under construction projects were considered as base ships for conversion into missile ones, including projects 68 and so on. 82. So the USSR definitely did not have a missile LK, but a missile LKR was considered as an option.
  12. Alf
    0
    25 March 2019 15: 50
    K-1000 .. What only with a hangover does not occur ...
  13. 0
    25 March 2019 19: 15
    The meaning of the article? - the author cited the "duck" invented by Jane's - he himself made fun of it - and began, in all seriousness, to argue that in the USSR they could build something like that, well, they could, only they did not descend to such idiocy.
  14. 0
    26 March 2019 00: 17
    The Union did not boast of what it does not have. Union did not talk about what he has. And this silence, interrupted by a chorus of children's voices singing "May there always be sunshine," made the West numb with horror. Stronger than Hitchcock thrillers.

    good good good hi
  15. 0
    26 March 2019 01: 53
    Surpassing 13,5, the high-explosive projectile quadrupled in terms of explosives (in this sense, the KSSch combat unit is an analogue of the 500-kg high-explosive aerial bomb), the missile was 2 times lower than the projectiles in speed. Even if the warhead of the Pike were entirely cast from metal, it would still not be able to compete with armor-piercing 343-mm projectiles. Not to mention the more powerful calibers.
    Well, like BE ... KSSh and weighed 3 times more, and the hit ratio was higher (how much marine artillery is there? 5% under ideal conditions?), And the range is higher.
    The artillery died not because it ceased to penetrate armor, but because it could not compete in accuracy or range, with missiles. And rockets, moreover, did not need monstrous carriers.
    With the mass of the "Soviet Union" projectile at 1100 kg and the probability of hitting the target of 5% (or rather less than 3%), at least two salvoes (3 towers of 3 guns each) must be fired to hit the enemy ship, the same for Stalingrad.

    The armor-piercing abilities of the KSSh are greatly exaggerated in the era of the “missile euphoria” that began. Most often mention the firing on the unfinished citadel of the KRT "Stalingrad" with the formation of a hole "in the form of" eight "with an area of ​​55 square meters. m "... Well, how did a subsonic missile inflict such damage if neither large-caliber bombs nor armor-piercing shells flying at supersonic speeds could repeat it? Nothing even remotely similar in the history of naval battles.
    I modestly ask: how many shells weighing 3 tons were fired in the history of naval battles?

    Artillery, as a rule, is not capable of hitting a target from the first salvo. However, the reliability of target acquisition and noise immunity of the lamp-based seeker "Pikes" also raise doubts about the ability to get somewhere in the first shot in combat conditions.
    Usually - this is a few sighting shots, and then volleys. At least 30 shells are usually spent on a hit - this is 3-4 volleys.
    Let KSSh has a probability of hitting 20% ​​- this is at least 4 times more than a projectile.
    It should be borne in mind that the ships and the rocket maneuver (the ships - dodge, confuse the track, and the missile is homing), and the shells fly 20-30 seconds, but without correction.
    We will not talk about missile defense and electronic warfare - then this was bad.
    Well, the distance of opening fire - it is better than armor will protect against shells.

    The CSW is not afraid of any provocation, and it is unlikely to receive significant damage from a surprise attack from several enemy aircraft.
    And torpedoes and ground mines?
    And the vast majority of countries will never be able to create anything that would be able to withstand CSW.
    Belarus, Mongolia, Côte d'Ivoire ... I’ll tell you a secret: the vast majority of countries and now can not oppose the destroyer.

    But everything can change when the fleet meets an enemy capable of conducting retaliatory naval operations that pose a threat to ships.
    And who needs it - they will come up with special warheads ... oh! Already! tongue
    1. +1
      26 March 2019 03: 28
      Modestly interested in: how many shells weighing in 3 tons were released in the history of naval battles

