Warships. Beautiful, fast, useless


History Our heroes began almost immediately after the First World War, where Italy, frankly, did not win laurels. The Italian battleships and armadillos calmly stood up in the harbors, not trying to catch the stern adventures, because there were no victories, but there were no defeats. The Italians even “won”, that's how it happened.


Having won in this way, Italy even increased its fleet by receiving reparations.

Here we start with reparations. Having received five cruisers at once (three German and two Austro-Hungarian), and having six of their own, the Italians seriously thought that it would be nice to make the Mediterranean Sea Italian. Or “Our Sea,” as Mussolini said.

But for this it was necessary to build ships, since France, the eternal rival, did not doze off either. And the resulting rather old and motley gang of cruisers did not match the level.

However, the moment came for the conclusion of the damned Washington Treaty, and everything went a little different than the Duce would have liked.

According to the Treaty, Italy received the status of the fifth sea power, and, despite the restrictions imposed, it turned out that if the Italians sent a couple of old cruisers to the scrap, they could build as many as seven new heavy ships of this class.

Breaking does not build, the work began to boil.

Warships. Beautiful, fast, useless

They knew how to build ships in Italy since the time of the Roman Empire, so it turned out to be simple to adapt everything that was written in the Washington Treaty to the conditions of the Mediterranean Sea.

The idea for the main Italian ship, Philippe Bonfliletti, was very interesting. Since it turned out that under the terms of the agreement something had to be sacrificed, Bonfliletti decided to bring armor to the altar of victory.

According to his plan, ships should be fast, maneuverable, with very long-range guns. Range and seaworthiness were completely not critical, since the new cruisers were supposed to operate in the conditions of the Mediterranean puddle, where Italians encountered gas stations quite often. Armor was not a priority either, although it was impossible to say that the ships came out “cardboard” either.

Of course, like all countries, Italians did not meet the allotted 10 tons of displacement, but given their fifth place in the world, no one paid special attention to this. Showdowns were a level higher, so the Italians built ships without much attention from the outside.

The first Italian heavy cruisers were the Trento and Trieste. They were followed by other ships, all the heavy cruisers of Italy received names in honor of the cities that retreated to Italy according to the results of the First World War.


After Trento and Trieste, five more ships were built, already fundamentally different from the first, although the Bolzano is often attributed to the Trento type, although this is not entirely correct. The ships were somewhat similar, but the difference was quite noticeable. However, we will talk more about this.

Italian shipbuilders made very peculiar ships. Beautiful, elegant and fast.


However, elegance and speed in general were the hallmark of Italian ships.

The Trento was first considered a very successful ship, and two heavy cruisers for the Argentinean Navy, the Almirante Brown type, were built by this type.


However, the devil is in the details, and we will talk about the details in the process.

What were the ships like?

Data on Trent / Trieste.

Displacement. Standard - 10 511/10 505 t, full - 13 548/13 540 t.
Length 190 / 190,96 m.
Width m 20,6.
Draft 6,8 m.

Booking:
- the main belt - 70 mm;
- deck - 20-50 mm;
- traverses - 40-60 mm,
towers - 100 mm,
barbets - 60-70 mm,
cutting - 100 mm.

Engines: 4 ТЗ Parsons, total capacity 150 000 l. from.
Speed ​​36 knots.
Cruising range 4 160 nautical miles (at 16 knots).
Crew 781 man.

Armament:
- 8 (4 × 2) 203 mm Ansaldo guns Mod. 1929;
- 16 (8 × 2) × 100-mm universal guns "General Relativity" Mod.1927;
- 4 (4 × 1) × 40 mm Vickers-Terni anti-aircraft guns Mod. 1915/1917;
- 8 (4 × 2) × 13,2 mm Breda anti-aircraft machine guns Mod. 1931;
- 4 × 2 mm torpedo tubes.

Aviation group: 1 catapult, 2 seaplanes.


In 1937, a stern pair of universal 100-mm gun installations was replaced by 4 twin 37-mm anti-aircraft guns manufactured by Breda.

The main caliber of cruisers of the Trento type consisted of eight 203-mm guns with a length of 50 calibres produced by the famous Ansaldo factory.

The guns were placed linearly elevated in four two-gun towers - two in the bow and two in the aft.


The guns were ... ambiguous. Projectile weight 125,3 kg, brand C charge weight 47 kg, initial projectile speed 905 m / s, rate of fire at an elevation angle of 15 °, one shot in 18 seconds, and at an elevation angle of 45 °, one shot in 40 seconds. Charging was carried out at a fixed elevation angle of 15 °. Maximum range 31 324 m.

In principle, everything looks pretty good, right?

The capacity of the cellars is 1300 shells and 2900 charges, the ammunition of one gun consisted of 162 shells.

During the tests, however, it turned out that the trunks wear out very quickly, therefore, a different alignment was selected experimentally. The weight of the projectile was reduced to 118,5 kg, the initial speed to 835 m / s, while the range decreased to 28 km, but the wear of the trunks was significantly reduced.

But not a drop in range became the Achilles heel of the Italian beauties. Guns 203 mm / 50 Ansaldo Mod. 1924 were devilishly slanting. Accuracy ... but you can’t talk about accuracy here, it was not at all. These guns were armed 7 (SEVEN) Italian heavy cruisers fleetwho took part in the Second World War. Seven cruisers with 56 barrels achieved THREE recorded hits during the war.

This, you see, if not a shame, then his dress rehearsal.

What was the reason for this inaccuracy is hard to say today. Mostly they blame the close arrangement of the guns in the towers, yes, both barrels were there in the same cradle, but the French had the same system, and while they fought, they somehow managed to get in. Perhaps the reason lay in lightened shells, but in fact the powerful guns in terms of characteristics did not allow the cruisers to at least somehow manifest themselves on the battlefield.

The universal cruiser caliber consisted of sixteen 100-mm cannons of the 1924 model, developed on the basis of the Skoda guns of the 1920 model in eight towers. Let's put it this way: not bad tools, but they did not carry freshness from them. By the beginning of the war, they are definitely outdated both in terms of guidance and in terms of rate of fire. Therefore, on many ships they were happy to replace them with quick-firing machines.

Anti-aircraft weapons included four 40-mm Vickers "Pom-pom" and eight 13,2-mm machine guns. In addition, on the main deck between the tubes were four double-tube 533 mm torpedo tubes.

The ship was equipped with three aircraft, two of which were located in the hangar in front of tower A, and a Gagnotto catapult to launch them. As aircraft, the Piaggio P.6t, Macchi M.41, CANT 25AR, and IMAM Ro.43 models were used in series.

In general, if you look formally and in numbers, the Trento cruisers had very good armaments for those years, in fact the armament was very much below average.


The Trento was laid down on February 8, 1925, launched on October 4, 1927, and entered service on April 3, 1929.

The Trieste was laid down on June 22, 1925, launched on October 24, 1926, and entered into service on December 21, 1928.


Military service before the Second World War on ships was frankly not dusty. Parades, visits, trips in the Mediterranean. True, Trento had a trip to the Far East, with calls to Shanghai and Japan, which once again confirms that the cruiser’s seaworthiness was at a good level.

In 1936-1939, Trento occasionally acted off the coast of Spain, supporting the Franco during the civil war. But somehow he did not gain military success, perhaps because there was no one to fight with.

By the time Italy entered World War II on June 10, 1940, Trento, together with Trieste and Bolzano, made up the 3rd division of the cruisers of the Second Squadron. The division was given a division of four destroyers, and in this form the compound went to war with France.


But it all ended very quickly, the cruisers managed to make one short combat campaign on June 22-23, 1940, in which they had no contact with the enemy.

July 9, 1940 "Trento" among other ships of the Italian fleet took part in the battle of Calabria.

During the battle, Trento successfully evaded the British torpedo bombers' Swordfish attack, and then, together with other heavy cruisers, entered the battle with light British cruisers, opening fire from a distance of about 11 miles.

The Italians failed to get into British ships, and then the Urspight came to the aid of the British cruisers and dispersed the Italians. Then again the British torpedo bombers flew in and again the cruisers calmly fought back and left.

In general, Italians acted very passively, did not achieve a single hit, although the British light cruisers hit the Bolzano cruiser three times.

Further, Italy decided to fight against Greece, in connection with which the cruisers at the end of October 1940 were relocated to Taranto. There they were found by the British, who arranged on November 11 in the harbor of Taranto the forerunner of Pearl Harbor.

