Warships. Cruisers. The trick that did not go for the good

Warships. Cruisers. The trick that did not go for the good

Continuing the theme of Italian heavy cruisers, we move from Trento to Zaram.


Zara was a more thoughtful job. Italian shipbuilders took very seriously the work on the last four of the cruisers permitted by the Washington Treaty, so seriously that ... they decided to deceive everyone!

In general, by the start of the construction of these ships from the experience of building the Trento and Trieste, it became clear that creating a sane and balanced ship within the framework of 10 contract tons is simply unrealistic.

Therefore, the Italians decided to cheat. The idea of ​​creating a “killer of the Washington cruisers” was directly in the air and really liked the Italian command, but Italy was not ready to directly confront the “Washington Club” by creating such ships. It became clear that for such killer cruisers, the displacement had only to begin at least 15 tons.

The gut was thin, and right. But you can always cheat a little. The Italians announced that everything is shito-covered and smooth, the displacement of new ships as is 10 tons and everything is beautiful and honest.

In fact, the numbers were pretty underestimated. The real standard displacement (it's still how to measure) with cruisers dangled from 11 to 500 tons. And how much was complete, in general no one still knows. The data was classified. But I think that just with full ammunition, all reserves and crew, the ships pulled 11-900 thousand tons easily.

So the realization of the dream to create a cruiser capable of cracking down on the “Washington”, in fact, failed.


However, Italians would not be Italians if they had not “burned” with charming spontaneity. In 1936, for some unknown reason (translated from Italian - by sloppiness), the Gorizia cruiser pulled a pair of aviation gasoline and damaged the hull. The cruiser commander did not dare to go to the base, but made his way to Gibraltar, where he docked.

The British instantly calculated the displacement of Gorizia and realized that there was a minimum of 11 tons. In general, it is very strange, but for some reason no sanctions and claims followed. Either the political component made the British once again swallow the fortress of Hitler’s ally, or everyone already didn’t give a damn about all the agreements.

So, here they are, no less beautiful than their predecessors, but seemingly with worked out errors. “Zara”, “Paula”, “Fiume” and “Gorizia”.


Yes, these cruisers were designed on the basis of the Trento, but with very many changes that affected even the appearance of the ships. The most noticeable change - the hull has become low-sided with a short forecastle.

Yes, such innovations could not but affect seaworthiness, but: a few hundred tons and in Italy weigh a lot. And as shown by the operation of Trento and Trieste, oceanic seaworthiness in the Mediterranean Sea is completely unnecessary.

They did not install torpedo tubes, the power plant from Parsons was a new generation, much lighter than on Trento.

For what is saving so mad? But for what: the airborne armored belt grew from 70 mm to 150! And 150 millimeters is, sorry, seriously. A projectile of 203 mm, maybe, will break, of course, but all that is less - sorry.

Although later in the text there will be an interesting point on the topic "the better to pick."

And just in time for the next topic, very momentarily there will be one more moment. Historically, God knows from what times Italian ships, including cruisers, had their mottos. There was something like a coat of arms for some, but the motto is mandatory.

“Zara” - “Persistent.”
"Fiume" - "Let valor not be exhausted."
"Gorizia" - "In difficulties, calm."
"Paula" - "Brave in any endeavor."

It is clear that the mottos were in Latin, but here is how they corresponded to the ships ... In general, be patient a little, nevertheless first we’ll talk about the ships themselves.


All cruisers of the Zara type had a low-side hull with a very short (81,6 m) forecastle. The interdeck height over the entire length of the ship was 2,2 m. In total there were two continuous decks - the upper and main, two platforms - the middle and lower decks and the deck of the forecastle.

The main battery deck was armored. Along the entire length of the hull was a double bottom and 19 waterproof bulkheads. In the area of ​​the engine compartments housed a longitudinal bulkhead.

In general, cruisers had to withstand flooding up to three adjacent compartments. Unlike the Trento type, the Zar corps did not “play,” that is, they had no problems with durability.

The ships were almost identical, with the exception of the "Paul", which was planned as the flagship, because the superstructure had a slightly different shape.


The main power plant had continuous power (on which the ship can make long trips) of 76 l. with., there was the possibility of boosting up to 000 liters. from.

The tests and measurements of the cruiser showed a speed of about 32 knots, but like its predecessors, the working speed during service was in the region of 29-30 knots.

Armament.

The main caliber of the Zara-type cruisers was 8 guns of 203 mm caliber, placed in pairs in 4 towers. The towers were installed in a linearly elevated pattern, two in the bow and stern. Everything is exactly the same as with Trento.


But the guns were already somewhat different: the 203 mm guns of the Ansaldo system of the 1927 model (Ansaldo Mod. 1927). Compared with the guns of the previous model (1924 model), the volume of the charging chamber, working pressure, the initial velocity of the projectile and the firing range were increased.

The initial velocity of the armor-piercing projectile was 900 m / s, high-explosive 930 m / s. Firing Range 31 300 m.