      A lot of

      And that's what happened when meeting with 100 mm bronelist
      https://pikabu.ru/story/udar_kamikadze_po_hms_sussex_3734436
      1. 0
        26 March 2019 07: 57
        Quote: Santa Fe
        And that's what happened when meeting with 100 mm bronelist
        And the speed is 250 m / s?
        Or 300 km / h?
        1. 0
          26 March 2019 08: 07
          500-600 km / h
          1. +1
            26 March 2019 08: 39
            Quote: Santa Fe
            500-600 km / h
            This is a joke? The Ki-51's wings will fall off at that speed.
            The blow in the photo was almost normal, which means that the speed was 250-300 km / h - maximum.
            And if we assume that he came in from a maneuver - even less so.
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 10: 58
              Less, he flopped into the water before the blow.
              Oleg has today an explosion of a luminous kerosene tank, a double bottom breaks through with grates, so go get it
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. 0
                  26 March 2019 14: 35
                  Well, the sukiyak is only a proportional destroyer. No reservation.
                  Although the warhead there would be enough for a battlecruiser
                  1. 0
                    26 March 2019 16: 57
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Well, the sukiyak is only a proportional destroyer
                    No, not like that: on the wiki, these are a few examples. She could destroy the destroyer (they overlooked the fuse, I think), but if it exploded inside, it tore it up like a Tuzik heating pad.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. 0
    26 March 2019 13: 03
    The beginning of the article is "fire"! The test is unambiguous! Copied for memory.
  18. +1
    26 March 2019 14: 35
    According to the ratio - "The number of nested bucks - return" battleships can safely count! And any - and oldies of the time of the 1st world and modern paper megaprojects - Rocket battleships !!!
    In the 1st half of the 20th century, the Dreadnought Race owned the minds of admirals all over the world - it was the largest military project of the pre-nuclear era !!! But the very course of World War II showed that the General Staffs around the world as usual - were preparing for the last war !!! Some like Marshals Budyonny and Voroshilov defended and promoted cavalry !!! And admirals promoted battleships - because gigantomania is characteristic of people in all eras - and especially in the era of the 2-20s of the 40th century !!! Do I have to mention the giants in the sky (Zeppelin, Maxim Gorky, K-20), the giants on the tracks - (Mouse, T-7), the giants on the sea (Titanic, British, Normandy, Tirpitz, Hood ...) ??? The stories of giants (land, sea, air) are stories of mistakes and defeats !!! Errors of strategic planning, design and financial stupidity, as well as unsuccessful application - in battle and in the peaceful field.
    Battleships, being in the pre-war period the pride of the nation and a living symbol of the power of the state - after the 2nd World War they became just targets for missile tests - or at best, floating artillery support batteries or floating rocket platforms !!! And note - this happened simultaneously and around the world !!! That is, even for the most impenetrable admiral and ministerial brain, it dawned that battleships as a class of warships were hopelessly outdated in the 2nd half of the 20th century !!!
    1. 0
      26 March 2019 14: 41
      Moreover, according to such ever-relevant design indicators such as "Vitality in battle", "Stealth", "Maintainability", "Maneuverability", "Versatility" - all types of battleships from all historical periods can be put on solid colas !!!
      1. -1
        26 March 2019 20: 36
        For survivability in combat and maintainability - immediately negative

        The maneuverability of the battleship was higher than that of the destroyer and higher than that of any of the existing ships in our war.
        1. 0
          28 March 2019 10: 30
          The maneuverability of the battleship was higher than that of the destroyer

