About the puzzles of the PUAZO Soviet battleships and the "small-caliber misunderstanding" 21-K

86
In the previous article, we dismantled medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns mounted on the Marat battleship during numerous inter-war upgrades. Let me briefly remind you that the battleship first received six Lender 76,2-mm artillery systems, which for the beginning of the 20-s seemed not so bad an anti-aircraft gun. Subsequently, they were replaced by 10 more modern guns of the same caliber, placed in six single-gun and two two-gun installations 34-K and 81-K. These guns were relatively good anti-aircraft guns, modeled on the ground guns of the same caliber 3-K, which, in turn, was a domestic version of the German 75-mm anti-aircraft guns, developed at the end of 20-s and purchased by the USSR in 1930 g ., which the Wehrmacht, however, did not adopt.





In general, the artillery system was not bad and was distinguished by good ballistic qualities, but for firing at long distances it obviously lacked the power of a projectile, and the shelling of short-range targets was hampered by low horizontal and vertical laying speeds. In addition, 10 such guns on the battleship, albeit small by the standards of the interwar period, looked clearly not enough.

The situation was aggravated by the primitiveness of fire control. Of course, the indisputable advantage was the fact that rangefinders with a three-meter base were used to service 76,2-mm artillery, one for the battery (there were a total of two range-finders), but judging by the author’s data from PUAZO “Tablet”, which controlled 76,2-mm artillery systems , were extremely primitive. In them, apparently, there were no calculating devices that allow calculating the angles of vertical and horizontal pickup, that is, the anti-aircraft fire controllers had to calculate such parameters manually, based on tables.

The situation was similar in the “October Revolution” - in 1934 g, when the battleship completed the modernization, its bow and stern towers decorated the 6 “three-inch” of Lender. Interestingly, the modernization plans initially included the installation of 37-mm 11-K automatons (four installations), but due to their unavailability, Lender had to do with it. Accordingly, in 1940, six Lender guns were replaced with the same number of 34-Ks, and then, in 1941, two “Sparky” 81-Ks were installed on the ship. The location of the guns completely repeated the "Marat".

PUAZO "October Revolution"


As for fire control systems, there is again confusion with them. The fact is that A. Vasiliev in his monograph “The First Battleships of the Red fleet”Indicates that the“ October Revolution ”was armed with two anti-aircraft fire control posts, each of which was equipped with a set of imported PUZO“ West-5 ”arr. 1939 At the same time, the distinguished author notes that the connection between the anti-aircraft gun control posts and guns was carried out by the "good old" Geisler and K, that is, the POISOs were not equipped with means of transmitting information to the guns.

At the same time, A.V. Platonov, who in his works always paid great attention to the descriptions of fire control systems, did not mention any "Vesta-five" on the battleship "October Revolution" or outside it. According to A.V. Platonov centralized control of anti-aircraft fire on the battleship was carried out by means of improved control devices for shooting "Geisler and K".

The attempt of the author of this article to somehow sort it out has suffered a complete fiasco. As mentioned earlier, according to A. Vasiliev, a PUAZO “Tablet” was installed on the “Marat” in 1932 g, but what it is is impossible to understand, since such a system is not mentioned in the special literature known to the author.

In the comments to the previous article, one of the distinguished readers made an interesting suggestion that the “Tablet” was a “crinkled” Kruse device. It was a fairly simple and primitive device capable of calculating data for firing, based on the hypothesis of a straight and uniform horizontal movement of the target. In fact, by 1932 it was the only PUAZO created and produced in the USSR and, as such, could well be installed on the “Marat”. Further, alas, begin to guess. The fact is that in various sources the Soviet anti-aircraft fire control devices are called differently. In one case, it is the Kruze device, “West”, etc., in the second they are simply indicated by numbers: PUAZO-1, PUAZO-2, etc. So, we can assume that the Kruse devices are the PUAZO-1, and the PUAZO-1934 created in 2 was an advanced Kruse device and has its own name “West”. Perhaps, this device was installed on the “October Revolution”, or some modification of it with the serial number “5”? However, not a single source reports about this. In addition, "West" - domestic, and not import development, while A. Vasilyev points to the foreign origin of the devices installed on the battleship. And, again, apparently, "West" was not developed in 1939, but five years earlier.

But in 1939, the mass production of a new device, called PUAZO-3, began. Unlike the previous ones, it was made on the basis of imported, Czech PUAZO SP. Thus, PUAZO-3 has a tangible similarity with the devices that A. Vasiliev mentions - it can (with a stretch!) Be considered imported, and was produced in 1939, but it obviously has nothing to do with “West” completely different design.


PUAZO-3


It should be noted that PUAZO-3 turned out to be a fairly successful system and quite successfully corrected the fire of the Soviet 85-mm anti-aircraft guns during the Great Patriotic War. But about its application on ships could not find anything at all. In general, it turns out a complete confusion, and the opinion of the author of this article is as follows.

It must be said that both PUAZO Kruze and its improved version of “West” differed in one feature of the design, which was completely insignificant on land, but of fundamental importance at sea. The fact is that both of these PUAZOs demanded a stable position relative to the ground. That is, when installing them in the field, a special adjustment was made so that these devices would be located parallel to the surface of the earth - but at sea, with its rolling, it was obviously impossible to do. In order to ensure the work of PUAZO Kruze or West, it was necessary either to make revolutionary changes to their design, or to create a stabilized post for them, but in the USSR they were not yet able to do such.

Accordingly, the author's assumption is that the battleships Marat and the October Revolution were planning to install the well-worn versions of PUAZO Kruze, as well as West, or, perhaps, PUAZO-3. But they did not succeed in adapting them to work in pitching conditions, and it is possible that they didn’t even begin these works, and there were no stabilized posts for them, so ultimately they didn’t install these instruments on the battleships, having limited to upgrading Geisler systems and K.

Medium-caliber antiaircraft caliber and the Paris Commune MPUAZ


But with the "Paris Commune", fortunately, these puzzles can not be solved. In terms of the number of artillery barrels, its average anti-aircraft artillery was the weakest — the six 76,2-mm Lender guns were replaced by the same number of single-gun 34-Ks. As mentioned above, the number of anti-mine artillery was reduced on the Marat and the October Revolution in order to place two 81-K two-gun installations in the stern, but did not do this on the Paris Commune. In addition, the location of the guns has changed; they were installed on the Parisian not on the towers, but on the fore and aft superstructures, three guns, respectively.



But on the other hand, the fire control of these guns should have significantly exceeded what was available on the other battleships. Measuring distances to air targets should have been carried out by two rangefinders with a three-meter base, as was the case with the Marat with the October Revolution, but processing the data and issuing solutions for firing should be made by MPUAZO SOM — devices specially designed for shipboard specifics of air defense. The MPUAZO COM had, at least, a primitive computing device, and in addition, two stabilized sighting posts, SVP-1, located on the same platforms as the KDP of the main caliber.