In terms of towers, the Italians decided not to change anything, because it was not easy to design a new tower, time was really running out. And it seems that new trunks were placed in old towers. And the Zary inherited the same problems that the Trento differed: two barrels in one cradle, which, when fired, gave an additional incentive to the spread of shells. And when a good projectile hit the turret, both guns could be lost.

The main caliber fire control system consisted of two command and rangefinding posts, the top on the top of the foremast, the lower on the roof of the conning tower. The equipment of the command rangefinder post included a stereo range finder with a base of 5 meters. The data obtained in the command and rangefinding posts were processed at the central artillery post.

A backup fire control system of the main caliber with control from the towers was also provided. For this, in the elevated towers of the 203-mm guns, they had their own stereo range finders with a base of 7 meters and the simplest computing devices.

The Italian gunners worked out the following main-caliber fire control schemes:

1) All 4 towers fire according to the data of the 1st command and rangefinder post (top) according to the normal scheme (using all data processed by the central firing machine).

2) All 4 towers fire using the data of the 2nd command and rangefinding post (backup version of targeting).

3) Aft towers use data KDP No. 1, bow KDP No. 2.

4) The towers are divided into two groups (bow and stern) with fire control from elevated towers.

5) All towers fire independently.

On paper, everything looks quite, practice ... Practice was sad.

Universal artillery consisted of all of the same frankly old 100-mm installations with OTO Mod guns. 1927. Development on the basis of the Czech K11 gun from Skoda, armadillos of the already defunct Austria-Hungary went with them, the Italian gun differed from the original with a lined barrel.

The gun had a rate of fire of 8-10 rds / min, the initial velocity of the projectile was 840 m / s, the maximum firing range was 15 m (elevation angle 240 degrees), reach in height - 45 m (elevation angle 8500 degrees). In general, so-so.

The guns were mounted in twin units and could fire, both on air and surface targets. Efficiency was lower than average, because in the late 30s, feed plants were happy to change to 37-mm automatic machines.

The anti-aircraft armament initially consisted of four 40-mm Vickers-Terni submachine guns of 1915/1917 (licensed copy of the British Pom-Pom) and four coaxial 13,2-mm Bred machine guns M1931.

Torpedo tubes were not installed, as mentioned above.

Each cruiser could take on board three seaplanes, but usually took two due to the poor location of the hangar and catapult. The hangar was located under the deck of the forecastle in front of the bow tower, there was a catapult directly in front of the hangar and a regular third seaplane usually had to be located immediately on the catapult.


But in this position, the plane greatly complicated the angle of fire for the first tower of the main caliber.

An interesting point: a crane for lifting aircraft was not installed, so the aircraft were disposable. After taking off and completing the mission, the pilot had to fly to the nearest airfield and land on water or land there.

In general, in comparison with Trento, the armament did not get better.

And finally, for the sake of which the whole garden was set up with deceit and the elimination of torpedo weapons and an aircraft crane.

Armor. Heavy cruisers of the Zara type had the most powerful reservations among “crippled colleagues” and “Washington” cruisers.


The thickness of the armored belt was 150 mm, in the lower third it was reduced to 100 mm. In height, the armor belt reached the main deck and fell below the waterline by 1,5 m.

A flat main armored deck rested on the upper edge of the main belt. It consisted of plates 70 mm thick above the artillery cellars and compartments of the power plant and 65 mm at the sides (above the double bottom compartments).

There was a second citadel above the citadel thus formed. It consisted of a 30-mm armor belt and a 20-mm armor deck, the main purpose of which was to remove the armor-piercing caps.

The frontal plates of the main-caliber towers were 150 mm thick, the side plates were 75 mm thick, and the roof plates were 70 mm thick. The tower barbets were 150 mm thick above the upper deck, 140 mm between the upper and main decks and 120 mm below the main deck. The thickness of the armor around the entire perimeter of the barbet was uniform.

The conning tower was protected by 150 mm armor around the perimeter, with an 80 mm roof and a 70 mm bottom. The internal diameter of the conning tower is 3,3 m. Above the conning tower was a rotating command-range measuring post of the main caliber. The internal diameter of the KDP is 3,5 m. It was protected by 130 mm armor around the perimeter, 100 mm from the top, 15 mm from the bottom.

The total weight of the armor of each cruiser amounted to 2 688 tons. It was believed that booking heavy cruisers of the Zara type was able to withstand armor-piercing 203 mm British shells in the range from 65 to 125 cable (from 12 to 23 km). But the war made some adjustments.

In general, the battle path of the cruisers was not very rich. Yes, they took part in all the few operations of Italian fleetbut had no success at all.

"Zara."


It was laid down on July 4, 1929, launched on April 27, 1930, and joined the fleet on October 20, 1937.

The pre-war service of the ship was not accompanied by special noteworthy events - he participated in exercises, parades and visited various Mediterranean ports.

In April 1939 he participated in the occupation of Albania. January 13, 1940 all heavy cruisers of the Zara type became part of the 1st division of the cruisers of the 2nd squadron (reconnaissance forces).