          Are you serious ??? Can we compare the turning radius of a destroyer and a battleship ??? I see you have some of my laws of physics !!!
          1. 0
            28 March 2019 10: 55
            Dreadnought class ships were needed by the Sea Powers with one global goal - to control vast colonies overseas !!! And then in a specific historical period. England, France, the USA, Germany and other advanced countries were competitors on the seas and were going to fight in the seas for the redistribution of spheres of influence !!!
            Russia, however, has always been a specific country - the Land of Power, and has grown with lands exclusively neighboring and bordering !!! Therefore, Russia's powerful ocean fleet is always secondary, important but not vital, such as a powerful ground army !!! Stupid Tsar Nikolai the 2nd did not understand this and gave his country to be drawn into the world Dreadnought race.. And in the end it turned out that by the beginning of the 1st World War - Russia swelled up enormous funds for the construction of huge battleships and the infantry lacked rifles, did not have enough machine guns, for every 3 volleys of German artillery, the Russian answered only one !!! Conclusion - World War I is an example of global mediocre planning of the country's top leadership and the 1 revolution is a natural finish and result for tsarist Russia !!!
            It was still necessary to manage - a country with huge industrial, human, scientific and resource potential was so ineptly squandered !!!
            Is it worth it to step on the old rake at the next round of history ??? ???
    2. 0
      27 March 2019 00: 47
      It must be remembered that Soviet TNF torpedoes and anti-ship missiles in TNT equivalent have more than one hundred kilotons ...
  19. 0
    26 March 2019 18: 11
    At Stalingrad, the ballistic missile variant hit.
  20. 0
    26 March 2019 19: 29
    hmm ... the author is immediately clear. as always, a hymn to armor, an ode to battleships .... interesting, but ambiguous ... and by the way, yes, about the protection of armored objects from modern anti-ship missiles .... it's not a boom to take hypersonic toys (available to few). take the usual "Brahmos", fasten 400kg armor-piercing warhead and send it at a speed of 2,8 M to the "Newlingor". Attention question?! - what is the thickness of the armor (from all sides, not only the side armor belt, as in the old days from guns) is necessary to protect against 400kg of armor-piercing projectile (+ weight the rocket itself + the remnants of fuel (like a fire on a target) that arrived at a speed of about 900 m / s .... from any direction ... from afar .... and how quickly will this new Yamato bend?
    1. 0
      26 March 2019 20: 34
      take the usual "Brahmos"

      Brahmos - Ordinary ???

      in service with one single country

      Not having air basing

      And whose carriers can literally be counted on the fingers

      Usual...
      Conventional is Exocset for 33 countries of the world, and Harpoon is for the rest of 40 who have a fleet
      1. 0
        26 March 2019 20: 41
        yes, conventional. having air-based (BrahMos-A modification) .on the armament of one country, well, yes, one, is far from a leader in the development of armaments. It will be necessary, and others will acquire similar smart 400-kg armor-piercing .... to which no battleship with reasonable reservation can not oppose ANYTHING. But Exoset and Harpoon is from poverty, stupidity and lack of sovereignty .... basically.
        1. 0
          26 March 2019 23: 17
          Quote: sds127
          modification BrahMos-A

          This is still an unrealized advertising layout that is at lunchtime 20
          Quote: sds127
          It will be necessary, and others will acquire such smart 400-kg armor-fighting

          Where will they run them from? With Baikonur?
          Quote: sds127
          Exocet and Harpoon is from poverty

          USA, Japan, Europe?

          The construction of a series of highly protected ships will devalue all the world arsenals of anti-ship missiles. a couple of planes will not do anything

          It will be necessary to build in response new series of ships with launchers for 5-ton rockets
          Or prepare new complex attack schemes - with mass use of anti-ship missiles, under cover of interference, PI, with the need to connect dozens of tankers and covering forces. This can be implemented in practice, only the only enemy - US aircraft. And again - this is the time that decides everything.
      2. 0
        26 March 2019 20: 46
        Oleg, do not turn on the fool, you do not suit))) brahmos is not only common but also outdated .... already (like its "parent" - "Yakhont \ Onyx" (late 70s development). These technologies have long been available to many ... if necessary suddenly. No battleships, it is not necessary.
        1. 0
          26 March 2019 23: 17
          Quote: sds127
          "parent" - "Yakhont \ Onyx"

          What's this
          We decided to shoot at the Russian ships Russian missiles ??
          1. 0
            26 March 2019 23: 26
            me ?! - no. but in history this is all too often (for example, lcr "Congo", English poystroki, fought well with the creators)
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 23: 32
              Onyxes are not in service with any country other than the Russian Navy
              1. 0
                26 March 2019 23: 35
                what are you saying .... P-800 "Onyx" (Navy URAV Index - 3M55, export name - "Yakhont" .... Google to help. you are wrong.
                1. 0
                  27 March 2019 00: 04
                  I just looked and was surprised)))
                  Indonesians installed Yakhonts on five (?) Frigates of 1960-s built, even in a couple of countries - single ground complexes, without ship-based

                  Onyx / Yakhont was not delivered abroad in any appreciable quantities, and the countries of the West cannot even imagine such missiles in theory

                  So then shoot Russian Onyx on the Russian ships a chance will not be presented
    2. +1
      28 March 2019 11: 05
      Quote: sds127
      -what is the thickness of the armor (from all sides, not only the side armor belt, as in the old days from guns) is necessary to protect against 400 kg of an armor-piercing projectile (+ the weight of the rocket itself + fuel remnants (like a fire on a target) that arrived at a speed of about 900 m / s. ... from any direction ... from afar ... and how quickly will this new Yamato bend?