SVP-1 was an open platform, mounted in a gimbal. A “three-meter” rangefinder was located on this site, and the viziers of the post were already attached to it. With the help of these sights, the course angle to the target and the angle of the target site were determined. Thus, we can say that the “Paris Commune” from all three battleships received a full-fledged anti-aircraft fire control system. Alas, the first pancake was a little lumpy. The fact is that the stabilization of the post SVP-1 was made ... manually. For this, the VS-SVP device was invented, which was served by two people. It consisted of two reticle in one case, 90 deg. Located at an angle to each other. Thus, each visitor, observing the horizon as his own viewfinder, could “twist” the SVP-1 in such a way as to achieve its level position, which occurred when combining the sighting line with the horizon line. In case the horizon was not visible, it was possible to use the so-called artificial horizon, or the usual bubble inclinometer.

In theory, all this was supposed to work well, but in practice it didn’t function properly - the viewers had to put too much effort on the steering wheels (it seems that there were no electric motors there, and the SVP-1 stabilized manually!), But still did not have time, and deviations from the horizontal plane were too large. In total, only three SVP-1 posts were made, two of which decorated the "Paris Commune", and another one was installed on the destroyer "Able". According to unconfirmed data (A. Vasiliev indicates this, and he, alas, is not always accurate in describing fire control systems) both SVP-1 were dismantled at the Paris Commune before the end of the war, although, again, it is not clear what happened this is before our troops ousted the enemy outside the Black Sea region or after that. In any case, it is reliably known that in the future more advanced posts were installed on the ships of the Soviet fleet.

Of course, the presence of even a simple but mechanical calculator and let them not working very well, but still capable of giving a course angle and a corner of the purpose of the posts, gave the Paris Commune undoubted advantages over Marat and the October Revolution. On the latter, as the author suggests, the centralized control of anti-aircraft fire was carried out as follows: the range finder measured the distance to the target, and reported it to the firing director, and he, using ordinary binoculars, or something slightly better, tried to figure out the parameters of her movement Then, using the tables, again “by eye” and manually determined the lead time to the target, which was also reported to the calculations of anti-aircraft guns. However, it is possible that he still had some calculating device, but in this case it was necessary to determine the initial data for the calculations on the same “eye” and enter it manually.

However, the advantages of the Paris Commune MPUAZ were largely negated by the very small average zenith caliber - only six 76,2-K 34-mm guns. For many cruisers of the Second World War era, the average anti-aircraft caliber was much stronger. Of course, the Soviet admirals fully understood the weakness of such a composition of weapons, and according to the original project, the Paris Commune was supposed to receive not 76,2-mm, but 100-mm anti-aircraft guns. But they turned out to be too heavy to be placed on the towers of the main caliber or on the superstructures of the battleship, and for this reason they were abandoned.

Small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery


The October Revolution was the first Soviet battleship to receive small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery. During the modernization of 1934, along with six 76,2-mm Lender guns, four 45-mm semi-automatic 21-K guns and the same quad Maxim 7,62-mm machine guns were mounted on it.

About the puzzles of the PUAZO Soviet battleships and the "small-caliber misunderstanding" 21-K


Usually history appearances in the navy of the universal gun 21-K say so. In the USSR, knowing full well the need for small-caliber rapid-fire artillery, but not having experience in its design, we bought quite remarkable 20-mm and 37-mm automatic guns from the German company Rheinmetall. But, to their misfortune, they entrusted their development and mass production to the plant No. XXUMX located in Podlipkah near Moscow, whose employees, due to low engineering and technical culture, completely failed this task. As a result, the fleet did not receive either 8-mm 8-K or 20-mm 2-K from the plant №37, which was very much calculated and moreover - remained completely without a small-caliber automatic weapons. But at least it was necessary to put some anti-aircraft guns on the ships, and there was nothing left to do, how to adopt the 45-mm ersatz anti-aircraft gun, made on the basis of the 45-K anti-tank 19-mm gun. 1932 of the year ...

In fact, the history of the German "guns" is not as simple as it may seem at first glance, but we will consider it in more detail when we get to the domestic 37-mm anti-aircraft guns 70-K. Now we only note that the German artillery systems really did not succeed in bringing to mass production, and that in the early 30s, the naval forces of the Soviet Union were completely without small-caliber artillery. All this made the adoption of the "universal semi-automatic" 21-K an alternative option.

What can be said about this good system? She had a fairly modest weight of 507 kg, which allowed her to be installed even on small boats, and did not have the worst ballistics for her time, sending a projectile with an initial speed of 1,45 m / s in flight of 760 kg. In this, her dignity, in general, ended.

Before 1935, the 21-K was not “semi-”, but, as it was then expressed, “quarter-automatic”: all their “automatic equipment” was reduced to the fact that the shutter was automatically closed after the filling of the projectile. Apparently, it was such guns that the October Revolution received. But the “semi-automatics”, in which the shutter was not only closed after the projectile was sent, but also automatically opened after the shot, was achieved only in 1935. The calculation of the gun was 3 man, the rate of fire did not exceed 20-25 shots per minute (according to other data to 30), and even that is unclear how long the calculation of such a rate of fire could support. The ammunition consisted of fragmentation, fragmentation-tracer and armor-piercing shells, with two fragmentation shells - one weighing 1,45 and the second (O-240) 2,41 kg. But it will be completely inappropriate to talk about the increased power of the projectile, because 21-K ammunition did not have a distance pipe. Accordingly, in order to shoot down an enemy aircraft, a direct hit was required, but such a thing with such a “density” of fire could have happened unless by accident. Obviously, the 45-mm gun was a melee weapon, for which, in addition to the rate of fire, the speed of vertical / horizontal pickup is also important. Alas, the data on 21-K give a very large variation of these parameters, usually indicated 10-20 and 10-18 hail. respectively. However, such a highly reputable source as the Naval Artillery Naval Handbook gives exactly the upper values, that is, 20 and 18 degrees, which, generally speaking, is quite acceptable and can also be written into the few advantages of this artillery system.

Nevertheless, the sense of such an air defense during the years of the Great Patriotic War was quite a bit - in essence, these guns were fit only so that the crew of the ship did not feel unarmed, and the attacking aircraft were forced to take into account the appearance of anti-aircraft fire on them.

And the same can be said about the 7,62-mm "quad" "Maxim".


It is very likely that in the photo - installation, located on the "October Revolution", but it is not exactly


Without a doubt, “Maxim” was for its time a remarkable machine gun, moreover, its water cooling (and in the sea there is a lot of water) made it possible to maintain firing for quite a long time. But the rifle-caliber machine gun as an air defense weapon was unconditionally outdated at the end of the 20 and the beginning of the 30. Therefore, it is not surprising that even before the war the small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery of the October Revolution was radically strengthened, and, instead of the artillery systems described above, the battleship received 37-K and 70-mm DShK machine guns.

To be continued ...
Our news channels

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

86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    28 July 2019 05: 43
    Hit me, scold me, minus me, but in terms of their performance characteristics and combat use during the Second World War, Soviet battleships were actually gunboats, floating batteries. The Black Sea "Sevastopol" still made military campaigns, and the Baltic ones fired from a barrel.
    1. +8
      28 July 2019 06: 43
      Quote: andrewkor
      The Black Sea "Sevastopol" still made military campaigns, and the Baltic ones fired from a barrel.