Trento was hit by a 250-pound (113,5 kg) semi-armor-piercing bomb. The bomb hit the nasal 100 mm port of the port, pierced the deck and got stuck in the structures below, but did not explode. This is called "lucky in full." It could be much worse.

And on November 26, 1940, the main forces of the Italian fleet (2 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 14 destroyers) again went to sea to strike at the British compound. Naturally, the 3rd division of heavy cruisers also went into battle. But the fight, if it turned out, is very crumpled.


The fact is that aerial reconnaissance of the Italian fleet spotted a British squadron consisting of 1 aircraft carrier, 1 battleship, 1 battle cruiser, 1 heavy cruiser, 6 light cruisers and 14 destroyers.

The commander of the Italian squadron, Admiral I. Campioni, decided that an easy victory would not work (which is actually debatable) and ordered him to withdraw.

So the only clash came just from the cruisers of the 3rd division, who were closest to the enemy and were forced to join the battle. Against three Italian heavy cruisers were 1 heavy and 4 light cruisers of the British.

The Italians opened fire from a distance of about 10 miles and soon got into the heavy cruiser "Berwick", on which the stern towers failed. But then the light cruisers were approached by the battle cruiser Rinaun, and although its volleys did not cause damage, the Italians developed full speed and broke the contact.

The last battle, "Trento" held June 15, 1942, as part of a compound that went to sea to intercept the British convoy in Malta.

In the early morning of June 15, 1942, Italian ships underwent a series of attacks by British aircraft. At 05:15, Trento got hit by a torpedo from the British torpedo bomber Beaufort. The hit came in the area of ​​the bow boiler compartment, which was flooded. Water flooded the other compartments of the ship, a fire started, the cruiser lost speed.

The compound went on to pursue the convoy, and the Trento crew began the struggle for survivability. It started to turn out, the fire was extinguished, the fodder boiler plant was launched, they started pumping out water and using the destroyer Pigafetta to tow the ship to the base.

But then rock intervened in the form of the British submarine Ambra, which from a fairly large distance (about 2 miles) fired two torpedoes at the cruiser. One torpedo hit the cruiser in the area of ​​the bow elevated tower. After the explosion, there was a detonation of the bow artillery cellars after five minutes, the cruiser sank.

In this short time, Italians managed to save 602 people, including 22 officers. 549 people were killed, including 29 officers. Among the dead was the commander of Trento 1st-Class Captain Stanislao Esposito.

Trieste lived a little longer. On April 10, 1943, Italian ships in the harbor of the new base of La Madallene were attacked by a compound of 84 American B-17 heavy bombers.

During the raid, the Trieste was butchered very thoroughly, the cruiser received 4 hits with 1000-pound (454 kg) air bombs. Add-ons were destroyed, one bomb lay down on the starboard side, a leak opened, a fire started from other hits.

The two-hour struggle to save the ship was unsuccessful and, as a result, the Trieste capsized and sank at a depth of 20 m. Crew losses - 30 killed, 50 wounded.

What conclusion can be drawn?

Not everything that is beautiful on paper is good on the waves. This can be attributed to the Trento cruisers in full.


Like any Washington cruiser, Trento and Trieste turned out to be not very successful ships. Especially in comparison with later classmates, because at the end of the 20s of the last century it was very difficult to accommodate sane armor, a decent power plant, and weapons from 10-000 8-mm guns in a contract.

Against the background of cruisers of potential opponents, the Trento type looked good. He had a full, albeit thin armor belt within the citadel, a good reservation of the deck and towers. Compared to the eternal French rivals, Italian ships generally looked powerful and solid.

The Italians did not need a special seaworthiness, as already mentioned, because the water area of ​​the Mediterranean Sea is not the Atlantic and especially not the Pacific Ocean. As the special autonomy and range of action was not needed, both its bases and the likely adversary were all at hand.


But the project also had flaws, not noticeable on paper, but very serious at sea.

The first such drawback was ... speed! Yes, 35 knots on paper is a lot. For a heavy cruiser - a lot. But measurements carried out under ideal conditions, alas, were similar to exaggerated records.


In fact, cruisers of the Trento type in a real combat situation could go for a long time at a speed of no more than 30-31 knots, which is pretty much less than intended. But in fact, the "slow-moving" cruisers of Great Britain and France moved with the same speed.

The second nuance. Housings. The eternal problem of many Italian projects (yes, we immediately recall the Soviet "sevens") were frankly weak corps. Perhaps if the Trieste’s hull weren’t so weak, the ship would have withstood a nearby bomb explosion. But the vibrations that followed the hulls of the Italian cruisers contributed, weakening the already not very strong hulls.

The third is artillery. The main caliber was completely incapacitated. On paper, the 203-mm guns were world-class, in fact - three hits on 56 barrels that fired a fair amount of shells is a fiasco.


You can blame the cruiser for insufficient speed, small autonomy and range, weak seaworthiness, but even these minuses are not able to outweigh the fact that the ship is not able to conduct accurate shooting with its main caliber. For all the same, the main purpose of the heavy cruiser is to inflict damage on enemy ships below class. If he is not able to do this - then what kind of warship is it?

So in the end, Italian cruisers of the Trento type were completely useless in the most important thing - in the ability to inflict damage on the enemy. Unable to fight, they went to the bottom, beautiful, elegant, but not at all dangerous for enemy ships.


Beauty is not always really deadly ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67 10 January 2020 18: 19 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Strange, in the photo of one of the ships a star, did he go to our Navy after the war?
    And yet, during the death of Novorossiysk, it was noted that the Italians, in order to lighten the weight of their battleship, installed bulkheads not of steel, but aluminum, which simply could not withstand the pressure of the incoming water and burst ...
    1. Senior seaman 10 January 2020 18: 36 New
      • 19
      • 0
      +19
      The star is an ancient symbol of Italy. According to legend, this is the same star that pointed the way to the ship of Aeneas.
      There is even a version that on Soviet ships, the star appeared in imitation of the Italian, after we purchased from them the projects of destroyers and cruisers, but this is a bike.
      1. Svarog51 10 January 2020 19: 44 New
        • 12
        • 2
        +10
        Ivan hi Yes, moderators will forgive me, click your icon in the upper right, select "Profile", and then click on the epaulet. Choose a marine. It is not comfortable to see the naval in maroon uniforms. Cap 3 will suit you.
        1. Charlie 10 January 2020 21: 35 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Yes, immediately kapraz))
          1. Svarog51 11 January 2020 04: 17 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            This is still a long way off.
    2. mark1 10 January 2020 20: 55 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      in order to lighten the weight of their battleship, they installed bulkheads not made of steel, but aluminum

      “Giulio Cesare” is a very ancient battleship (the same age as the “Gangutu”), so the aluminum bulkheads are very unexpected, at least not a specialist for me. Is it possible that during the modernization even the bulkheads were cut out?
    3. Aviator_ 10 January 2020 22: 35 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      This is not our star, but Italian, with some wings (like a gasket).
      1. svp67 11 January 2020 02: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Aviator_
        This is not our star, but Italian, with some wings (like a gasket).

        Everything can be, but this one just has a star
        1. Catfish 11 January 2020 04: 20 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          We put stars on both sides, closer to the nose, but here it is clearly on the “tip” of the stem. Yes, they also had stars on military uniforms: on shoulder straps, collars, cuffs of sleeves and on headdresses.
          1. svp67 11 January 2020 04: 27 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Sea Cat
            We put stars on both sides, closer to the bow, and here she is clearly on the “tip” of the stem

            Fact...
            Yes, I will say more, in the Japanese army the star was used as a symbol, mostly of course gold, but there were cases and red was used on airplanes ...
            1. Catfish 11 January 2020 04: 47 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              With the Japanese form - yes, that's for sure, but I hear about the star on airplanes for the first time. Probably a private initiative of individual pilots?
              1. svp67 11 January 2020 08: 10 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Quote: Sea Cat
                With the Japanese form - yes, that's for sure, but I hear about the star on airplanes for the first time.