      The fact is that - in order to incapacitate any large warship, it is not necessary to pierce its board !!! It is enough to damage him at which he will cease to be able to carry out his task - for example, to damage a very complex ship control system or disrupt the communication system.
      And at one point, the strategic marine giant could become a strategic burden for its own warrant !!! Therefore, this can lead to the disruption of the entire operation !!!
      No need to sink huge missile cruisers and missile battleships - you just need to fire them with a large number of missiles - and we'll see how they can fight after that !!!
  21. 0
    26 March 2019 23: 32
    Quote: Santa Fe
    USA, Japan, Europe?

    "And Exocet and Harpoon is from poverty, stupidity and lack of sovereignty .... mostly." (C) I
    Oleg, do not pull out of context. USA, from stupidity ... or cut the dough (but if it suddenly becomes necessary, they will find something to add a half-ton (minimum) armor to and send it at a speed of 1000-1200 m / s ... highly accurate))) IMHO .... Europe - heterogeneous - who is a rogue and who is without sovereignty. Japan is definitely without sovereignty.
    1. 0
      26 March 2019 23: 49
      Japan creates its own weapons Type 90, Type 12, Type 17
      Swedish RBS, Norwegian NSM

      The bottom line is that the layout and weight and dimensions and capabilities are no different from Harpoons
      1. 0
        26 March 2019 23: 55
        so this is understandable, there is no need to be more powerful, but this does not mean that more powerful is impossible. a primitive example, how to erase from the surface of the sea "a la battleship" with what is (with insignificant costs) hoping that he has armor, I brought .... really did not see the answer to the question, "attention is the question? ! -what is the thickness of the armor (from all sides, not only the side armor belt, as in the old days from guns) is necessary to protect against 400 kg of an armor-piercing projectile (+ weight of the rocket itself + remnants of fuel (like a fire on a target) that arrived at a speed of about 900 m / s .... from any direction ... from afar .... and how quickly will this new "Yamato" bend? "(c) .... but it happens ... it is impossible now to create such a" battleship "... from the word at all.
        1. 0
          27 March 2019 00: 00
          Quote: sds127
          But this does not mean that more powerful is impossible.

          This means that existing ship systems are designed for these missiles.
          For new missiles with a half-ton armor, you will have to rebuild existing carriers for a long time and costly or build ships anew

          Aviation is unable to use such weapons - minus 90% of threats
          1. 0
            27 March 2019 00: 06
            what for? it is much easier and cheaper to build new ships - equip old ones with more effective means of detection and interception. in principle, this is the way the whole world goes. competition of "armor and projectile", "shield and sword" - nowhere has gone. only "projectile sechas-pkr (faster, smarter, more inconspicuous), and" armor "- radars, bius, air defense, electronic warfare .... sheets of metal the maximum possible thickness, outdated ... anti-splinter protection and unsinkability due to division into compartments, still in trend)
            1. 0
              27 March 2019 00: 09
              What do you mean why? You just argued that you would need a half-toned armor
              Quote: sds127
              more effective means of detection and interception.

              no one goes this way
              In the US, the new destroyers even stopped putting self-defense means
              1. 0
                27 March 2019 00: 15
                did I prove? -you are not reading carefully. I explained that now there is no one to drown .... that is. no need. but if you create a "battleship", then drown it, very simple and cheap (in relation to its cost). it is a useless waste of time, money, forces. On a ship protected by armor, there is a weapon (if necessary). Therefore, the armor of the ship is now different - "" shell sechas-pkr (faster, smarter, more imperceptible), and "armor" - radars, bius, air defense, electronic warfare .... sheets of metal of the maximum possible thickness are outdated ... splinter protection and unsinkability due to division into compartments is still in trend) "(c) i
                1. 0
                  27 March 2019 00: 18
                  Quote: sds127
                  but if you create a "battleship", then sinking it is very simple and cheap (in relation to its cost)

                  How simple and fast compared to a regular tin?