      What to minus for? And so it was. After the campaign on March 21-22, the battleship "Sevastopol" did not participate in hostilities. “On the night of March 21 and 22, the battleship made two fire raids, firing more than 300 main-caliber rounds at the enemy's fortifications on the Kerch Peninsula. returning to Poti, the battleship began repairs. "
    2. +10
      28 July 2019 08: 11
      Quote: andrewkor
      Hit me, scold me, minus me, but in terms of their performance characteristics and combat use during the Second World War, Soviet battleships were actually gunboats, floating batteries. The Black Sea "Sevastopol" still made military campaigns, and the Baltic ones fired from a barrel.

      But the 4th rank fulfilled and exceeded its objectives by 5 with a plus, hih.
      From the history of the service SKA-065 (MO-4)
      The battle of SKA-065 with fascist aircraft on March 25, 1943 in the area of ​​Fake Gelendzhik was widely known not only in the Black Sea Fleet, but also in the world. On that day, a boat under the command of Senior Lieutenant P.P.Sivenko followed the guard of the American transport Achilleon from Gelendzhik to Tuapse.
      Excitement of the sea reached seven points, which seriously complicated maneuvering and shooting. German pilots attacking the convoy were outraged that more than thirteen bombers some small boat resisted. Leaving alone the transport, the Nazis attacked SKA-065.
      During an unequal fierce battle, the hunter got about 200 holes from fragments of bombs and shells of air guns. The wheelhouse has shifted, the stem has been broken, the bridge guards have been broken, tanks and pipelines broken, the left cheekbone of the hull destroyed - such is an incomplete list of the damage received. But, nevertheless, the small hunter continued to fire and dodge the falling bombs. A 15-degree trim on the nose formed from flooding of the nasal spaces.. The crew fought off the enemy and at the same time fought for the survivability of the hunter. The surviving seven people led by the commander did everything to save their boat.
      Having used up the entire stock of bombs and shells, the planes flew away. Stalled motors were commissioned after 40 minutes. The boat caught up with Achilleon and independently covered the remaining 50 miles to base.

      After this battle, the SKA-065 boat became Guards.

      Guards ship hfourth rank. Not even having his own name. ^ _ ^

      Here is more detailed: https://topwar.ru/137715-moshka-stavshaya-dlya-gitlerovcev-moskitom-podvig-ska-065.html
    3. +10
      28 July 2019 09: 15
      Quote: andrewkor
      Hit me, scold me, minus me, but in terms of their performance characteristics and combat use during the Second World War, Soviet battleships were actually gunboats, floating batteries. The Black Sea "Sevastopol" still made military campaigns, and the Baltic ones fired from a barrel.

      Our battleships in their performance characteristics during the Second World War, Soviet battleships corresponded to their classmates built during the First World War! By the way, their contemporaries in Great Britain and Japan were still fresher ... So for lack of a stamp we wrote on a piece of paper in a box!
      Now about the tactics. We look for what our Baltic battleships were built?
      "Defense of mine-artillery positions ....
      Support for artillery fire of the ground forces .. "
      That is, our old battleships for all 100 completed the tasks assigned to them by the tsarist generals! Or had them brought to the Baltic puddle under the blow of German and Finnish aircraft! I even find it difficult to answer, about the presence of German heavy cruisers in the Baltic, about the battleships I will not say anything .. Or would the willow have to arrange a hunt for an old German battleship? In the Baltic, all Finns even did the same; their coastal defense battleships glowed over the skerries and the participation of their fire raids was even less than that of our battleships! By the way, this did not stop them from losing on mines alone.
      Any standing target within the Baltic puddles attracted not healthy attention.
      An example is our battleships and the drowning of the German Naobi air defense cruiser. To whom and to whom it was much more offensive to die from aviation with 105mm and 88mm anti-aircraft guns and a bunch of little things!
      Well, the last Japanese and the States on their battleships weighed from 100 to 150 barrels of MZA and helped? Figures - a bul-bull of karasiki! Even monsters like Yamato ....
      On the low efficiency of the Paris Commune in the Black Sea, a special conversation! But the decision as a whole to keep it after the 44th in the future I think is right!
      Regards, Vladislav!
      1. 0
        28 July 2019 23: 04
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        That is, our old battleships for all 100 completed the tasks assigned to them by the tsarist generals! Or had them brought to the Baltic puddle under the blow of German and Finnish aircraft! I even find it difficult to answer, about the presence of German heavy cruisers in the Baltic, about the battleships I will not say anything .. Or would the willow have to arrange a hunt for an old German battleship? In the Baltic, all Finns even did the same; their coastal defense battleships glowed over the skerries and the participation of their fire raids was even less than that of our battleships! By the way, this did not stop them from losing on mines alone.
        Any standing target within the Baltic puddles attracted not healthy attention.
        An example is our battleships and the drowning of the German Naobi air defense cruiser. To whom and to whom it was much more offensive to die from aviation with 105mm and 88mm anti-aircraft guns and a bunch of little things!
        Well, the last Japanese and the States on their battleships weighed from 100 to 150 barrels of MZA and helped? Figures - a bul-bull of karasiki! Even monsters like Yamato ....
        On the low efficiency of the Paris Commune in the Black Sea, a special conversation! But the decision as a whole to keep it after the 44th in the future I think is right!
        it’s not entirely logical ....... so why was it necessary to build it ?, they didn’t come in handy for finals, neither for us, nor for the Japanese, ...... and to hide the stupidity of Soviet and Japanese and German admirals behind the mediocrity of the tsar’s admirals? it’s pointless, as the battleships were pointless even before they began to be built ..... without drawing lessons from the Tsushima ......
      2. +2
        29 July 2019 06: 05
        Kote pane Kokhanka (Vladislav) Yesterday, 09:15 NEW

        Our battleships in their performance characteristics during the Second World War, Soviet battleships corresponded to their classmates built during the First World War!

        Did not match, unless "Dreadnought" or "Colossus" with others like them. Megabarge with guns.
      3. +1
        29 July 2019 12: 44
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        That is, our old battleships for all 100 completed the tasks assigned to them by the tsarist generals!


        Defended in the bases and minimally influenced the course of hostilities - they also had to be protected ...
      4. +2
        29 July 2019 18: 01
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Our battleships in their performance characteristics during the Second World War, Soviet battleships corresponded to their classmates built during the First World War!

        During WWII our "Sevastopol" had only one classmate - the American "Arkansas". There were no more dreadnoughts of the first generation in the combat fleets - they were "cut" by Washington.
        And if according to SZA "Ork of Kansas" approximately corresponded to our LK, then according to MZA he winged them like a bull to a sheep. For starters, the American was wearing quad Bofors ... smile
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Well, the last Japanese and the States on their battleships weighed from 100 to 150 barrels of MZA and helped?