When Italy entered World War II, Zara covered mines between the island of Lampedusa and the bank of Kerkenna. June 13-14 went out to intercept the English ships conducting the operation off the African coast. There was no meeting with the enemy. I was looking for the enemy in French communications. Have not found. July 9, participated in the battle with the British Mediterranean fleet. He shot, but did not hit anyone.


In general, the service was like that ... They didn’t beat the loungers, and thank God. Until it came to a battle at Cape Matapan, where the Italians flew into the trap set up by the British, who deciphered the negotiations with the help of Enigma.

The battleship Vittorio Veneto, eight cruisers, including Fiume, Paula and Zara, accompanied by several destroyers, were to coordinate the convoys off the coast of Greece with coordinated actions. And they came upon almost the entire British Mediterranean fleet awaiting them ...

On the morning of March 28, 1941, the Italian compound entered into battle with the British cruisers, but then, not waiting for the promised German air cover, they began to retreat to the base.

Italian ships were under constant British attack aviationboth deck and shore. In the evening, the torpedo bomber “Swordfish” torpedoed the cruiser “Paul”, which lost speed. The remaining ships went forward.

Soon, Admiral Iakino ordered the 1st Division cruisers to return to the damaged cruiser and assist him. The unit commander did not know that he was being pursued by enemy battleships. “Zara”, “Fiume” and 4 destroyers laid down on the reverse course.

The cruisers didn’t go into battle, and therefore only half of the crews were at the combat posts, and towing cables were prepared by the whole crew for the main caliber towers.


At about 22 p.m., the British discovered a cruiser and opened artillery fire at 22 p.m. All three British battleships fired at Zara: Worthspite, Valiant and Barham.

The British always knew how to shoot. Therefore, after just a few minutes, the 381-mm Zara guns caught in the exact fire burned like a dawn. Hits in the bow tower, bridge, engine room deprived the cruiser of the course, and he began to roll to the left side.

Soon, the battleships ceased fire and left the battle, apparently believing that the "Dawn" had come to an end. What happened on the burning and sinking cruiser is not known for certain, the rest of the crew definitely fought for survivability, but alas, no luck.

At about 2 a.m. on March 29, the Zara was discovered by the Jervis destroyer, which killed it with torpedoes. Almost the entire crew died, along with the division commander Admiral Catteno.

Fiume.


Laid down on April 29, 1929, launched on April 27, 1930, entered the fleet on November 21, 1931.

During the Spanish Civil War, he assisted nationalists. In April 1939, Fiume took part in the occupation of Albania. The first operation in World War II was the covering of a mine setting along with Zara, then until the end of June the cruiser made two exits as part of the compound: to intercept the British squadron and search on the French communications. There was no meeting with the enemy.


On July 9, Fiume participated in a battle near Calabria (Punto Steel), shot at British ships, and didn’t hit anyone. The rest of the year he spent escorting North African convoys.

November 27, 1940 during the British operation "Collard" Italian ships entered into battle with the British compound "N". The fight was indecisive and without result.


Participated in the battle at Cape Matapan. On March 28, at 22 p.m., Fiume, following Zara, received a full airborne volley from the Worspite battleship and a volley from the bow towers of the Valiant battleship, and then another volley from the Worspite.

The cruiser was almost destroyed, lasted on the water for another half hour and sank for about 23 hours, taking with him most of the crew.

"Paula".


Laid down on March 17, 1931, launched on December 5, 1931, entered into service on December 21, 1932. The ship’s pre-service was usual: trips to the Mediterranean Sea, visits to its ports, visits to foreign ports, exits to exercises.

In 1936-1938, the cruiser "Paul" assisted the troops of General Franco, accompanied transports with weapons.

The first military operation was the cover of a mine setting on the night of June 11 to 12, along with sisterships. A day later, an exit to intercept the enemy squadron took place. On June 22, 1940, the Italian fleet conducted another exit to intercept the enemy fleet. There was no meeting with the enemy.


The next exit of all the fighting forces of the Italian fleet guarding the convoy ended in a battle with the British fleet at Calabria (Punto Stilo). The rest of the summer the cruiser spent escorting convoys to Africa.

He took part on November 27, 1940 in the battle with the British formation "N" at Teulada. "Paula" made 18 volleys from the main caliber guns, but did not hit anyone. During the departure, the cruiser was attacked by torpedo bombers from the Ark Royal aircraft carrier, but the Paula fought off and dodged torpedoes.

On December 14, the port of Naples, in which the ships were located, was attacked by British aircraft. One of the bombs hit the cruiser. The 3rd boiler room was destroyed, and the "Polu" was sent for repairs, from which she left just at that time to take part in the battle at Cape Matapan.


On March 28, after a short battle with cruisers, the Italian compound began to retreat, being attacked by enemy carrier-based and coastal aircraft. At first, the attacks were very successful, but then the British hit torpedoes in the flagship battleship Vittorio Veneto. The speed of the squadron decreased, and the British managed to refuel and repeat the raid. These were torpedo bombers from the Formidedle aircraft carrier.