                ... in the summer of 1921, the Ungern fighters took the RSFSR / FER aircraft as Japanese for identification ...
        2. Aviator_ 11 January 2020 11: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Not just some wings on top, they are lighter.
    4. boriz 11 January 2020 02: 25 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      "... they installed bulkheads not of steel, but aluminum, which simply could not withstand the pressure of the incoming water and burst ..."
      Especially when you consider that aluminum - iron is a very good galvanic pair. Especially in seawater. It is not surprising that they complained about the corps. The aluminum around the rivets was eaten with terrible force.
    5. Comrade 11 January 2020 04: 31 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      one of the ships has a star in the photo, did he go to our Navy after the war?

      On the nose of the Russian armored cruiser Bayan, built in France, the French installed a star.

      This is probably a “Mars star” named after the ancient Roman god of war Mars.
      1. svp67 11 January 2020 04: 36 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Comrade
        On the nose of the Russian armored cruiser "Bayan"

        Well, yes, he has something there on the tank

        Quote: Sea Cat
        We put stars on both sides, closer to the bow, and here she is clearly on the “tip” of the stem

        Here is an interesting photo of the former cruiser Svetlana, in the Soviet Navy Profintern, take a look at his nose


    6. Fotoceva62 11 January 2020 11: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You are wrong. Watertight bulkheads were ordinary steel.
      1. svp67 11 January 2020 13: 37 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Fotoceva62
        You are wrong. Watertight bulkheads were ordinary steel.

        There is a report on the death of Novorossiysk and it has already been published. There is this item
        1. Fotoceva62 12 January 2020 07: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I wrote about waterproof shell bulkheads ...
  2. Scharnhorst 10 January 2020 18: 28 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    "Highlight" about three hits is impressive! It would be supplemented by the number of combat shots and comparative statistics of other cruisers of classmates of the same British.
    1. Freeman 10 January 2020 19: 57 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      "Highlight" about three hits is impressive !.


      “The Italians build ships much better than they know how to fight on them”
      / aphorism attributed to Winston Churchill /

      It would be supplemented by the number of combat shots and comparative statistics of other cruisers of classmates of the same British.


      An example, although not quite on the topic of the question, is indicative of the fact that the British did not shine with outstanding accuracy.
      Espero escort fight
      Anglo-Australian squadron of 5 light cruisers, spent more than 5000
      152 mm shells in battle on June 28, 1940, against 3 Italian destroyers.
      As a result of the battle, 1 Italian destroyer was sunk, which remained to cover the withdrawal of the other 2.
      1 English cruiser was damaged by a 120 mm shell from an Italian destroyer.
      / wiki /
    2. Rurikovich 10 January 2020 21: 19 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      It would be supplemented by the number of combat shots and comparative statistics of other cruisers of classmates of the same British.

      Well, “Exeter” hit two 203-mm shells in “Count Spee” ... “Prince Eugen” shoved three of these in the “Prince of Wells”. Almost at the level of all Italians bully
      1. Fotoceva62 11 January 2020 11: 46 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        The reason for the low accuracy of Italian guns was well known already in the 30s ...
        The total raw material poverty of the Musolini empire: 1. Lack of raw materials for the production of high-quality powders (nitroglycerin ballistite with unstable characteristics).
        2. Large parsing in the mass of shells.
        3. The quality of optics left much to be desired.
        4. Low survivability of guns due to the high calorie content of gunpowder and small cuts.
        5. Poor preparation of the commandants (expensive is a pleasure).
  3. New Year day 10 January 2020 18: 38 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Interesting study, thanks!
  4. smaug78 10 January 2020 19: 09 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    "but the French had the same system, and while they fought, they somehow managed to get in." where exactly and how much, Roman share information? laughing
    Another copy-paste article. And most importantly, the author in the subject, like por..k in oranges ...
    1. Snail N9 10 January 2020 19: 38 New
      • 9
      • 5
      +4
      Alas, the USSR did not have heavy cruisers, with the exception of the unfinished Germans "Luttsova." However, the way the light cruisers of the USSR acted, also, is lower than the baseboard, despite the "guard ranks" of some of them ..... However, this is not the fault of the crews of these ships, they just did everything possible in those conditions to fulfill the assigned tasks, it is the fault of those who planned their use. Especially sad
      1. Kostya Lavinyukov 10 January 2020 22: 05 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Is the cruiser Balt. fleets were not used to support troops?
        1. New Year day 11 January 2020 12: 13 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
          Is the cruiser Balt. fleets were not used to support troops?

          their only purpose?
    2. Snail N9 10 January 2020 19: 38 New
      • 7
      • 4
      +3
      Alas, the USSR did not have heavy cruisers, with the exception of the unfinished Germans "Luttsova." However, the way the light cruisers of the USSR acted, also, below the baseboard, despite the "guard ranks" of some of them ..... However, this is not the fault of the crews of these ships, they just did everything possible in those conditions to fulfill the assigned tasks, it is the fault of those who planned their use.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. The leader of the Redskins 10 January 2020 19: 24 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    However, elegance and speed in general were the hallmark of Italian ships.
    This cannot be taken away ... And our “Tashkent” is a confirmation of this.
  7. Petrol cutter 10 January 2020 19: 31 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    Yes Yes. It is what it is. Designers Italians from God! Although I don’t really like them (Italians). But the steamboats are beautiful sculpted. For those who understand the beauty of military equipment.
    And not only steamboats. Well, such and such ...
    Well done boys. What a sin to conceal.
    1. Andrzej k 10 January 2020 22: 52 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Here again, one of the most beautiful ships is remembered - the leader of Tashkent. Unfortunately - completely Italian - with a delicate slim body.
    2. Santa Fe 10 January 2020 23: 09 New
      • 2
      • 7
      -5
      But the steamboats are beautiful sculpted. For those who understand the beauty of military equipment.

      Dear expert in the field of fine arts, share with others - what exactly delights you in the guise of Italian ships

      Could you give one example of the “most beautiful Italian ship” of that time?

      What was so remarkable about his appearance?

      what his classmates from Britain-France-USA-Japan or Germany didn’t have
      1. Petrol cutter 11 January 2020 19: 12 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        But the comrade has already added the leader of Tashkent. About something (I personally liked it initially. And had an interesting color scheme).
        In terms of aesthetics (a purely individual matter), how can I explain it ... Someone is pleased with the eyes of "Tashkent", someone with "Ticonderoga" ....
        For example, our 22800 more than "delivers" esthetically.
        And people from the neighboring workshop say bullshit ... They say they are more beautiful ...
        Such a squiggle. hi
      2. Petrol cutter 11 January 2020 22: 44 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Parry. Comrade Santa Fe !.
        What is the melancholy in America ?!
        1. Santa Fe 12 January 2020 05: 24 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Benzorez
          here comrade has already added, the leader of "Tashkent"

          What visually distinguished Tashkent from dozens of other ships of its class

          In my opinion, the phrase "Italians built beautiful ships" all repeat one after anotherwithout thinking about the meaning and content

          Tashkent, Le Terribl, Mogador - which of them is more beautiful? and how to distinguish them?


          1. Amf49 13 January 2020 11: 57 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            According to the design of the cabin. That is what I like.
            1. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 03: 30 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Amf49
              By cutting design

              It is the same for all 40-leader leaders - ships that were part of the fleets of Italy and France

              See photo above - French and Italian destroyer leader
  8. Arthur 85 10 January 2020 19: 49 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    But surprisingly, they did not understand that muzzle gases from one barrel would act on a projectile from an adjacent one? The layout of the tower at the test site did not test (not a single gun, namely the tower)? Hoping for the mercy of Jupiter?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 January 2020 22: 07 New
      • 24
      • 0
      +24
      Quote: Arthur 85
      But surprisingly, they did not understand that muzzle gases from one barrel would act on a projectile from an adjacent one?