        The number of barrels with the effectiveness of air defense is not directly related. For it’s not enough just to shoot - you still have to hit.
        Among the Japanese, the "additional loading" of the MZA ships was usually not accompanied by the expansion of the MPUAZO. As a result, only "old" assault rifles had a normal control center, while the new ones worked either "by eye" (with appropriate efficiency), or from old MPUAZO (while the number of targets fired at the same time did not increase). Plus the well-known failure of the Japanese in the "heavy" MZA - they went through the whole war with a 25-mm machine gun. But the "light" MZA of 20-25 mm caliber against the same dive bombers (the main strike weapon of the USA) was only suitable for firing them after the bombs were dropped.
        In contrast to the Japanese, the Yankees strengthened the air defense of the MZA ships in proportion to the MPUAZO. If they put a quadruple or paired 40-mm machine gun, then a director was necessarily attached to it. This increase really helped. The Japanese had a chance to reach the target only when the air defense system of the ship formation was overloaded, when it either "yawned" enemy aircraft, or took them for their own (they wrote that the "friend or foe" system initially worked for a limited number of targets and with a large raid after reaching threshold simply ceased to recognize new targets).
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 18: 15
          In the north, from 1944 to 1945, Arkhangelsk stood at the pier - sithership Elizabeth! I think that if History had an adjective inclination and by the will of fiction, he ended up in the Baltic puddle at the pier of Kronstadt, then Arkhangelsk also served as a large battery in the mine artillery positions during the defense of Leningrad! I bet that even Avoiva would be anchored and not climbed out of the Gulf of Finland!
    4. +5
      28 July 2019 11: 02
      Quote: andrewkor
      The Black Sea "Sevastopol" still made military campaigns, and the Baltic ones fired from a barrel.

      And where could they go? :)))) Do not forget that BOTH the coast of the Gulf of Finland is in the hands of enemies. That is, the Germans in WWI, having a tremendous advantage in forces, did not risk meddling in Finnish. Do you propose organizing exits of the linear fleet from besieged Leningrad?
      1. +4
        28 July 2019 21: 43
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And where could they go? :)))) Do not forget that BOTH the coast of the Gulf of Finland is in the hands of enemies.

        They could not go anywhere into World War I, and they stood the whole war in Helsingfors. It was necessary to draw a conclusion and drive them to the Northern Fleet at the earliest opportunity. Well, or not to build at all ..
        1. +1
          29 July 2019 18: 04
          Quote: Saxahorse
          It was necessary to draw a conclusion and drive them to the Northern Fleet at the earliest opportunity.

          Yeah ... to the very fleet, where even for the destroyers there was no normal basing. The main base of the Northern Fleet could not supply water, steam and electricity to the EM from the shore. The result - after a couple of years of such basing, a third of the EM SF required factory repair of the power plant and diesel engine.
      2. -1
        28 July 2019 23: 05
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the Finnish did not risk meddling.

        yes right through the minefields
        1. +2
          29 July 2019 07: 25
          Quote: vladimir1155
          yes right through the minefields

          What was this said to? You do not know how dense minefields stood in Finnish in WWII?
      3. +1
        29 July 2019 08: 56
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do you propose organizing exits of the linear fleet from besieged Leningrad?

        Where could Marat have gone with such injuries? “On September 23, 1941, the battleship of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet“ Marat ”was seriously damaged there - the Ju-87 dive bombers dropped two 500 kg bombs on it (according to other sources - 1000 kg). One of them pierced through 3 armored decks and exploded in the cellar the main caliber turret, causing the detonation of the entire ammunition. The explosion interrupted the hull of the battleship, almost completely tearing off the bow part. chimney with casings of armored grates. The explosion killed 326 people, including the commander, commissar and some officers. By the morning of the next day, the battleship received 10 tons of water, most of its rooms below the middle deck were flooded. "Marat" sat on the ground next to the quay wall; about 000 meters of the side remained above the water. " https://topwar.ru/3-bomboy-po-linkoru.html


        1. +1
          29 July 2019 13: 17
          Yes, I don’t offer anything like that :)))
          1. 0
            29 July 2019 14: 18
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Yes, I don’t offer anything like that :)))

            Either you misunderstood, or I was not clear. This is an addition to your comment. The battleship October Revolution was also badly damaged. On September 21, the ship was at the Peterhof roadstead. With the fire of 305-mm guns, he thwarted the enemy's advance on Krasnoe Selo. At 11.05 a.m. a heavy enemy battery opened fire on the ship, and at 11.19 a.m. it was attacked by enemy aircraft. The raid was attended by 16 Ju-88 bombers, accompanied by 10 Me-110 fighters.
            Anti-aircraft gunners shot down two Junkers. 19 250-500 kg bombs fell near the ship. Three bombs hit the bow, piercing the upper deck, they exploded on the middle. The ship was seriously damaged and a fire broke out. There was a danger of explosion of the bow artillery cellars. The tank of the ship was ripped apart, a monstrous hole gaped almost to the very bottom, and mutilated and twisted iron, pipelines, burnt parts of mechanisms stuck out in it. The spiers were out of order, the anchor chain was etched overboard. There were many killed and wounded under the debris of decks and bulkheads. "Https://arsenal-info.ru/b/book/4159353989/5#
            1. +1
              29 July 2019 16: 58
              Quote: Amurets
              Either you misunderstood, or I did not express myself clearly.

              I - I definitely misunderstood, but, in any case, on the merits of the issue I have absolutely no objections to either your first comment or the second.
      4. +1
        29 July 2019 11: 34
        First: thank you for the informative article, Andrew!
        Secondly: the shame of our Baltic Fleet was most clearly manifested in 1944-1945. after leaving the war of Finland. The German fleet dominated the Baltic with small forces, but ours did not dare stick out its nose. So it was during the evacuation of German troops from Finland, Moonsund, Courland, East Prussia and Pomerania. The Germans everywhere managed to evacuate a significant part of the personnel and again throw it into battle against the advancing Red Army. And our fleet, created to seize the sea, was unable to carry out a single serious counter-operation. The success of a number of submariners and boatmen did not affect the situation in any way. The "Aristocrat" with "pickpockets" shot at our troops with two rounds of ammunition, and the valiant cruisers, swift destroyers and the mighty battleship with unsurpassed twelve-inch guns did not deign not only to carry out a combined operation against them, but even to designate their presence in the area, which inevitably forced the enemy would reduce the activity of heavy cruisers and, possibly, paralyze transportation.
        1. +1
          29 July 2019 12: 34
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          First: thank you for the informative article, Andrew!

          You're welcome!
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Secondly: the shame of our Baltic Fleet was most pronounced in 1944-1945. after leaving the war of Finland. The German fleet dominated the Baltic with small forces, but ours didn’t dare stick out our nose either.

          Victor, once it madly infuriated me too :))) And then ...
          Then it dawned on me that we no longer had any Baltic Fleet in 1944. There were ships, but there was no fleet. A warship is only combat-capable when it goes through regular training cycles, and with us what? For objective reasons, the fleet got into a joke in the 1941 for not even a few months - for several years! I often cite the example of how, for several weeks in an armed reserve, the accuracy of firing an armored cruiser was halved (with the same crew, with the same officers, shot before and after the reserve), and here - years.
          1. +2
            29 July 2019 13: 08
            As for the preparation of crews for going to sea - you are right, but ...
            The crews of warheads supported the ships, the artillerymen of the CC on the BC, and the anti-aircraft gunners on the CC worked constantly. Who was missing - you can always take from the Black Sea Fleet. Yes, in general, almost the entire Black Sea Fleet could be transferred to the North in the fall of 1944 and seriously bought Norway.
            There is a very big suspicion that the formula worked: we would be the enemy on the horns, only the skin is dear!
            1. +3
              29 July 2019 13: 16
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              The crews of warhead ships were supported, artillerymen of the Civil Aviation Command in the BC

              Warheads were not supported for the course, but for the functioning of the ship. There were shootings at the BC, but they are very different from firing at a sea target, especially when the ship is in motion and could not be replaced. The crews were understaffed.
              That is, ships would have to be brought out to sea with a hodgepodge of crews, and they also had no combat training for a long time.
            2. +1
              29 July 2019 19: 18
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              The crews of warheads supported the ships, the artillerymen of the CC on the BC, and the anti-aircraft gunners on the CC worked constantly. Who was missing - you can always take from the Black Sea Fleet.