This time the Italians were unlucky, and the "Paula" got a torpedo to the starboard side between the engine and boiler rooms.

Three compartments were instantly filled with water, electricity was lost, and cars got up. Somehow it turned out to inform the squadron commander Admiral Iakino that the "Paula" is completely immobilized and defenseless.

After receiving information about the incident, the commander of the Italian unit ordered the remaining ships of the 1st Division (Zara and Fiume) to help the damaged fellow. When approaching the drift site, the "Floors" of the cruiser were discovered and destroyed. The culprit of the incident drifted peacefully until about 2 am he was discovered by the English destroyers Jervis and Nubien, who finished off the cruiser with torpedoes and took the crew.

Gorizia.


The only ship in the series that did not take part in the battle at Cape Matapan.

Laid on March 17, 1930, launched on December 28, 1931, entered the fleet on December 23, 1931.

The ship participated in helping the Francoists and the occupation of Albania. The first operation of World War II was the cover of a mine setting on the night of June 11-12, 1940.


Gorizia, as part of the compound, went to intercept the British compound and search for French communications, took part in the battle at Punto Stilo (Calabria), and escorted North African convoys. He went to sea as part of a squadron to counter the British Operation Hats.

November 27, 1940 "Gorizia" took part in the battle with the British formation "N", which entered history like a fight at Teulada. The cruiser in this battle made 18 volleys with guns of the main caliber, without achieving hits. Some time after the battle, Gorizia got up for scheduled repairs, which apparently saved her from Matapan. Repair lasted until the summer of 1941.

Since the remaining cruisers of the division had already died by this time, Gorizia was enrolled in the 3rd division. Then she regularly participated in countering the British convoy operations Mensmith, Aleppo, M-41, and M-42.

The battle, which went down in history as the “first battle in the Gulf of Syrt,” occurred during Operation M-42. In this battle, "Gorizia" still achieved the main caliber hit the British destroyer, but he was able to escape in the darkness.

Further, the cruiser took part in escort operations, but the fuel crisis that had begun condemned almost the entire Italian fleet to complete inaction. This took advantage of the Americans, who began regular raids on the Italian ship parking.

On December 4, 1942, American aircraft attacked the Italian naval base in Naples. The Royal Italian fleet lost 1 cruiser, 2 more were damaged.


To avoid the repetition of such an outrage, the heavy cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were transferred from Messina (Sicily Island) to Maddalena (Sardinia Island). It did not help, and on April 10, 1943, this base was attacked by American aircraft, which sank the heavy cruiser Trieste. Gorizia was seriously damaged by a direct hit of 3 bombs. On April 13, she was towed to La Spezia for repairs.


On September 9, the cruiser, together with the whole of Northern Italy, fell into German hands. The question of its repair and inclusion in the German fleet was not even considered. June 26, 1944 "Gorizia" was blown up by a British-Italian group of combat swimmers. The British command was afraid of its flooding in the entrance channel.

After the war, the corps was lifted and disassembled.

Here is such a peculiar fate.

Heavy cruisers of the Zara type are perhaps one of the most successful and balanced, albeit due to tricks with the displacement of Washington cruisers.

On the one hand, very beautiful ships, they could not show their fighting qualities.

Cruisers of the Zara type were perfectly adapted specifically for the Mediterranean theater of operations. The lack of seaworthiness and sailing range in its conditions for Italian ships was not at all critical, and for the rest of the possibilities they looked much more advantageous than British classmates.


And the armor, the same one that was so lacking for all Washington cruisers ... If the Zaras received normal main-caliber guns and normal shells, they would certainly be one of the most dangerous ships in the world.

But ... in the end, most of these cruisers were shot by British battleships, against the shells of which, of course, there simply could not be protection. Even a decent speed could not save, because the British played the eternal Italian disorder, which cost them three heavy cruisers.


Well, rightly so, in principle. The trick is not always unpunished and fruitful.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Warships. Beautiful, fast, useless
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mark1 12 January 2020 06: 54 New
    • 16
    • 1
    +15
    The ships are beautiful. the armor is good ... but something tells me, if the Italians had at least Baltimore, the result would have been the same. In their case, the matter is not in the ships.
    1. GKS 2111 12 January 2020 08: 00 New
      • 12
      • 1
      +11
      Quote: mark1
      In their case, the matter is not in the ships.

      smile Recently, an article was about this ...
      " Seven cruisers with 56 barrels achieved THREE recorded hits during the war.
      This, you see, if not a shame, then his dress rehearsal.
      "
      1. Graz 12 January 2020 09: 29 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        I kind of read somewhere 3-4% of hits from the fired shells in World War 1 in the fleets were considered quite a good indicator
    2. Octopus 12 January 2020 08: 28 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: mark1
      if the Italians at least “Baltimore” the result would be the same.