      It’s just that Roman is not on the topic of why the accuracy of Italian guns was so poor :)))) As for the two barrels in one cradle, the scheme of the 4 turrets of 2 guns involved shooting in half-salvos, four guns in the salvo, one barrel from each gun . With such firing, the adjacent barrels did not and could not have any effect on the accuracy.
      Why were Italians so oblique? The answer is very simple - when in tests their guns (EMNIP 152 mm) were fired with shells manufactured in Germany, the accuracy was quite good. But the Italian shells ... The problem is that the shell is complicated. The Italians could not cope, their mass tolerances walked left and right, mom do not cry. Hence, no accuracy.
      1. Avior 10 January 2020 22: 50 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        For guns of this caliber and cost, they could be weight-adjusted and manually adjusted if the series did not work.
  9. Nasrat 10 January 2020 20: 12 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    I liked the article ... the angle of consideration of the question is very interesting ... Roman Respect !!!
  10. Graz 10 January 2020 20: 12 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    well, then if the cruiser had normal artillery of the main caliber, it would be decent
  11. Undecim 10 January 2020 20: 25 New
    • 16
    • 2
    +14
    The author is confused in the main calibers. The article seems to correctly indicate the 203 mm / 50 (8 ") Model 1924, but arms them with seven cruisers.
    In TTX indicates a different system.
    203 mm Ansaldo gun Mod.1929;
    These are different artillery systems.
    203-caliber 50 mm / 8 (1924 ") Model 50 guns were installed on only two cruisers, the Trento and Trieste. These guns were not mounted on other cruisers.
    203 mm / 53 Ansaldo Mod. 1927/1929 had a barrel length of 53 calibers and was mounted on the Bolzano cruiser and on the Zara class cruiser.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 January 2020 22: 08 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Too lazy to go into the sources but EMNIP you are absolutely right.
      1. Undecim 10 January 2020 22: 25 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        I have already climbed. Naval Weapons of World War Two, author of NJM Campbell.
        1. Catfish 11 January 2020 04: 41 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Good morning, Vic Nikolaevich. hi
          I always believed that the reasons for the constant defeats of the Italian fleet lie in the complete lack of command and insufficient training of the crews of large surface ships. However, in the light of the foregoing, I have a question regarding our “Tashkent”. The leader of the Italian project and the Italian building, his death under German bombs, is by chance not a consequence of the same flaws in the strength of the hull as these Italian cruisers? It would be interesting to know your opinion.
          1. Undecim 11 January 2020 13: 04 New
            • 19
            • 0
            +19
            If you mean as stated above "The second nuance. Hulls. The eternal problem of many Italian projects (yes, we recall the Soviet" sevens ") were frankly weak hulls. Perhaps if the Trieste hull was not so weak, the ship could withstand a bomb explosion nearby.", then this has nothing to do with reality, as it was written by an author who is far from understanding the issue.

            This is Trieste at the time of the bombing. You can calculate how many bombs exploded in a radius of 50 meters from the ship. The picture shows how the cruiser burst out of the water with explosions. Here, no case can stand it. This is the first.
            The second one. About strength. The ship distinguishes between general and local strength.
            The total longitudinal strength of the hull is its ability to withstand the action of external forces applied along the length. The Italian cruisers could have such a problem, this did not allow them to develop full speed with a certain excitement. but this is not related to the hydrodynamic shock occurring when a bomb detonates nearby.
            The local strength of the hull works here - the ability of its individual structures to withstand the additional effects of forces: mainly overboard water pressure and concentrated loads. In this case, multiple hydrodynamic impacts from close explosions of half-ton bombs were the concentrated load in this case.
            No cruiser of any country was not designed for such loads.
            As for Tashkent, it just withstood all close gaps on June 27, 1942, and despite the overload and the fact that it took 1900 tons of water and lost 45% of buoyancy, it reached Novorossiysk. Here we can say "glory to the Italian designers and shipbuilders."
            And he died on July 4 from direct hits of four 250 kg of bombs - two in the bow engine room, two in the stern. And here the strength of the case.
            1. Catfish 11 January 2020 15: 39 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Thank you, Victor Nikolayevich, the answer is comprehensive. hi
            2. mmaxx 11 January 2020 16: 49 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              I wanted to write something like that. Plus, but would put 5 pluses.
              Given the water hammer, damage from near falls was often irreparable.
  12. antivirus 10 January 2020 20: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    such as Trento were completely useless in the most important thing - in the ability to inflict damage on the enemy.


    -On the face of the odd, good inside ... to opponents
  13. Andrzej k 10 January 2020 20: 38 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    In any case, two battleships (St. Istvan and Viribus Unitis) enter the First World War at the expense of the Italian fleet. The weak activity of the linear fleet was explained by the fact that the main enemy forces rarely left their safe bases, for example, in Boka Kotorska.
    The term "Mare Nostrum" is not the idea of ​​Mussoini, but comes from the time of the ancient Roman Empire.
    As for the fact that the Italian cruisers are not very useful, we can maliciously say that we finally know the reason why the complete lack of usefulness of the Soviet cruisers Proj 26 and 26bis. Training ordinary infantry and building more coastal batteries was cheaper ;-)
  14. Andrzej k 10 January 2020 20: 52 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    ... However, the moment came to the conclusion of the damned Washington Treaty, and everything went somewhat differently than the Duce would have liked.


    Funny phrase. Mussolini took power eight months AFTER the signing of the Washington Treaty
  15. Engineer 10 January 2020 20: 57 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    It seems that the author is right about the futility, but if you look at the question broader ...
    What is the use of the English heavy cruisers? Be targets for submarines and aircraft? and a little for Japanese ships for a change.
    And from the French?
    And from the American? More complicated with them, they fought harder than all Europeans combined, but the balance of losses and success is just depressing ...
    From the German ?. Hipper shot at Holland and once again tightly cruised. Against the background of the standings.
    It turns out that only the Japanese TKR met expectations.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 January 2020 22: 08 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Engineer
      What is the use of the English heavy cruisers?

      Huge
      1. Engineer 10 January 2020 22: 11 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        If only for opponents of Albion. As a punching bag.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 January 2020 01: 10 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: Engineer
          If only for opponents of Albion. As a punching bag.

          :))) You just don’t understand the goals and objectives that cruisers carry out and measure their usefulness solely by successes in artillery battles.
          1. Engineer 11 January 2020 10: 21 New
            • 0
            • 5
            -5
            You just don’t understand the goals and objectives that the cruiser performs.

            What a funny aplomb.
            Specifically, the British heavy cruisers were built as defenders of trade.
            In fact, the cruiser “cruiser against cruisers” did not happen. There were only two episodes of clashes within this framework. The Germans tried to bet on battleships-traders, and then on submarines and aircraft. To combat these threats, TKR limes are useless.
            And then we look at the price
            type Kent 2 million pounds late 20s. And they were built as many as 13 pieces.
            battleship King 7.4 million pounds late 30s
            Here you have the whole "huge" benefit
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 January 2020 12: 14 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              Quote: Engineer
              What a funny aplomb.

              Laughter for no reason ...
              Quote: Engineer
              Specifically, the British heavy cruisers were built as defenders of trade.
              In fact, the cruiser “cruiser against cruisers” did not happen. There were only two episodes of clashes within this framework.

              Really? :)))) Without “Exeter” and “Cumberland” it would not be possible to stop “Spee”. The Devonshire discovered and destroyed the Atlantis. Penguin destroyed by Cornwall. Bismarck and Eugen were discovered by none other than Norfolk and Suffolk, who held contact with them and brought Hood and Wells to them. Yes, the battle in Danish was unsuccessful for the British, but it was he who made Lutens interrupt the military campaign and created the prerequisites for the destruction of Bismarck. The Norfolk, along with three light cruisers, stopped the Scharnhorst, who was trying to attack the convoy during the Battle of North Cape, while three 203-mm shells killed his nasal rangefinder and radar. This created the necessary prerequisites for the success of Duke of York, which sank the Scharnhorst.
              More examples needed? I have them in bulk, but for all the fighting episodes of the British TKR, it’s just right to write an article :))))))
              Quote: Engineer
              The Germans tried to bet on battleships-traders, and then on submarines and aircraft. To combat these threats, TKR limes are useless.

              You did not manage to understand one simple thing. The Germans relied on battleships, and then on the submarine precisely because the attempt to unleash the classic cruising war yielded nothing to them - the British had enough KRL and TKR to detect and destroy any cruisers that Germany could build and send to the sea. That is, in fact, the TKR Limes prevented this very cruising war, rather quickly showing the futility of the “pocket battleships” raids and auxiliary cruisers and took an active part in countering the threats created by the Kriegsmarin LC. And I still did not touch the Mediterranean :))))
              Quote: Engineer
              Here you have the whole "huge" benefit

              Yeah :)
              1. Andy 11 January 2020 12: 36 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                More examples needed? I have them in bulk, but for all the fighting episodes of the British TKR it’s just right to write an article

                we wait. it would be very interesting
              2. Engineer 11 January 2020 13: 17 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                A good example about Norfolk. It was delayed for me that it was Charles who chopped him up, and the return fire was not remembered. The contribution is good, but there a combination of factors led to the destruction of the German. But TCR is a plus.
                More examples needed?