              The crews of the "big pots" of the KBF were pretty badly knocked out in 1941, when they rowed into the marines from the radio rooms and main battle towers. Some were later returned, but not all. And then the best crews were pulled out of the crews of all three LCs (including the Parisian) and an elite crew was formed for the Arkhangelsk.
              So there is no one to take with either the Black Sea Fleet or the KBF - there are minimal teams on all LCs.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              Yes, in general, almost the entire Black Sea Fleet could be transferred to the North in the fall of 1944 and seriously bought Norway.

              Uh-huh ... this transfer will be especially good in light of the fact that the actual cruising range of the "sevens" on the Black Sea Fleet was much less than the tabulated one. And also in light of the fact that submarines on the Northern Fleet were attacked even by "smooth-decks" imprisoned for ASW. In 1945, the Commander of the Northern Fleet even asked the Allies for help in the fight against the Kriegsmarine submarine at the exit from the main base of the fleet.
          2. +4
            29 July 2019 16: 16
            I would add that most of the crews at that time fought in the marines.
            1. +1
              29 July 2019 16: 38
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              I would add that most of the crews at that time fought in the marines.

              "And there is no objection to that!" (from)
        2. +2
          29 July 2019 13: 45
          Duc, it was mined there for the most do not spoil. In what year was the Kirov blown up by a mine, not having time to go to sea?
          What is the meaning? The war is here. German sitting under Peter. Take and shoot.
        3. 0
          3 August 2019 09: 10
          So all the personnel, as volunteers, either lay near St. Petersburg or in the ranks of the Red Army beat the enemy on land. In order to get an intelligent infantryman, a civil rifleman must be driven off for at least six months, and how much does the steering, signalman? I’m not talking about motorists, electricians and other elites ... We already did not have a fleet and will appear only in the 70s ... But this is a different story.
          When in childhood I played in a brass band, our leader Sergey Anatolyevich is a veteran, told. In 42, he fled to the front at the age of 17, got into reconnaissance, and until the age of 44 was there, by the way, he was very deserved by the awards, even glory 3 was. And in 44 he was taken by the political officer for the zugunder and sent to the rear for service in the front brass band. I didn’t need an orchestra until now, but now take it out and send a specialist who has not climbed to the rear for 2 years with the front line. He became hungry, spoke first after the front grunts, then they remembered that under labor law the work of a trumpeter was equated with the work of a miner and food was raised.
          Why, he ran away as a student at the conservatory, after music school and until 44, his civilian specialty was not interesting to anyone. So the fleet lost everyone whose specialty was not critical to survival. And without them, she could not function fully.
    5. +2
      28 July 2019 15: 24
      Quote: andrewkor
      Hit me, scold me, minus me, but in terms of their performance characteristics and combat use during the Second World War, Soviet battleships were actually gunboats, floating batteries. The Black Sea "Sevastopol" still made military campaigns, and the Baltic ones fired from a barrel.


      With the number of different types of sea mines that the Germans put up in the Gulf of Finland, even EM had nothing to do in this gulf itself. It’s not worth talking about going out of the bay.
    6. -1
      29 July 2019 14: 45
      The Soviet Navy, in addition to the land units, for example, was a rather primitive sight. Sometimes passing into shame.
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 16: 16
        Quote: Civil
        The Soviet Navy, in addition to the land units, for example, was a rather primitive sight. Sometimes passing into shame.


        The British and Americans of the Atlantic Navy in the 1944-early 1945 years looked much better than the Soviet Navy and Air Force allies, including carrier-based aircraft, outnumbered the Luftwaffe, but nonetheless the allies did not risk sending their ships to the North and Barents Seas, where Germans put up powerful minefields.
  2. +3
    28 July 2019 10: 57
    A good comprehensive article, as always. Respect to the author!
    1. +3
      28 July 2019 11: 05
      Quote: Aviator_
      Respect to the author!

      Thank!:)))
  3. -8
    28 July 2019 14: 18
    the quadruple maxim is a very effective weapon, it was used everywhere and very effectively, the Germans were afraid of it, then the German enters the train echelon, and in front of the four, he evades and does not bomb, then he comes in from behind if there is air defense then the German threw bombs into the swamp, and flew away. Even the Germans did not like to bomb the Russians, they all hid others, and the Russians always met a plane from everything that was, from three-rulers, from PPS, and even pistols, a gas tank hole, and the end to the German .... so underestimate such weapons as Maxim, this is Andrei’s deep mistake, all the more so since the quadruple provided very dense fire, and the modesty about which the author is so worried. But the planes didn’t have armor, and missiles also had to fly very close and get into the near air defense zone, that is, Maximov ...... and I also believe that there was no need for a battleship or a WWII for battleships, as now, there is no need for superfregatolinkors, and superlideroemincelinkors. Enough for Russia and only a few frigates, but with a large number of submarines, minesweepers and coastal aviation, coastal assets.
    1. +7
      28 July 2019 14: 50
      Quote: vladimir1155
      the quadruple maxim is a very effective weapon, it was used everywhere and very effectively

      Oh sure. Long ago, in a neighboring galaxy, a quad-array of turbolaser "Maxims" mowed down Imperial fighters in batches.
      In our reality, alas, anti-aircraft and rifle-caliber machine guns were universally recognized as not meeting their objectives.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      .and I also believe that in battleships there was no need for PMV or WWII, as now

      Due to the fact that your "belief" is based on the most perfect fantasies - I dare not contradict. As I have said many times - questions of faith are sacred to me!
      1. -1
        28 July 2019 22: 44
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        anti-aircraft and rifle-caliber machine guns were universally recognized as not meeting their objectives.

        please specify by whom and where were recognized, and especially when? When did the NSVT large caliber machine guns appear, for example? or when the alternative to maxim was a cannon with semi-automatic loading? otherwise your statement is unfounded like blah blah
        1. +2
          29 July 2019 07: 39
          Quote: vladimir1155
          please specify by whom and where were recognized, and especially when?

          For example, in England the transition of the Royal Navy to 12,7 mm machine guns ("Vickers .50") was started in 1928, but by the beginning of the war they were considered obsolete, so from 1939 the fleet switched to 20-mm "Oerlikons" "
          Quote: vladimir1155
          When did the NSVT large-caliber machine guns appear, for example?

          In England, Vickers. 50 appeared in 1926, In the USA, Browning M1921 of the same caliber went into production with 1929.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          or when the alternative to maxim was a gun with semi-automatic loading?