      ))).
      Not. The Baltics originally had a radar.
      1. CTABEP 12 January 2020 08: 58 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        But neither the radar nor the magnificent Mk 13/15 would help in a shootout with the owners of the 15-inch armored belt and 0-inch guns - just like after a couple of 870-kg suitcases, the ships would be out of order, even if they managed to reign in the enemy.
        1. Octopus 12 January 2020 15: 41 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Quote: CTABEP
          But in a shootout with the owners of the 13-inch armored belt and 15-inch guns, not a radar,

          So the peculiarity of this battle is precisely in the fact that LK (and AB for the company) succeeded sneak up to the pistol distance. The British had radars, but the Italians did not. If the Italians knew about the British, they would have screwed up without options, their speed is much higher.
      2. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 10: 52 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Octopus
        Not. The Baltics originally had a radar.

        So the shells and charges of the Italian Baltimore will also be Italian. wink
        No radar station and no SUAO will help if the weight of the shot is “walking” and the temperature in the cellars is above normal.
        1. Octopus 13 January 2020 11: 41 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          So the shells and charges of the Italian Baltimore will also be Italian.
          No radar

          Normal heroes always go around. To those, about on time, he took a break, the same shells are not needed. The battle won is the one that did not take place, Sun Tzu, that’s all.

          But seriously, the decision for cruisers in an artillery battle with LK is not to engage in an artillery battle with LK. For this, among other things, the radar would not hurt.
          1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 12: 00 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Octopus
            But seriously, the decision for cruisers in an artillery battle with LK is not to engage in an artillery battle with LK. For this, among other things, the radar would not hurt.

            Well, or at least sane aerial reconnaissance - in the remaining daylight hours. Which would show that the ABK, without turning anywhere, is chasing the Italian squadron.
            Bagheera! I'm in a hurry! ©

            And also, be with the Italians short barrel torpedoes and normal signalmen - everything could end differently. smile
            1. Octopus 13 January 2020 12: 24 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And also, be with the Italians

              Oblique faces and a Japanese passport.
              1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 17: 17 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Octopus
                Oblique faces and a Japanese passport.

                Kaigun-tisho Carro Cattaneo and Kaigun-tusho Sanso Netti. laughing
      3. Sergey Zhikharev 18 January 2020 14: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In this situation (near Mapatan) the radar might not work. On the "Field" is not up to the radar (out of order as a result of hits), on the "Fiume" did not turn on, and on the "Zara" the radar data was misunderstood
        In any case, the cruiser under the fire of battleships, and even at a pistol distance ...
        Maybe the Japanese "Mioko" / "Takao" would have a chance - if they managed to use torpedoes.
        1. Octopus 18 January 2020 14: 22 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
          Japanese Mioko / Takao would have a chance

          Destroyers would have a chance.

          Especially Japanese.
          1. Sergey Zhikharev 18 January 2020 14: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In this case (Anglo-Japanese Mapatan), the situation may be in "the English had a chance"
            The Japanese would notice the British, take advantage of their passivity (the fact that the Japanese see them on the radar, the Japanese do not know), and torpedoes, torpedoes.
            1. Octopus 18 January 2020 14: 35 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              The battle "Japanese destroyers against LC with radar" was held. 42nd year, the death of Kirishima. The battle was peculiar, the Japanese torpedoed all Li's ships with torpedoes, except for the LK.
              So how the card will fall.
    3. venik 12 January 2020 20: 56 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: mark1
      but something tells me if the Italians had at least “Baltimore” the result would have been the same. In their case, the matter is not in the ships.

      ========
      The ships at the "pasta" were good ..... but the sailors - lousy!!!
    4. Vladimir_2U 13 January 2020 04: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: mark1
      The ships are beautiful. armor is good
      The armor is nothing, but the constructive protection is not very:
      on the cruiser "Gorizia" fired a pair of aviation gasoline and damaged the hull. The cruiser commander did not dare to go to the base, but made his way to Gibraltar, where he docked.
      It’s scary to think what would happen if they had kitchen In the galley, the gas cylinder exploded. laughing
  2. unknown 12 January 2020 07: 37 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The French created a balanced "Washington" cruiser, keeping within 10000 tons of standard displacement. "Algeria".
    1. Octopus 12 January 2020 08: 32 New
      • 8
      • 5
      +3
      Quote: ignoto
      The French created a balanced "Washington" cruiser, keeping within 10000 tons of standard displacement. "Algeria".

      Algeria is also unarmored, although noticeably smaller than its contemporaries. It has virtually no free maneuvering zone under 8 ". Otherwise, yes, an excellent ship.

      It turned out funny. The best LC, the best SRT, the best CRL, the best large EM (in my estimation) are among the French, who do not need this whole farm.
      1. unknown 13 January 2020 21: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yu.I. Alexandrov, in his monograph on the cruiser "Algeria" writes that the free maneuvering zone under 8 "shells was: from 18 to 26 km.
        1. Octopus 14 January 2020 01: 24 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: ignoto
          Yu.I. Alexandrov, in his monograph on the cruiser "Algeria" writes

          Yes, good work. But for a decisive battle, the distance is far away, probably. Alexandrov recalls the latest SRT, namely Wichita.