                  And how cheap, if you have to create new media for supercpc
                  1. 0
                    27 March 2019 00: 24
                    just as simple (even easier, because the reinforcement with armor will eat up the weight and volume required for electronic warfare, radars and air defense) as well as a tin. and super-RCC is your fantasy ... no more. An analogue of a 400kg high-precision armor-piercing projectile (based on the same brahmos / yahont) is very simple to create ... but all-round protection against such projectiles is very difficult. this "LK" is unnecessary now. completely.
                    1. 0
                      27 March 2019 07: 51
                      Quote: sds127
                      reinforcement armor syst weight and volume required for EW, radar and air defense

                      1. Do we have international restrictions on ship size? 10 tonnes - and not a ton more
                      2. What volume will eat armor? Dear, what are you
                      Quote: sds127
                      Analog 400kg.broneboynogo projectile of high accuracy (based on the same Bramosa \ yahonta) -create very simple ....

                      Describe the approximate estimated dimensions of the rocket - length, starting mass - based on known examples

                      how to launch such a missile, for example, from the board of the Japanese destroyer Congo
                      Quote: sds127
                      but vserakursnuyu protection from such projectiles is very difficult

                      and do not need
                      100 mm armor will protect against all types of existing Western missiles
                      7000 produced harpoons - a cat under the tail))))
          2. 0
            27 March 2019 00: 10
            but as a means of attack ... for amers, for example, I think SM -3 ... kinetic interceptor .... it’s easy to refine to a half-ton armor-piercing ... but so far it is not necessary ... it makes no sense.
            1. 0
              27 March 2019 00: 13
              Quote: sds127
              For example, for amers, I think SM-3 ... kinetic interceptor .... easy to modify to halftoned armor

              The ideal target for air defense systems, high-altitude ballistic target with high visibility

              This way you will dramatically facilitate the life of the ship's anti-aircraft gunners.
              1. 0
                27 March 2019 00: 17
                means of detecting targets (lattice radars) on your hypothetical battleship, also reserve?)))
                1. 0
                  27 March 2019 00: 22
                  No, we will make it easier
                  To launch the means of attack - PKR, Calibrov - no radars are needed, the ship will continue to discharge the ammunition for the designated targets
                  1. 0
                    27 March 2019 04: 22
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    No, we will make it easier
                    To launch the means of attack - PKR, Calibrov - no radars are needed, the ship will continue to discharge the ammunition for the designated targets

                    why then armor (battleship)? will he shoot Ptursami?
                    Yes, and the thesis that the battleship, accompanied by KUG, AUG, aviation and AWAKSA is much stronger than any ship, somehow fed up
                2. 0
                  27 March 2019 00: 24
                  To solve air defense tasks where radar is needed
                  If they are damaged, the Aegis Baseline9 type bius will help, with the possibility of anti-aircraft fire according to other aircraft and ships.

                  Anti-submarine defenses are located in the bottom of the hull and are invulnerable to air attack weapons.
                  1. +1
                    27 March 2019 00: 29
                    Santa Fe (Oleg) Today, 00: 22
                    0
                    No, we will make it easier
                    To launch the means of attack - PKR, Calibrov - no radars are needed, the ship will continue to discharge the ammunition for the designated targets
                    ---------------------
                    who will appoint them? surviving tins? then why LK, even if the tins survived?


                    To solve air defense tasks where radar is needed
                    If they are damaged, the Aegis Baseline9 type bius will help, with the possibility of anti-aircraft fire according to other aircraft and ships.

                    Anti-submarine defenses are located in the bottom of the hull and are invulnerable to air attack weapons.

                    other ships? surviving tins ?? why toda lx which nifia itself cannot, is heated simply nowhere, and needs tins? maybe just for the same money, more tins, all sorts and different?)))
                    1. 0
                      27 March 2019 00: 40
                      They will appoint a GPS-Glonass for the coastal. And the means of maritime intelligence, giving the opportunity to shoot at targets over the horizon
                      Quote: sds127
                      other ships? surviving tins?