                Need of course. You may recall Berwick vs. Hipper. The Briton received 4 shells, but his presence kept the German from attack.
                Still very sparse for 15 ships.
                You did not manage to understand one simple thing. The Germans relied on battleships, and then on the submarine precisely because the attempt to unleash the classic cruising war gave them nothing

                The cruising war did not take place for three reasons - the Germans have too few of these cruisers. The second, the main one, for operations on communication lines, is the USA + Canada --- Britain is critically important to provide a base in France. This they were not allowed to do. The third is the deafening success of the submarines, which even the Raeder retrograde could not deny. Therefore, further attempts with cruising seemed pointless against the background of the prospects of concentration of efforts in the submarine war.
                In all these reasons, the British TKR did not play any role.
                1. mmaxx 11 January 2020 16: 55 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  You can also add a New Year’s fight.
                  English cruisers are fleet hounds. They ran back and forth, not sparing themselves. They gnawed at the enemy as they could, perished at the same time. Completing the task. In a good way I envy the UK that they had such sailors. The tradition of what to take from them.
                  1. Engineer 11 January 2020 17: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You can also add a New Year’s fight.

                    Unfortunately, you can’t. The dispute about TKR
                    1. mmaxx 11 January 2020 17: 31 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      From hitting a 6-dm projectile, “Hipper” ran out of fire for good. From 8-dm two would fly out. That’s the whole argument. Ships of the same rank, with identical sailors. A projectile of 8 inches is more than 2 times heavier than 6 dm.
                      1. Engineer 11 January 2020 17: 43 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        I prefer facts rather than fortunetelling. In the New Year's battle, the British did not have TKR. Analysis is always easier and more correct to do based on what happened, and not on what could have been.
                      2. mmaxx 11 January 2020 17: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        In fact, those light cruisers and these heavy ones are one and the same. We acted together often. They were not useless. It all depended on how they were used. Used correctly. Here is the effect.
                        That's why I wrote. About the English cruisers. Without dividing them into Washington and simply large lungs.
                      3. Engineer 11 January 2020 17: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        In fact, those light cruisers and these heavy ones are one and the same.

                        Not. For me, it is quite obvious that the British TKRs in the war were mainly second-line ships: in squadron battles they were used much less often than light ones, and they were practically not used for independent operations on communications. Their destiny is distant patrols and escort cover.
            2. Octopus 11 January 2020 17: 12 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              Quote: Engineer
              The third is the deafening success of the submarines, which even the Raeder retrograde could not deny

              You make the usual mistake.

              You compare the tonnage on the account of German submarines and English NKs and say these are the useless SRT and which are the useful submarines. But you don’t understand that the useless British NK provided a solid continental blockade, bringing the Axis to such perversions as underwater blockers. And useful German submarines did more or less nothing. I remember that we have already discussed the real situation with the loss of tonnage. You then to block Britain needed an alternative story without the United States.
              1. Engineer 11 January 2020 17: 22 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                You compare the tonnage on the account of German submarines and English NKs and say these are the useless SRT and which are the useful submarines.

                I do not have that. Simply no.
                But you don’t understand that the useless British NK provided a dull continental blockade,

                Two fundamental points - the blockade of Germany was carried out by the entire CF + Coastal Command + American forces in the Atlantic (first passively transmitting information, then actively), and not just British TKR.
                There was no mention of a deaf continental blockade.
                1. Octopus 11 January 2020 17: 54 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Two fundamental points - the blockade of Germany carried out the entire CF + Coastal Command

                  They, as it were, were made for this.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  American forces in the Atlantic

                  They did not catch merchants.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  There was no mention of a deaf continental blockade.

                  Tell me about the international trade of the Reich, for example, with the Caribbean. Which in the 39th year was the main German source of oil. EMNIP.
                  1. Engineer 11 January 2020 18: 07 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    They, as it were, were made for this.

                    Well, you don’t have to attribute everything to heavy cruisers where there were already two types of armed forces.
                    Tell me about the international trade of the Reich, for example, with the Caribbean

                    Why should I? This is you tell us how Germany is without this 5 years.

                    The main problem of the discussion with you is you are constantly expanding the discussion field. Now there is a debate about heavy cruisers. Instead of narrowing, concretizing, refining, you, on the contrary, introduce new entities into the dispute, generalize and thereby obscure the subject in every way. And the subject matter is simple- British TKR useful or not? Rise to a higher level, well, immediately specify the contribution of TKR lime and without distractions. Otherwise, after a couple of posts, you will again have to read about Roosevelt, the traitor to US national interests.
                  2. Octopus 11 January 2020 18: 38 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: Engineer
                    Why should I? This is you tell us how Germany is without this 5 years.

                    It was lousy. Including the oil famine is associated with the sad successes of the Italian fleet in the Mediterranean.
                    Quote: Engineer
                    Now there is a debate about heavy cruisers.

                    This is a pointless argument. The imbalance in the construction of the SRT is associated with the ban of the LC. In this situation, all participants preferred to build a CRT rather than a CRL. In absolute terms, the Japanese and the Mogs erected this idea. How to build knowing the buyback - another conversation. So your idea is to pull out from the fleet specifically one class of ships and discuss it separately - nothing.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 January 2020 15: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Engineer
            Need of course.

            Well, if necessary, then I recall that Exeter alone, in addition to La Plata, participated in Doorman's unsuccessful attempt to attack the Japanese landing site (Palembang), fought with Japanese cruisers in the Java Sea and then accepted his last battle with 4 Japanese TKR.
            Quote: Engineer
            The cruising war did not take place for three reasons - the Germans have too few of these cruisers.

            But why there were few of them, I already answered you. I can only offer to re-read the history of designing "pocket battleships" - the Germans seriously considered the possibility of building six classic Washington cruisers instead, but abandoned this idea - too weak to do anything on communications against the cruising fleet of England. As a result, they invested in pickpockets with the transition to rather stupid Scharnhorsts and built a small number of ships, expensive, but too weak against the battleships and battlecruisers of the British.
            Quote: Engineer
            The second, the main one, for operations on communication lines, is the USA + Canada --- Britain is critically important to provide a base in France. This they were not allowed to do

            Submarines, then, were given, and cruisers would not have been given? :))) Yes, the ShiG did get under the FAC, but the question is, there were two of them, they were repaired there and were small point targets number two :))) ) The detachments of the cruisers would not suffer from the FACC.
            Quote: Engineer
            Retya are the deafening successes of submarines that even Raeder could not deny.

            As if yes, only deafening successes ended in the middle of 43 years, after which the Germans began to pay one submarine for each Allied transport sunk
            Quote: Engineer
            Therefore, further attempts with cruising seemed pointless against the background of the prospects of concentration of efforts in submarine warfare.

            Wrong :)) The "attempts with cruising" ended long before the war did not start - when Germany first abandoned the mass construction of cruisers, and then - adopted Plan Z, according to which it planned to achieve supremacy at sea. But the plan Z to WWII was not fulfilled from the word "completely", therefore, in fact, Raeder said in his memorandum on September 3, 1939:
            "However, the submarine fleet is still too weak to have a decisive influence on the outcome of the war. The surface fleet is even inferior to the British fleet in size and strength. It is unlikely to be able to do more than show that it knows how to die bravely. Thus, we we can lay the foundations for his subsequent revival. "

            Quote: Engineer
            In all these reasons, the British TKR did not play any role.

            not even considering the fact that they saved Britain from a cruising war in communications, they did a lot
            1. Engineer 12 January 2020 16: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, if necessary, then I recall that Exeter alone

              We did not stipulate this point, but I meant positive examples of combat missions. And your first examples were consistent with this. But Exeter in Indonesia was a target. You can still paint every sneeze in the Mediterranean, but there, in terms of efficiency, it is even worse than in the Atlantic.
              But why there were few of them, I already answered you.

              All this is wonderful, but firstly it is widely known, secondly, the details of the German shipbuilding program are very weakly related to the assessment of the utility of British TKR. There is a fact-weakness of the German cruising forces. That's all.
              Submarines, then, were given, but cruisers would not have been given? :)))

              The cruisers were not given. Without it. Eugen will confirm.
              As if yes, only deafening successes ended in the middle of 43 years

              Cruising in the broadest sense, including the battleships-traders ended even earlier. In February 1942. The entire German battleship-cruiser elite after fleeing from Brest and kick Gneisenau immediately dumped in Norway. My post dealt specifically with the results of the first two years. When the futility of cruising operations became apparent, and the submarines were at the peak of fame.
              Attempts with cruising "ended long before the war without starting

              This is the trick.
              It was as if there was no advance deployment of pickpockets in communications. Breakthroughs in the Atlantic of Eugen and Hipper.