          And American super-heavy shells also pull closer penetration of the deck.
  3. Senior seaman 12 January 2020 09: 18 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    But in this position, the plane greatly complicated the angle of fire for the first tower of the main caliber.

    Some kind of crooked phrase. Probably still - limited.
    As for the meeting in the battle of the cruiser “Washington” and the battleship, the result is slightly predictable.
  4. K-50 12 January 2020 09: 21 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Until it came to a battle at Cape Matapan, where the Italians flew into the trap set up by the British from dispersal, deciphering the negotiations with the help of Enigma.

    Enigma?
    It seems to be the so-called German encryption machine? what
    1. Dooplet11 12 January 2020 16: 43 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      This Roman unsuccessfully copied past. Already traditionally. Do not wonder.
  5. Colonel 12 January 2020 09: 24 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    launched on December 28, 1931, entered the fleet on December 23, 1931.
    ??
  6. Graz 12 January 2020 09: 31 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    by the way about armor, armor is different in terms of resistance from different countries on ships, as I understand it
    somewhere it seemed like watching a video there they said that the Germans had the best armor on the ships, the British had worse, and the most figurative among the Japanese.
    And how interesting the Italians had with this matter
    1. mark1 12 January 2020 12: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The Japanese alloyed steel with copper, but the Italians do not remember what (the book is far), but the armor was the most fragile. In the first places the British, Americans and Germans ("Wotan" -15% of the. American)
    2. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 11: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Graz
      somewhere it seemed like watching a video there they said that the Germans had the best armor on the ships, the British had worse, and the most figurative among the Japanese.

      Evaluation of the low quality of Japanese armor type VH (as 0.86 from American Class A armor, according to other sources, as 0.839) was made on the basis of only two shots at one armor plate.
      1. Are there too few statistics for a generalized conclusion? Compare, for example, with the shooting of "experimental compartments" in Russia and the RSFSR.
      2. "It remains a question whether this plate was rejected during production." (c) V.L. Kofman "Japanese battleships of the Second World" Yamato "and" Musashi.
      3. The most important thing. Even if you do not pay attention to doubts about the quality of the stove, there is one more “but”. At the same time, the Americans also tested another shell of VH armor with a thickness of 183 mm, which was recognized as the best plate of all that has ever been tested by the American fleet (probably American?) In a range of 6-8 ". However, the results the tests were not fixed and the VH armor was not used in assessing the quality of the armor. The question is, why? Why did the mediocre results go, so to speak, "in credit", but the good results did not?
      The Japanese themselves also checked the plates from the VH armor with shelling, but no criticism was noted about its quality.

      © V. Sidorenko
    3. Usher 13 January 2020 17: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Graz
      by the way about armor, armor is different in terms of resistance from different countries on ships, as I understand it
      somewhere it seemed like watching a video there they said that the Germans had the best armor on the ships, the British had worse, and the most figurative among the Japanese.
      And how interesting the Italians had with this matter

      It is a myth. The Yapas have normal armor. After the war, Americans tested plates from Japan. As far as I know, they were the same as the American ones.
  7. 27091965 12 January 2020 10: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In general, the service was like that ... They didn’t beat the loungers, and thank God


    The actions of the Italian fleet were determined by the chief of staff Admiral Domenico Cavagnari, they were supposed to be defensive. Not long skirmishes with the enemy were allowed.
    The main attacks on enemy ships were to be delivered by Regia Aeronautica together with the fleet. This explains the actions of the Italian Navy. But interaction was never achieved throughout the war.
  8. Undecim 12 January 2020 10: 59 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    ... The Italians from dispersal flew into the trap arranged by them by the British, who deciphered the negotiations with the help of Enigma.
    Using Enigma cannot be decrypted, it can be encrypted with it. Enigma is a German cryptographic machine.
    The Italian Navy used a cryptographic machine of its own design based on the cryptographic machine of the Swede Hagelin C-38.
    1. Gato 12 January 2020 12: 11 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Italians flew into the trap set up by the British

      As a child, in the magazine “TM” regarding the battle at Cape Matapan, he read an article in which the reason for the successful ambush was the presence of radars among the British and their absence or malfunction among the Italians. This thing happened in the dark.
      1. Undecim 12 January 2020 13: 18 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        The root cause was the interception of Italian radiograms. Just in March 1941, specialists from Bletchley Park managed to crack the Italian naval code. The British were alarmed by the increased activity of the Italians in terms of tracking the movement of their ships, and the transcript of the negotiations made it possible to clarify the details of the upcoming raid and plan an ambush. Admiral Cunningham was playing golf at the Alexandria Golf Club until dark, so that Italian agents would not spot the compound.
        And the Italians were spotted on March 27 using air reconnaissance.
        1. Liam 12 January 2020 18: 10 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Undecim
          Root cause