          Always :)))) Starting with pom-pom
          Quote: vladimir1155
          otherwise your statement is unfounded like blah blah

          Vadim, this is your historical knowledge of the "blah blah" type, even if you are not even aware of large-caliber machine guns.
          1. +3
            29 July 2019 09: 12
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but by the beginning of the war they were considered obsolete, so from 1939 the fleet switched to 20-mm "Erlikons"

            And that was not the most perfect weapon. The most effective were the former Dutch anti-aircraft installations Hazemeyer, which used a twin 40-mm “Bofors”. The British copied these installations and began to use them since 1942.
            1. +1
              29 July 2019 13: 13
              Quote: Amurets
              And that was not the most perfect weapon.

              Sure! But I'm talking specifically about machine guns
          2. -2
            29 July 2019 09: 29
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In England, Vickers. 50 appeared in 1926, In the USA, Browning M1921 of the same caliber went into production with 1929.

            fine, I'm not special in machine guns, but why produce heavy machine guns for unnecessary battleships when people are starving, there is no money for PCA or T34? it’s not true that you agree that the leadership of the USSR was right to speed up and even be almost late with modern extremely necessary land means, and aviation, and not wasting resources on nonsense like a battleship ..... all from 1937 to 1941, for an incomplete five-year period after coming to power Stalin created army weapons from scratch, when he was to deal with anti-aircraft machine guns for meaningless battleships?
            1. +4
              29 July 2019 10: 12
              Quote: vladimir1155
              engage anti-aircraft machine guns for meaningless battleships?

              And the fact that the use of large-caliber machine guns is not limited to battleships, did it occur to you?
            2. 0
              29 July 2019 12: 38
              Quote: vladimir1155
              fine, I'm not special in machine guns, but why produce heavy machine guns for battleships that nobody needs

              Firstly, large-caliber machine guns were needed everywhere, both in the ground forces and in the navy, and among the land-goers - not only as an anti-aircraft gun. Secondly, your prejudice against the battleships has reached such proportions that it has obscured the most elementary fact - the fleet consists not only of LCs and machine guns were also placed on lighter ships.
              Quote: vladimir1155
              all in all, from 1937 to 1941, during the incomplete five-year period after coming to power, did Stalin create army weapons practically from scratch, when he had to deal with anti-aircraft machine guns for meaningless battleships?

              Nevertheless - they did, google
    2. +1
      28 July 2019 18: 29
      Quote: vladimir1155
      the quadruple maxim is a very effective weapon, it was used everywhere and very efficiently, the Germans were afraid of it, here the German enters the train echelon, and in front of the four, he evades and does not bomb, then he comes in from behind if there is air defense then the German threw bombs into the swamp, and flew away. Even the Germans did not like to bomb the Russians, all hid others, and the Russians always met a plane from all that is, from three-rulers, from PPS, and even pistols, a gas tank hole, and the end to the German .... so underestimating a weapon like Maxim is Andrei’s deep mistake, especially since the quadruple provided very dense fire, and the modesty about which the author is so worried. But the aircraft did not have armor, and rockets also had to fly very close and fall into the near air defense zone, that is, Maximov .....


      Perhaps I will support you in this part of the comment.

    3. 0
      28 July 2019 22: 24
      And yet there is no need for tanks, guns, planes and wars in general! Her, mine, but the trouble is, then the Britons, and now the dances don’t think so.
      Only one fact - the entry of Turkey into the war in 1914 on the side of Germany to a large extent provoked the presence of Goeben in its waters - the only dreadnought. However, if the cards were laid differently, Turkey could have had 1915 strong dreadnought in the Black Sea at the beginning of 3 - this means that domination of the sea passed to Turkey. With a corresponding change in the course of operations on the coastal flank of the Caucasus Front, which was completely dependent on supplies from the sea.
      1. -2
        28 July 2019 22: 38
        Quote: Potter
        on the coastal flank of the Caucasus Front, which was completely dependent on supplies from the sea.

        and the military-Ossetian and military-Georgian road, what then is it really overgrown with weeds?
        1. 0
          28 July 2019 23: 32
          Which side of the Ossetian military road is connected with Trebizond? Teleportation?
      2. -1
        28 July 2019 22: 50
        Quote: Potter
        Turkey’s entry into the war in 1914 on the side of Germany largely provoked the presence of Goeben in its waters

        you have very primitive notions about politics, it was definitely not determined by the presence of a cruiser, politics was determined by international banking circles, and Turkey could not evade what was offered to it. For example, in the Crimean War, she did without gebena. And Russia did not enter Syria because of the presence of cruisers, but because Russia and Assad as well as the United States did not have the right to refuse this offer. And you don’t know how to read, I wrote that we need submarines, aviation and minesweepers, and coastal assets, I’ll add this means .... missiles, tanks, artillery, infantry, and much more
        1. +1
          29 July 2019 10: 16
          Quote: vladimir1155
          policy is determined by the international banking community, and Turkey could not shy away from what was offered to it.

          Turkey’s entry into the WWI is a great example of the fallacy of your postulate. Since the finances of the Ottomans were dependent, just from the British and French capital.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          needed ... trashki

          and minesweepers need air defense, and KK machine guns will cope with this in every way better than quad maxims and squalid 45s.
          1. 0
            29 July 2019 10: 21
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            were dependent, just from the English and French capitals.

            it's been more than 300 years so, you understand that to get the benefits of the war, financiers always finance both belligerents, they gave money to Hitler, and they helped Stalin with the other hand, and in the presidential elections they finance both candidates, Turkey didn’t enter the war in the interests of Turkey itself, as well as the entry of any country into the war is not in its interests, it was in the interests of third parties, that is, international capital.
        2. 0
          29 July 2019 16: 54
          Quote: vladimir1155
          you have very primitive notions about politics, it was definitely not determined by the presence of a cruiser, politics was determined by international banking circles, and Turkey could not evade what was offered to it.

          Vadim, it’s not necessary to reduce its policy to banking circles :))) This is an extremely primitive approach, and completely unacceptable for the search for the causes of WWI, do not be like Samsonov. There were young Turks in Turkey at that time, the guys were tough and harsh, and they, wishing for certain benefits for their country, were studying who to join in the impending war. The Germans seemed more interesting to them.
          1. 0
            30 July 2019 09: 42
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Vadim

            Petrov? !!! request
      3. 0
        29 July 2019 14: 38
        Quote: Potter
        However, if the cards were laid differently, Turkey could have had 1915 strong dreadnought in the Black Sea at the beginning of 3 - this means that domination of the sea passed to Turkey.