              Andrei, I have no doubt that you generally know more about me on the topic, but you do not formulate theses. In addition to one, about the enormous role of British TCR.
              The contribution of TCR can be assessed by the following aspects:
              Tasks for this type of ship. On points: protection of communications, catching of blockers and supply vessels, squadron service, support of landing operations
              The number of ships and opposing enemy forces.
              The ability to counter the main threats of WWII substrates and aircraft. Thus maintaining the combat stability necessary for operations
              Losses and victories.
              Why drag in plan Z here? What does this provide for understanding?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2020 18: 29 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Good day! I don’t have much time, but ... let's understand in detail.
                So, Great Britain shortly after the WWI began to upgrade its cruising fleet, laying in 1924 a series of Kent-type TKRs. All 15 British TKRs (2 of them for the Australian Navy) were laid down in the 20s. What happened as a result?
                When Germany in the second half of the 2s was able to begin the restoration of its fleet, it had the right to build 20 ships with a displacement of 6 thousand tons with artillery of any caliber. And in Germany they seriously considered the issue of building Washington cruisers. But this idea was rejected also because, against the 10 British, they would, in general, be useless - albeit not immediately, but the British would have captured and destroyed them. As a result, the Germans were forced to go to the “pocket battleships” - more powerful, but also much more expensive than the classic 15 mm “Washington”. And they were able to build such ships only 203, then moving to the ShiG.
                That is, in fact, the following happened. The British built 15 TKR and the Germans in WWII were able to oppose them with 3 obviously superior ships (pickpockets) and 3 of the same class (TKR of the Hipper type), and the Blucher and Eugen entered service after the WWII began. But Germany didn’t even try to use her light cruisers as ocean raiders - in the presence of a large number of British TCRs, this made no sense. As a result, the Germans sent only TKR (which included both Hippers and Pickpockets-Deutschlands) and auxiliary cruisers to raids (from cruisers) and auxiliary cruisers, the latter - because it is not a pity.
                Well, let's imagine that the British did not bother to create a TKR fleet, but would build ... well, let's say, the same “Linders”. Then the Germans, using the Versailles quota, could create a very powerful cruising fleet 6 TKR + 6 KRL + ​​a large number of auxiliary cruisers - and throw it into battle on the communication of the British. And it would be difficult for the British to oppose these ships, because the Linders were too weak to fight with the TKR, and the battleships were too small to cover all the convoys and too slow to intercept the TKR.
                That is, in reality, the British built 15 TKRs and got 3 superior and 3 roughly equivalent ships against them (the Hippers were stronger than London and Norfolk, but it cannot be said that the battle with them was obviously hopeless) + 6 weaker German KRLs, which practically did not mate on ocean communications. But if the British had NOT built the TKR, then they would have received at least 6 superior German cruisers in the same time frame, more precisely, even more, because instead of 3 pickpockets and 3 Hippers, the Germans managed to build 6 “203” guns with 6 mm artillery and some other cruisers, at least the same Hippers), and XNUMX equivalent ones (German KRL). Yes, with the funds spent on TKR, the British could build a larger number of Linder, but obviously there would be little use for it.
                In reality, the Germans could theoretically involve in operations on communications only 6 cruiser-class ships superior to or equivalent to the British cruisers, and if Britain refused the TKR this number would be at least doubled - in my IMHO, 13-14 ships would be obtained. And this, + auxiliary cruisers, already gave very good chances for a massacre in communications.
                And from here - my main postulate. The mere fact of the construction of British TCR led to a multiple reduction in cruiser class ships, which the Germans could use in communications.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2020 18: 31 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  You write
                  Quote: Engineer
                  There is a fact-weakness of the German cruising forces.

                  All right. Only in fact, the fact of the weakness of the German cruising forces is a direct consequence of the strength of the British TKR. I urge you not to admit the main and classic mistake of the alternative: if we consider a changed reality (England does not build the TCR), we should not assume that other countries will not notice this and will act exactly the same as in real history. England will not go “into heavy cruisers” - German shipbuilding programs will obviously be changed.
                  Now, regarding the plan Z. Its essence was as follows. Germany was going to build a large number of heavy ships, which in case of war are divided into 2 parts. Relatively old battleships such as pickpockets, ShiG, Bismarck, Tirpitz and very heavy (actually linear) cruisers of the O type would have to enter the British communications and arrange a cruising war there. At the same time, the combat core of the fleet - several very powerful latest battleships - were to remain fully prepared in Germany. This would lead to the fact that the British would have to send a significant number of their battleships and cruisers to the ocean to protect communications, and thereby weaken the Grand Fleet. Then the Kriegsmarine warhead could give a general battle with good chances of success.
                  In other words, the essence of the German plan was to divide the superior British linear forces, linking part of them with a cruising war in the ocean. To do this, it was necessary to bring to communication a sufficient number of ships that would be stronger than any British cruiser. So, in the absence of the British heavy cruisers, this problem would be solved by the usual "Washington". But the British had 15 TKRs, so the Germans had to plan the use of pickpockets, ShiG and, most importantly, prepare the construction of pretty stupid 30th type O cruisers that had only one sane advantage - the ability to quickly destroy any TKR .
                  That is, the presence of British TKR led to the fact that for the solution of the task - to divert part of the British battleships to the ocean - the Germans would have had to spend not just significant, but a lot more effort than if there were no British TKR. The presence of British TKR led to the fact that the Germans, not seeing the possibility of a successful war on communications with the help of cruisers, reassigned this task to battleships. And as a result of this decision, the kriegsmarine “sat in a puddle” - Germany, in principle, managed to build many cruisers before 1939 for a purely cruising war, but instead invested in battleships, but it simply did not manage to build battleships in sufficient numbers. There are no complaints against Raeder - he asked Hitler about the timing of the outbreak of war, was misinformed by him, and believed that he had much more time than it turned out in reality. But the bottom line is that, in fact, the Kriegsmarine was not ready for a war at all at the beginning of WWII, and many thanks for this should be said precisely to the British TKR, which had confused the German shipbuilding programs
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2020 18: 32 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Further. You count TKR only successful battles and fights, your position: "Lost - means useless." So, in my deep conviction, this is wrong. Let me explain with a textbook example - the battle on the island of Savo. There, the British and Americans out of the blue lost 4 TCRs without inflicting any noticeable damage on the Japanese. It seems to be an enchanting loss, and yes it was in reality. Only here, behind this crushing defeat, many somehow miss the fact that the allied formation nevertheless fulfilled its strategic task of protecting transports with the marines, and Mikawa, with his brilliant, exemplary rout of the allied forces, did not achieve his goal. As a result, the Americans were able to gain a foothold in Guadalcanal, the Henderson Field airfield was behind them and this played a key role in the battle for Guadalcanal.
                  Well, if, following yours, “lost - it’s useless” to imagine that the Allied TKR of Fr. Savo wasn’t? Then Mikawa and his TKR still arrange a massacre, only cut out transports with marines and supplies for them, and then, those who survived, having managed to land on the island, the Japanese would have been warm. And the battle for Guadalcanal would be lost by the Allies.
                  The moral is that - although success in battle is extremely important, but the strategic outcome is much more important. The British TKR just achieved a strategic result, not allowing Germany to send large forces of cruisers to English communications and quickly figured out what came out of communication.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  This is the trick.
                  It was as if there was no advance deployment of pickpockets in communications. Breakthroughs in the Atlantic of Eugen and Hipper.