          In fact, this is not so. The British could not crack the Navy codes (at that time, anyway). They hacked the codes that were used for the ships as part of the convoys as well as the Enigma Luftwaffe code. Considering that the fleet worked both as part of the convoys and in cooperation with the Luftwaffe, it got under the distribution
          1. Dooplet11 13 January 2020 07: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They cracked the codes that were used for ships as part of convoys and also the Enigma Luftwaffe code.Considering that the fleet worked both as part of convoys and in cooperation with the Luftwaffe, it also came under distribution
            - Where are the firewood from, let me know? I found this information on Enigma on Wiki:
            In 1940, the German navy made some changes to the car. Only after the capture of the U-9 submarine on May 1941, 110, along with several new instances of the machine, British cryptanalysts were able to figure out the changes [1].
            - it turns out that starting from 40g until May 9th of the 41st, the British could hardly adequately and quickly decipher the messages encrypted by Enigma.
            By the way, there could be no "Enigma Luftwaffe code." In general, the question is whether the linear parts of the Luftwaffe Enigma were used.
        2. Liam 12 January 2020 18: 18 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Undecim
          And they spotted the Italians on March 27 with the help of air reconnaissance

          This was a tactical move by the British, so as not to disclose the fact that they read the codes of Italians and Germans — before the interception and convoys and purely military squadrons, as in this case — they sent an air reconnaissance, knowing exactly where to look. Thus, both Italians and Germans copied everything to high.Efficiency of the British air reconnaissance and for a long time did not suspect that their codes were opened
  9. dmmyak40 12 January 2020 10: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The ships were almost identical, with the exception of the "Paul", which was planned as the flagship, because the superstructure had a slightly different shape.
    Who can explain why and why the flagship had a superstructure of a different shape?
    1. Rurikovich 12 January 2020 11: 59 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: dmmyak40
      Who can explain why and why the flagship had a superstructure of a different shape?

      Because the admiral with his entourage requires additional premises, because "Paula" received additional premises on the bow superstructure
      Comparison of Fiume and Paul

      hi
      1. dmmyak40 12 January 2020 12: 45 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        It turns out that the “Paula” was specifically designed for the commander of the compound as a flagship? That is, a "member"? And if "Paula" went for repairs, what did the admiral do? Waiting for something? I wonder how! It feels like pasta wanted to fight in comfort!
        In WWI at the Black Sea Fleet, did Kolchak seem to have had George the Victorious as his headquarters, and went to Mary at sea?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 January 2020 15: 54 New
          • 13
          • 0
          +13
          Quote: dmmyak40
          It feels like pasta wanted to fight in comfort!

          Generally speaking, this is the norm. The Germans in the WWI also had "admiral" battleships. And comfort has nothing to do with it - the admiral is not only a person, but also his headquarters, they need a place that does not need to be allocated on an ordinary ship
          1. dmmyak40 12 January 2020 20: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The Germans in the WWI also had "admiral" battleships.
            What kind? Have limes also had such ships?
            Here under Jutland, Beatty held the flag on “Lyon, like, Jellico - on“ Iron Duke. ”These ships were also“ admiral ”or just the admiral chose them?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2020 10: 01 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              If my memory serves me right, there was one admiral in every series of German LCs. For example, among the battleships of the Helgoland type, it was Ostfriesland. And as for the British, I won’t tell you right away.
        2. Rurikovich 12 January 2020 18: 03 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: dmmyak40
          And if "Paula" went for repairs, what did the admiral do?

          “Bolzano” also had a developed nasal superstructure - could replace in case of a faq wink
        3. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 11: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: dmmyak40
          It turns out that the “Paula” was specifically designed for the commander of the compound as a flagship? That is, a "member"? And if "Paula" went for repairs, what did the admiral do? Waiting for something? I wonder how! It feels like pasta wanted to fight in comfort!

          The Italians simply wanted to ensure normal working conditions for the admiral and headquarters. And not like ours - when the admiral with the headquarters is squeezed “over the state” on the “parquet cruiser”, so that the staff officers occupy the cabins of team officers (who are sealed “like midshipmen”) and squeezed into military posts.
    2. Gato 12 January 2020 12: 04 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      why and why did the flagship have a superstructure of a different shape?

      It can be assumed that to accommodate the headquarters and additional communications equipment. Well, there is still billiards and warm latches. laughing
  10. Rurikovich 12 January 2020 11: 51 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    By the way, cunning is not unique to Italians.
    If the British were still observing the VD for armament, their heavy cruisers of the London and Norfolk types somehow fit into 10000 tons and had a displacement from 9800 tons to 10400 tons, the Americans - their all pre-war cruisers had from 9000 (Pensacola and " Chesters ") up to 10000 (" Portland "and" Astoria "), the French - all of them heavy cruisers did not climb out for 10000 tons of standard, then the Italians, in the beginning in the trio of" Trento "-" Bolzano "also vomited the letter of the law, but realizing that this is a dead end, as the author says, "cheated" - as a result, they got perfectly protected "Floors" in 11300-11600t. But who spit on VD, so these are the Japanese - their “Mioko” in 13000t, “Takao” in 13400t, “Mogami” in 12400t and my favorite lightweight “Tone” in 11200t of the standard originally went beyond the scope of the Treaty, but the Japanese got more or less suitable ships for destruction Yes, 100mm of side armor is not so hot, but the speed of 33-35 knots and 10 (with the exception of Tone and Tikuma) of 8 "GK trunks with excellent crew training made them terribly beautiful killers. The Germans did not sign the VD and their “Hippers” with unreliable vocational schools and 14000t standard look like an anachronism with 80mm side armor with the same standard 32 travel units.
    So really protected "Zara" is only the result of prudence and awareness of the inferiority of the agreements. Another thing is that, as we said earlier, they fell into the wrong hands lol Had really trained crews, adequate commanders, not Italian artillery and ammunition, radars, this four would have been kings on the Mediterranean among cruisers yes
    1. Gato 12 January 2020 12: 55 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But who spit on the VD is the Japanese