        In another way, this grandmother said in two, “3 battleships were laid down on June 11, 1911. 2 of them (“ Empress Catherine the Great ”and“ Empress Maria ”were built in 3 years, just in time for the beginning of World War I. The third battleship“ Emperor Alexander III "was commissioned after the February Revolution. During the war, it was decided to build the fourth battleship" Emperor Nicholas I ", it was already launched, but did not enter the fleet until the end of the war. In connection with the decision to equip the lead ship in As the flagship, all ships of the series were ordered to be called Empress Maria ships by the order of the Minister of the Navy IK Grigorovich. https://historical-fact.livejournal.com/157256.html
      4. 0
        29 July 2019 19: 44
        Quote: Potter
        However, if the cards had settled differently, Turkey could have had 1915 strong dreadnought in the Black Sea at the beginning of 3

        Two: the future Agincourt with its 14 x 305 mm and Erin with 10 x 343 mm. The third LC - Erina's sister ship - EMNIP, was canceled by the construction.
      5. 0
        26 August 2019 15: 48
        For rent, if a TURKISH (without the Germans in the quality "leading and directing") squadron of 2 LC + escort at the same Sevastopol appeared, if some had not slept and turned on the barrage, then our underdreadnoughts could have had a chance. And what kind. Turks are Turks.
    4. +2
      29 July 2019 13: 09
      Quote: vladimir1155
      the quadruple maxim is a very effective weapon, it was used everywhere and very effectively, the Germans were afraid of it,


      Maybe fighters like Bf-109 were a little afraid, but to disrupt the attack of Ju-87 Ju-88 - the quad machine gun is in no way able. Although the achievement in height at the M4 installation is 1400 m, but it is impossible to shoot down, over the horizon of 1600 m - that is, to hit the plane, it must attack the target at low altitude, which is very rare.
      The Ju-87 leaves the dive at an altitude of 700-800 m. But hitting such a large plane at the dive exit speed is very difficult, while the bombs are dropped and the attack is not thwarted.
      Since February 1943, the 7,62-mm quadruple ZPU of the Tokarev design was withdrawn, as obsolete, from the anti-aircraft regiments of the anti-aircraft missile divisions. They fought until the end of the war in the army due to lack of air defense equipment.
      .
      The British used 12.7 mm Vickers - the same large-caliber Maxim.


      and in twin version
      1. +1
        29 July 2019 19: 52
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Maybe fighters like Bf-109 were afraid, but to disrupt the attack of Ju-87 Ju-88 - the quad machine gun is in no way able.

        I'll tell you more: the report of the "Big E" commander on actions near the Solomon Islands directly states that even a 20-mm MZA cannot disrupt an attack by dive bombers, because their effective firing range is only enough to fire on planes that have already dropped bombs.
    5. +1
      29 July 2019 13: 19
      Quote: vladimir1155
      But the aircraft did not have armor, and rockets also had to fly very close and fall into the near air defense zone, that is, Maximov ...


      Well, you got very excited about the armor of aircraft - the times of WWI with cast-iron frying pans under the ass certainly passed and by the 40th the main bombers had engine fire extinguishing systems, designed self-tightening exhaust-pressurized tanks, armored pilots, armored oil coolers - and shoot them down 7,62 mm bullet - it was a great success and rarity.
      Even the lousy slow-moving Ju-52 in the Spanish Civil War was very difficult to shoot down with an I-16 pair (2 ShKAS 7,62 mm each). Experienced pilots shot at the fuselage fuel tank - it was unprotected and then there was a chance to set fire to the junkers.

      Well, for comparison, the .303 caliber of the British Vickers and 12,7x81 large-caliber Vickers - (large-caliber maxim) and the achievement in height, the horizon is twice as far and the applied level is several times higher.
    6. +2
      29 July 2019 13: 49
      The Americans considered the 20-mm Oerlikons a useless weapon. Because he could not shoot down the plane before launching the attack. “Maxim” could have knocked down something when they were already unloaded on you.
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 16: 03
        As it turned out, the 40-mm Bofors fell into the same category, and with it all the 20-40-mm caliber assault rifles. If you have not demoralized the pilot, then he will have time to accurately drop a bomb or torpedo before his plane is shot down.
        The minimum caliber guaranteed to destroy an airplane of World War II before reaching the target's destruction line is 76 mm.
        1. +1
          29 July 2019 16: 51
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          it turned out that the 40-mm Bofors fell into the same category.

          No, Beaufors did not hit. He quite confidently incapacitated planes before they used weapons, but there is a nuance - he just incapacitated them, making them completely unsuitable for further exploitation, but did not completely destroy them, therefore he was ineffective against kamikaze. Actually, the EMNIP Americans began work on the 76-mm machine precisely after the kamikaze
          1. +1
            29 July 2019 17: 43
            You are right, but ...
            Bofors worked well as a "knocker" of the Japanese, but he did not prevent the attack itself, only demoralized it. In fact, the Erlikons are effective only as a weapon of retaliation. Saved the Americans Mk-38. Themselves wrote about the dropping of air torpedoes from heights and distances beyond the start of a war. Add glide bombs to this and we get the impotence of 40mm, and perhaps 57mm caliber. And if you remember the heroic "Tashkent" with its 37-mm machine guns?
            By the way, in games, we practiced an air gliding torpedo with no engine at all, but with a double charge, striking a target by the principle of a diving projectile. In the air she kept heading and pitch, and in water - heading and depth of course. With a launch height of about 2500 m, the effective range was up to 6000 m. Well, where is the 40 mm Bofors?
            1. +1
              29 July 2019 18: 07
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              Bofors worked well as a "knocker" of the Japanese, but he did not prevent the attack itself, only demoralized it.

              But why? I won’t say the effective range of Beaufors offhand, but there must be every possible kilometer of 2,5-3 (by plane) In order to drive dive bombers and oppress torpedo bombers on the battlefield, it’s pretty decent
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              Add planning bombs here

              Well, this is a completely different level, and yes, it was possible and needed to be fought with medium-caliber art.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              With a launch height of the order of 2500 m, the effective range was up to 6000 m.

              That's just taking into account the real possibilities of the then sights, effective accuracy from such a range ... let's say, absolutely none.
              1. 0
                30 July 2019 11: 19
                On the last point - it's not like that:
                Aiming from a height of 1500 - 2500 m to a distance of 4000 - 6000 m is carried out with an accuracy of 50-60 m. Three CANT Z.1007bis firing 6 gliding torpedoes from a horizontal flight missed the point of incidence to 100 m. Underwater trajectory - about 400 m, of which in the affected area of ​​more than 300 m. Flight time at maximum range - 45 s. The probability of hitting the fast battleship of one of the six Squalo is more than 90%.
  4. 0
    28 July 2019 15: 49
    It was necessary to replace the 120 mm guns with the 100 / 102 mm universal.
    1. +1
      28 July 2019 19: 14
      Quote: Kolin
      It was necessary to replace the 120 mm guns with the 100 / 102 mm universal.

      There were none of them. 100-mm mini-zini are outdated, their own 100-mm, which they put on the cruiser of the 26 project, are incomplete, the early 102-mm are generally not operational.
      1. +1
        29 July 2019 13: 48
        I bet.
        Minisini is an Italian nugget, for the 20s he designed a very good, reliable and convenient pair. Yes, his spark is rather slow by the standards of the early 40s, but at the same time it’s quick-fire. And most importantly - in the absence of modern control systems - it is quite suitable for a thick barrage. Do not forget about its ability to hit small-sized MCs. And most importantly - Spark Minisini ideally fits in place of the B-13.
        Show leadership wisdom and organize mass purchases in Italy before the war - our "sevens" and leaders like "Leningrad" could show the very sharp teeth of the Luftwaffe. And the purchase of a license with the organization of production in the 30s would have made it possible to issue quite worthy samples by the beginning of the 40s.
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 16: 49
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And most importantly - Spark Minisini ideally fits in place of the B-13.