                  Of course it was. Only now you need to understand that the Germans themselves did not count on victory: all these raids stemmed from the fact that the Kriegsmarin had several ships suitable for fighting on communications, and there was no sense in putting them on joke. But the Germans themselves were well aware that these cruisers could not play any noticeable role. That is, the cruiser Kriegsmarin simply sought to inflict at least some harm on the shipping of England, that's all. A position worthy of respect, but wars are not won that way.
                  Uff ... sorry, but France and the actions of the British TKR during the war were left out of the commentary - and so almost the article turned out
                3. Engineer 13 January 2020 20: 49 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Andrey, thank you for the lengthy comment.
                  I urge you not to admit the main and classic alternatives error

                  Well, nowhere did I write that the British did not need to build the TKR, or build other TKR, or build something instead. Specially extorted everything that could give even the slightest hint of the notorious alternatives. Only facts, only what was in reality.
                  But since you are offering an alternative ...
                  But if the British had NOT built the TKR, then they would have received at least 6 superior German cruisers in the same time frame, more precisely, even more, because instead of 3 pickpockets and 3 Hippers, the Germans managed to build 6 “203” guns with 6 mm artillery and some other cruisers, and at least the same Hippers), and XNUMX equivalent ones (German KRL).

                  Could Germany build more ships? Technically, yes. But no structure works with 100% efficiency. In addition to objective reasons, there is also the conjuncture of the era, mistakes, miscalculations. In practice, even the first 3 pickpockets were dragged into the budget with a big creak. Therefore, the appearance of pocket battleships in that form was logical. Since we are building a limited series, and nothing better is yet to be expected, we are building something special. For example pickpockets)
                  yes at least the same Hippers

                  Andrey, sorry, that won’t work. Hippers are sophisticated machines that cost half the price of Bismarck. They cannot be built "in the appendage." If we build, then only three (4 in the bookmark) as in reality. If more, then we get the British counties +/-
                  So, according to your reality, we have 6 Washington, 6 KRL (even optimized for cruising rather than squadron service as in real life), a larger number of auxiliary cruisers + something else, but very few - 1 maximum 3 Washington.
                  The British have three battle cruisers to counter, the carriers to search (nobody thought about the fact that they will be drums by the beginning of the war) have a fleet of light cruisers, and most importantly, something else to replace the TKR, even if they are linders.
                  Thus, the balance of forces does not change in any way. Ultra-long Deutschlands are no more. The need for supply vessels is even greater. And the British using decrypted codes find them very playfully. Alternative German Washingtonians have neither large picket guns nor the "battleship" (according to Koffman) of the Hippers' OMS. If we build Hippers, then we get unreliable uneconomical. The GEM and our alternative cruiser reserve mapper evaporates. Germany will not pull more than 4 hippers without further alternative redistribution of funds in favor of the fleet
                  The British KRL, which is now twice as large, is caught by auxiliary cruisers. Three Ajax in Washington DC - the alignment is at least no worse than that of La Plata. German KRL traders will not have any advantage, but rather give way to Linder one on one.
                  Thus, the difference will be only at the tactical level. On the operational and strategic everything will remain unchanged.
                  The problem of cruising war is the problem of access to communications. The Germans still have operational difficulties - a risky breakthrough into the Atlantic by the Danish Straits and the need to secure a base in France. It is fundamentally. Drowned the supply vessel and there is no fuel, run to France. Taxed in the Atlantic-running to France. Used up ammunition - go yourself you know where. And there will be greetings from KVVS without options.
                  By the way, the 4th factor that allows the British to confidently win the cruising war is a split German code.
                  I don’t see what changes in the alternative case.

                  Now according to plan z. The whole plan is unscientific science fiction because it requires priority needs of the fleet over the army and the air force. Raeder was not a Nazi and no one would give him such a gift.

                  Further. You count TKR only successful battles and fights, your position: “Lost - means useless”

                  This is fundamentally not the case. Winning and winning is really easiest to count, but I try to look deeper.
                  I have already given an example of Berwick vs. Hipper. The German won the Artduel 4-0, but in fact the battle is counted as lime because the German refused to attack the valuable convoy.
                  The Savo fight is still an American theme, but Exeter died uselessly)
  • Engineer 10 January 2020 22: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Hipper shot at Holland

    Eugen of course
  • Rurikovich 10 January 2020 21: 02 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Briefly go over smile
    Beauty is not always really deadly ...

    Well do not tell. Here Japanese fighting vehicles of this class were deadly beautiful yes
    that the ship is not able to conduct accurate firing with its main caliber. For all the same, the main purpose of the heavy cruiser is to inflict damage on enemy ships below class. If he is not able to do this - then what kind of warship is it?

    The Japanese built their heavy cruisers to destroy their "classmates" wink Do not forget that people are not fighting ships. And if you read Braghadin, then the Italian warriors are the most "warriors" in the world laughing Therefore, it doesn’t matter which ships the industry supplied - it matters how they knew how to fight them. And if the ship does not climb out of bases, and not from landfills, then how will they learn to get in? request
    but in fact, powerful weapons on the characteristics did not allow the cruisers to at least somehow manifest themselves on the battlefield.
    The reason, in my opinion, lies not in the fact that the guns were located in the same cradle and had closely spaced axes of the guns or in lightened shells, but because the whole Italian fleet sinned - with mediocre combat training and the lack of adequate commanders. The Americans also had guns were in one cradle, but they experimentally learned how to deal with the shooting problem by introducing small delays in salvos for each gun of the tower. The Germans in WWI generally fired with single-gun salvos. So no one interfered with pasta sitting on the training ground and having shot a couple of ammunition of at least one cruiser to achieve the desired result. another thing is that they SAVED, DOED THE SHOW, hoping for paper specifications, but REALLY scored for real combat training. Which again confirms the thesis that people are not fighting ships.
    In fact, cruisers of the Trento type in a real combat situation could go for a long time at a speed of no more than 30-31 knots, which is pretty much less than intended. But in fact, the "slow-moving" cruisers of Great Britain and France moved with the same speed.

    Well, the Japanese had weak hulls and speeds of 35-36 knots, but no one bothered them to drown the British with the Americans in the Pacific Ocean. request See above the thesis that people are fighting smile The British simply did not force their turbines, and the fact that Italians had such indicators on paper does not mean that they could go on 30-31 knots for a long time. For that reason, in the case of the faq, there was a notch about the greater speed of their ships, which would have, for a short time, an advantage that would help either quickly draw close to the enemy or quickly escape from the fire. And again the thesis that the Italian commander will have enough brains to skillfully use the provided weapons. So not everything is so simple ....
    Yes, the Italians built quite interesting ships for their time within the allotted limits of displacement .. And they were at the level of their classmates. But just these beautiful, fast-moving ships were in the wrong hands .... hi
    1. Rurikovich 10 January 2020 21: 26 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      that they could go for 30-31 knots for a long time.

      Correct myself - <that they could NOT go on 30-31 knots for a long time>
  • dgonni 10 January 2020 21: 25 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    The problem of the accuracy of guns among Italians was present. And not only on cruisers but also on battleships. But not the fault of the guns. And the fault of lousy ammunition. The wild difference in the weight of both the shells and the charges made the arrow and firing still that circus.
    According to the recollections of the Italians themselves, competent artoficers picked up shells and charges by weight in ship conditions. But this action did not get mass, and industry could not in the normal set range of parameters.
    The Italian Ser are so frivolous.
    1. Rurikovich 10 January 2020 21: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: dgonni
      According to the recollections of the Italians themselves, competent artoficers picked up shells and charges by weight in ship conditions. But this action didn’t get mass, and industry couldn’t in the normal set range of parameters

      Again - the Italians are to blame laughing
      1. dgonni 10 January 2020 21: 36 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Yes to blame but the guns have nothing to do with it!
        1. Rurikovich 10 January 2020 21: 41 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Again - no one interfered with the Italian officers at the training grounds to find out the reason for the "accuracy" (let there be ammunition - you are right about that too) and really raise the question before the fleet management about the quality of the ammunition delivered to the fleet yes request
          1. dgonni 10 January 2020 22: 10 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Questions were raised but not resolved. Italian however
            1. Octopus 11 January 2020 17: 20 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: dgonni
              Questions were raised but not resolved. Italian however

              )))
              Not an argument. Reports that American torpedoes did not work came before the war. But only Woodwood guessed to conduct test firing only in August of the 43rd year.
          2. Avior 10 January 2020 22: 55 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Or at least pre-sort and mark projectiles by weight? And introduce adjustment tables or coefficients?
            It did not require much effort, and the result would be noticeable
            1. mamonthful 11 January 2020 02: 34 New
              • 0
              • 4
              -4
              and file trim the weight of the shells)
              1. Avior 11 January 2020 08: 29 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                You have such a deep knowledge of metalworking.
                What else besides a file do you know?
      2. mmaxx 11 January 2020 16: 13 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        For some reason, no one is looking at this problem metrologically. After all, making shells of the same mass is an obvious thing. I remember on Russian shells there was a cavity where the paint was poured for a painted splash. And the amount of this paint shells were reduced to one mass. But in order to bring the shells to the same mass, you must have the appropriate scales (!!!) Just. Didn’t there pasta? Most likely, the managers did not allow the plant to buy scales of the corresponding accuracy class. Or just metrologists were in the pen and the engineers did not bother. Measurement of large masses can give a large error.
  • Andrzej k 10 January 2020 21: 58 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    [quote] [Trento was first considered a very successful ship, and two heavy cruisers for the Argentinean Navy, the Almirante Brown type ./ quote] were built by this type.