                      Just like him. Generally a serial unit

                      Or do you think they will be sent one by one to a serious mess? Without the support of aviation and AVAKs?
                      1. 0
                        27 March 2019 00: 50
                        in a serious mess (not in conflict with the Papuans, low intensity) - I'm afraid these boats will have nowhere to turn home. and for the demonstration of the flag \ pressure, it is expensive and useless show-off. The USA is possible, they print bucks ... and the rest is simpler "bastion" \ "brahmos" (and the like) to buy and fasten 400-kg
                        armor-piercing head. very simple and much cheaper. passive armor of massive thickness has become obsolete .... completely obsolete now armor (radars, reb, air defense). But your persistence in defending your point of view inspires respect. And sometimes (about the need for reliable anti-fragmentation (approx. 75-100 mm) armor of vital parts of the ship, for example) I even agree with you. But now, no, I don’t need LK. and inefficient.
                      2. 0
                        27 March 2019 07: 44
                        Also, the British thought, until they came face to face with Argentine aviation in the battle for the Falklands. As it turned out, there are other countries in the world besides the Papuans and superpowers
                        Quote: sds127
                        and the rest is simpler "bastion" \ "bramos" (and the like) to buy and fasten

                        Those. build a new fleet from scratch
                        This is the effect!
                        Quote: sds127
                        don't need lk

                        And here the battleship

                        15-20 protected destroyer in thousand tons of full w / w
                        Citadel booking with the use of technology of the new time. Protection elements are integrated into the housing package and perform the role of power elements. Materials: armored steel with cemented outer layer, ceramics, kevlar.

                        Differentiated by the thickness of the armored belt (4-5 dm. Or 100 ... 130 mm) in the middle part of the body. Damming of the sides will allow for rational angle of inclination of the armor and its increased resistance to the means of destruction. Upper deck thickness - minimum 100 mm. Again, due to the characteristic blockage of the sides, the deck area will be small.

                        The extremities are not armored - let them tear the hell out, it cannot pose a serious threat. The main thing is to protect the high-tech “stuffing” of the ship: weapons, GEM, generators, switchboards, rocket mines, combat information center, CICS and radar signal processors, all kinds of mechanisms and components. in a word - Stronghold

                        Mandatory anti-splinter bulkhead on the opposite side of all compartments and aisles along the bead (“puff” - 5 mm steel + 50 mm ceramics + 5 mm steel).

                        Installation of numerous splinterproof bulkheads in the housing and superstructure (25 ... 50 mm steel or Kevlar)
                      3. 0
                        27 March 2019 10: 14
                        https://topwar.ru/156032-v-indii-startovalo-serijnoe-proizvodstvo-raket-bramos.html- с бронебойной бч -снесёт это "чудо" нафиг...уже снесёт....ещё не построенное
                      4. 0
                        27 March 2019 23: 43
                        The first time is something))) and everything ends with the phrase “the re-equipment of the Indian Air Force with new missiles will take several years”

                        With an armor-piercing warhead, the content of explosives will be reduced by several times - the result will be a reduction in ship damage.

                        Due to the size and limited number of carriers, the number of missiles in the salvo will decrease - the chance of them to fight off will increase

                        Wherever you look - some positive qualities and a headache from the enemy. This is the effect of 100 mm metal pieces!
  22. 0
    April 1 2019 09: 14
    What a pity, Oleg, that you spend your considerable talent and zeal on promoting, to put it mildly, the very controversial idea of ​​well-armored heavy missile-artillery ships. And use the entire historical surroundings as a background or base of your conclusions. And this is my main complaint to you.
    If you want to prove something - just call the article directly without misleading readers: something like "The need to build a battleship for the US / British / Russian / Chinese Navy. Fifty-second justification". And starting so fancifully from afar is like knocking a gate with a battering ram, running along a sinusoid.
    As for the heavy ships so beloved by you, everything was said and proved on 22.09.1914/11.11.1940/27.05.1941, XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX and XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. I write only dates since I’m sure that you know what happened on that day, and let the rest stretch their memory.
    I anticipate your objection that the means of detection and protection have greatly increased since then. But the means of attack intensified in the same way. The balance, however. Which does not negate the fact that heavy armored missile and artillery never again play an independent role, as was the case with sailing battleships. And that is what you are trying to prove! Yes, and they never played it. Even in the battle of Liss, one of the two main striking forces, along with armadillos were fast rams.

"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"