          However, if you replace the B-13 with the Minisini, then the destroyer, having significantly improved air defense, will cease to pose any danger to any ship of the destroyer class. No one will do such a feat.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And the purchase of a license with the organization of production in the 30-s would allow to issue quite worthy samples by the beginning of the 40-x.

          Why do we need the production of obviously outdated weapons? Alternatively, pre-Hitler Germany will gladly sell the 88-mm "Akht-Koma-Akht" in the early 30s, and we will be happy ...
          1. 0
            29 July 2019 17: 53
            The British went to this feat for nothing on their "Tribals".
            What destroyers attacked the ships of the Black Sea Fleet need to google.
            The fact is that our production base, wretched at the beginning of the 30s, could handle this system, but hardly with 8.8 cm / 78 SK C / 31. At the end of the 30s, a 130-mm universal and an 85-mm automatic, like the 76-mm Compact, should have appeared. But for this it was necessary to get rid of the illusions about the low efficiency of aviation against ships.
            1. 0
              29 July 2019 18: 56
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              The British went to this feat for nothing on their "Tribals".

              ??? Instead of 4 * 2 120-mm, 3 * 2 120-mm and 1 * 2 102-mm were put on the part of the destroyers. Do you want the same? So there will not be much difference with the basic version with two 76 mm
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              The fact is that our production base, wretched at the beginning of the 30's, would have dealt with this system, but hardly with the 8.8 cm / 78 SK C / 31.

              And what is so super complicated? If one so argues that this rising Minisini carriage is complicated. In addition, there is a fact - the 85-mm anti-aircraft guns are completely mastered, and the 75-mm 3-K - it is, in fact, based on the German 75-mm anti-aircraft guns, which in turn can be said to be the predecessor of the 88-mm
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              At the end of the 30's, the 130 mm universal was supposed to appear

              No country was able to accomplish such a feat at that time. Not that I downplayed the capabilities of the USSR, but ....
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              But for this it was necessary to get rid of the illusions about the low efficiency of aviation against ships.

              They never existed in the USSR
              1. +1
                30 July 2019 10: 35
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                No country was able to accomplish such a feat at that time.

                Ummm ... what about the 5,25 "QF Mark I limes for the Kings and Dido?"
                I remember the problems of this system, but they were solvable, an example of which is "Vanguard".
                1. 0
                  30 July 2019 15: 22
                  So the fact of the matter is that the British made their 133-mm universal in essence after the war, and that’s about the end of the 30-x ...
                  1. 0
                    30 July 2019 17: 11
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    So the fact of the matter is that the British made their 133-mm universal in essence after the war, and that’s about the end of the 30-x ...

                    Well then, there remains only 5 "/ 38 Mark 12 complete with MPUAZO Mark 33.
                    Although the gun does not reach the B-13 in terms of ballistics, but it was also put as a main gun on EM and KRL. smile
              2. 0
                30 July 2019 11: 48
                This is all true, for:
                If the naval battle does not shine, then it is better to have 3 Minisini installations and one 152 mm moderate ballistic gun for the BC than 4x130 mm.
                Stabilized installations are a good thing, but they require a high production culture. (if I got hungry on this topic in the 80s, I can imagine what was happening in the thirties). The barrel is not the main thing (although the long and thin 8.8 cm / 78 SK C / 31, if I am not mistaken also the composite one, would not work for us either), the main thing is the installation itself, the capricious guidance system, which even failed for the Germans. And the 8.8 shell is rather weak. So - from simple to complex.
                The massive introduction of even if not new technology should have trained enough personnel for design, production and operation, and most importantly, ensure the next step - the creation of universal systems of 130-mm caliber and anti-aircraft guns with servo drives. The British and French created their station wagons almost after the 4 "/ 45 QF Mk XVI and 100 mm / 45 Model 1930.
            2. +1
              30 July 2019 10: 46
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              The British went to this feat for nothing on their "Tribals".

              Not on "Tables", but on "alphabets". Half of the "O" type EMs and all of the "P" type EMs received 4 "anti-aircraft guns as main guns.
              In the famous "New Year's Fight" with "Hipper", half of the EMs from the British side were just "four" type "O" - Obdurate, Obedient and Orwell.
          2. 0
            30 July 2019 16: 44
            The alternative must be up to the ship mount 100 mm ("Bismarck" - "Tirpitz"). Anything better than 88 and in addition stabilized. Yes, and either the purchase or the construction of such a ship was considered. As well as the armament of heavy cruisers with 380 mm turrets and SUAO.
          3. 0
            30 July 2019 17: 04
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Why do we need the production of obviously outdated weapons? Alternatively, pre-Hitler Germany will gladly sell the 88-mm "Akht-Koma-Akht" in the early 30s, and we will be happy ...

            there will be no happiness - mass production would not be pulled
            but the installation of the Bofors anti-aircraft machine if they had bought it in time, the destroyers and boats could snap back more powerful.
  5. 0
    28 July 2019 21: 46
    The first photo in the article is somehow terrible .. It seems that the proportions are greatly distorted, the battleship is flattened along the length and not evenly.
    1. 0
      29 July 2019 07: 41
      Quote: Saxahorse
      The first photo in the article is somehow awful ..

      taste and color markers are different
      Quote: Saxahorse
      The proportions seem to be greatly distorted

      Completely not distorted
  6. +4
    28 July 2019 22: 13
    Happy Navy, colleagues!
  7. +1
    28 July 2019 22: 28
    Scary ... you know how our ancestors had steel ...
  8. +2
    29 July 2019 01: 22
    I read, I don’t know, a fairy tale or not, out of 45mm not a single aircraft was shot down during the whole war.

    Also remember the drawback of this gun - when firing quickly, the gun jammed. One of the "pikes" tried to sink the steamer into Finnish from the surface position, but both guns immediately jammed, and the steamer quietly left.
    1. 0
      29 July 2019 13: 04
      The more you read about our weapons in WWII, you are no longer surprised.
  9. +2
    29 July 2019 20: 18
    The most interesting thing is that the German fleet did not have its own 37 mm submachine gun right up to 1943 - instead of it they put 37 mm semi-automatic machines, analogues of our 21-K.

    Despite the fact that the army and backlash had such a machine gun. smile
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 11: 27
      An interesting "firling" could be obtained from a 3.7-cm Flak 37 or a 3.7-cm Flak 43
      Although this still did not save Tallboy.
  10. 0
    30 July 2019 16: 56
    bubble rollometer.

    from these navy words my bubble teak started recourse
  11. 0
    30 July 2019 19: 28
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    I even find it difficult to answer about the presence of German heavy cruisers in the Baltic, about the battleships I will not say anything ..

    did not quite understand the meaning of this statement.
  12. 0
    23 September 2019 13: 04
    Andrey, where have you gone? it’s very interesting to read you. Please analyze the current state of the Navy and prospects. Honestly, I am amazed at your in-depth studies.

"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"