    Are you sure 10000 ts vs 6800 ts, 196m vs 170m, 8x203 vs 6x190mm.
    1. Rurikovich 10 January 2020 22: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The Italian project was developed on the basis of the Italian cruiser Trento, the first series of Italian Washington cruisers. The Argentines, of course, did not take into account the specifics of the project, due to the characteristics of the Mediterranean theater of operations - short range, low seaworthiness and weak hull strength. One could agree with the Italian tactical intentions - about long-distance battles and the choice of battle conditions due to high speed. Argentine cruisers became a smaller copy of the Trento, losing primarily in armament and speed and armor. Outside the ships strongly resembled their Italian prototypes, felt the "hand of the master." Although the Argentinean cruisers smokestack was the only one.

      Just a smaller version using the best practices of designers, that is, Italians. Even the outwardly readable Italian hand of that time, the same GK guns in one cradle

      Typical Italian, only a little wink smile
      1. Andrzej k 10 January 2020 22: 33 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        a smaller version using the designs of designers with fewer other guns (190 mm!), a different layout of the power plant, a different number of chimneys, etc. in my opinion, this differs from this
        and by this type [Trento] were built
        although they are undoubtedly the ships of the Italian school of shipbuilding - just like Kirov.
  • Ingvar 72 10 January 2020 22: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The speed of building ships is impressive - 3-4 years is very good. The article is interesting.
    1. mamonthful 11 January 2020 02: 33 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      This is actually a lot and rather mediocre.
      1. Ingvar 72 11 January 2020 10: 42 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: mamonthful
        This is actually a lot and rather mediocre.

        Compare with the pace of construction of ships in the Russian Federation. wink
        1. Potter 13 January 2020 20: 32 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Compare with the pace of construction of ships in the USSR in those same years. The cruiser "Admiral Lazarev" project 68 bis in 18000t through built in just 2 years. The remaining ships of this type are 2,5-3 years maximum. And the destroyers 30 bis at the same time - a year on the ship! Before the war, Kirov was built in 3 years.
  • Andrzej k 10 January 2020 22: 11 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The longer I read this article, the more I open my eyes in surprise. and i can't control my laughter

    Guns 203 mm / 50 Ansaldo Mod. 1924 were devilishly slanting. Accuracy ... but you can’t talk about accuracy here, it was not at all. These guns were armed 7 (SEVEN) heavy cruiser of the Italian fleet, who took part in the Second World War. Seven cruisers, with 56 barrels, achieved THREE recorded hits during the war.

    This, you see, if not a shame, then his dress rehearsal.

    What was the reason for this inaccuracy is hard to say today. Mostly blame the close location of the guns in the towers, yes, there both barrels were in the same cradle, but the French had the same system, and while they fought, they somehow managed to get in.


    Please write how many hits from the 203-mm guns were received by the French cruisers during the war :-D

    The reasons for the lack of accuracy of Italian rifles were not only too close to each other barrels, but also lack of repeatability in the manufacture of shells, their very different weight and low stability characteristics of gunpowder.
  • bubalik 10 January 2020 23: 25 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    rock in the form of the British submarine Ambra

    HMS "Umbra" is considered one of the Royal Navy's productive boat, went through the whole war.
  • Usher 11 January 2020 00: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The slanting of the guns, apparently due to large assumptions in the production of charges, that is, the weight distribution of gunpowders. The scatter was large and the guns were close to each other; the French didn’t have so close guns to each other.
  • mamonthful 11 January 2020 02: 32 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    So in the end, Italian cruisers of the Trento type were completely useless in the most important thing - in the ability to inflict damage on the enemy.

    well ... at least they encountered enemy ships, compared to the Soviet fleet - they are just lucky.
  • Comrade 11 January 2020 04: 39 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Aviation group: 1 catapult, 2 seaplanes.

    The heavy cruiser "Fiume" in 1935 even had a helicopter.
    1. Kuroneko 11 January 2020 05: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Comrade
      The heavy cruiser "Fiume" in 1935 even had a helicopter.

      It’s not a helicopter, but the C.30 gyroplane, and it’s not on the Fium was available, but only a very short time tested.
      Autogyro creator Juan de la Sierva (1895-1936)
      https://coollib.com/b/359155/read
      The most popular gyroplane in the 30s was C.30. He absorbed all the best that had been achieved by then.
      The year 1935 began with a successful experiment conducted by the Italian Navy in this gyroplane. It was implemented by Reginald Bree. The essence of this experiment was to demonstrate the use of a gyroplane on naval ships in real conditions. Bree drove the C.30 to La Spezia at the end of December 1934, and in January 1935 the tests began. At the stern of the Italian cruiser Fume, a platform measuring 10X35 m was installed, and Bree, flying from the shore, landed and subsequent take-offs in various directions and wind power, during the drift of the ship and on the move to a speed of 27 knots. Sometimes a pilot took a passenger aboard. The tests were successful, and the Italian Navy became interested in P.30.


      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cierva_C.30
  • mmaxx 11 January 2020 16: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    “There are no bad ships, there are ships used for other purposes” (C).
    Iron boxes are not to blame for the fact that the sailors' gut was thin. With any skheher they preferred to wash off. The Germans are also affected.
    1. Kuroneko 11 January 2020 21: 37 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: mmaxx
      Iron boxes are not to blame for the fact that the sailors' gut was thin. With any skheher they preferred to wash off.

      Let me remind you of one guards (!) shell 4th rank in our fleet (during the Second World War). The guard rank was given to her just after the feat, which was generally the first time in the practice of the USSR Navy. In general, yes - the large ships of the Soviet fleet almost did not show themselves (largely due to the command, which excessively cared even light cruisers), but there was really LOT of heroes on the shells. For the most workhorses have become.
      MO-4, which was SK-065, could it would be easy to “wash off”, speed allowed. But, like the Mercury brig, the sailors decided to fight. Otherwise, the Germans would easily have drowned the Achilleon transport carrier, which SK-065 escorted.
      https://topwar.ru/137715-moshka-stavshaya-dlya-gitlerovcev-moskitom-podvig-ska-065.html
      https://topwar.ru/70755-komandir-legendarnogo-morskogo-ohotnika-sk-065-pavel-pavlovich-sivenko-ushel-iz-zhizni.html
      From the fragments of bombs dropped on it, aircraft cannon shells and machine guns, the SKA-065 hull had about 2000 holes located above and below the waterline, the left cheekbone with a total area of ​​27 m2 was destroyed, the upper deck on an area of ​​4 m2 was damaged, the right side was damaged in the bow on an area of ​​3 m2, the stem was broken, the guard rail was broken, the wheelhouse shifted, the 45-mm bow gun was torn off the foundation, the left gas tank and two oil tanks were broken, as well as a number of pipelines for various purposes, in several places redilo wiring.

      The losses amounted to 12 people, one sailor was killed. The boat received a trim on the nose of 15 ° from the incoming water. The surviving 7 people, led by the commander, resolutely and quickly took all measures to save the boat. As soon as the battle was over and the planes flew away, the battle for vitality immediately began. The main engines were put into operation in 40 minutes, which made it possible to overcome 50 miles to the base in a storm. After the battle, on March 25, 1943, the entire crew of the boat was awarded orders and medals.

      More than 100 bombs were dropped on the boat, among other things, not to mention cannon-machine gun fire.
      Here is such a crumb:
      1. mmaxx 12 January 2020 05: 07 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        It was about the Italians. And the fact that such a device as a ship is not at all to blame for anything.
        But it can be extended to everyone else. For example, for your example. Our Moscow region is no good ship. With no weapons, neither against submarines, nor against their own kind. It’s better to keep silent about aviation. And these are the results.
  • bubalik 11 January 2020 22: 59 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Warships. Beautiful, fast,