      Probably not fools. We realized that the ratio of the tonnage of the main ships of the USA, England and Japan as 5: 5: 3 puts the latter in a very indecent position in a future war.
    2. Victor Leningradets 13 January 2020 12: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I do not welcome the class of Washington heavy cruisers in any way. I note that the Italians dumped a pretty fool with the Zaras. The previous cruisers had a total length (rounded) of 196 m and a width of 20,6 m. Zara - 182 m and 20,6 m. So we would have rolled a cruiser quite 14 m longer, which would allow transferring the main armament and booking catapult between chimneys, strengthen air defense and place the main power plant about 140 thousand hp The increase in displacement would be about 1500 T, which corresponds to a standard displacement of 13000 T.
  11. Gato 12 January 2020 12: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Italians in World War II were beaten by everyone who is not lazy. At the end of the war, even their former allies were Germans. Even Borghese with his X flotilla did not save the situation.
  12. Gato 12 January 2020 12: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The trick is not always unpunished and fruitful.

    And where does the trick? Simply, contrary to the Duce's imperial ambitions, the Italians were never Romans - and this with a relatively decent fleet and aviation
    1. 27091965 12 January 2020 17: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Gato
      It’s just that, contrary to the Duce’s imperial ambitions, the Italians were never Romans -


      In Italy, they tried to show that they are still worthy of the Romans. What is the widely advertised "battaglione di morte", whose pilots took the oath, in the event England entered the Italo-Ethiopian war, ramming British ships on their planes loaded with explosives. The truth about such attacks, in the Second World War by the Italians, I could not read.
      1. Liam 12 January 2020 17: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: 27091965i
        What is the "battaglione di morte" widely advertised in 1935, whose pilots gave

        Would not be difficult to share the link?
        1. 27091965 12 January 2020 17: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Liam
          Would not be difficult to share the link?


          "THE ITALIAN FLEET" Fletcher Pratt. 1939. Mention of the "battaglione di morte" in Italy in 1935 was enough, but do not forget that this is more a propaganda campaign, I don’t think that Italian pilots for the most part were ready for such an act. Their motto was "one in a thousand."
          1. Liam 12 January 2020 17: 56 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: 27091965i
            "THE ITALIAN FLEET" Fletcher Pratt. 1939

            This one?
            Murray Fletcher Pratt (April 25, 1897 - June 10, 1956) was an American writer of science fiction, fantasy and history.
            In his bibliography on Wikipedia, such "work does not seem to appear."
            History and Biography Edit
            Naval History Edit
            The Compact History of the United States Navy (1957) OCLC 367782
            Empire and the Sea (1946) with Inga Stephens
            Fighting Ships of the US Navy (1941) illustrated by Jack Coggins
            Fleet Against Japan (1946)
            The Navy has Wings; the United States Naval Aviation (1943)
            The Navy, a History; the Story of a Service in Action (1938)
            The Navy's War (1944)
            Night Work: the Story of Task force 39 (1946) OCLC 1492544
            Preble's Boys; Commodore Preble and the Birth of American Sea Power (1950) LCCN 50-10765
            Sea Power and Today's War (1939) OCLC 1450484
            Ships, Men - and Bases (1941) with Frank Knox
            A Short History of the Army and Navy (1944)
            Quote: 27091965i
            "battaglione di morte"

            Moreover, this term is grammatically erroneous. It would be correct battaglione in Casa del Death.
            This is not to mention the fact that the term battaglione itself is by no means either to aviation or to the fleet.
            Italian sources do not give any results on this term.
            1. 27091965 12 January 2020 18: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Liam
              In his bibliography on Wikipedia, such "work does not seem to appear."


              This work is part of Sea Power and Today's War (1939). All chapters in this book were also printed separately.

              Moreover, this term is grammatically erroneous. It would be correct battaglione della morte.


              I wrote because I once found on a site describing the Italo-Ethiopian war. In Italian, "not strong."
              1. Liam 12 January 2020 18: 44 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                So let’s leave it to Mr. Fletcher Pratt writer of science fiction, fantasy and history.
                The Italians are not aware of the formation of their own units of kamikaze pilots. The term battaglione della morte in Italian refers to death battalions-punitive detachments.
                1. 27091965 12 January 2020 19: 36 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Liam
                  Fletcher Pratt writer of science fiction, fantasy and history.


                  Possible.
                  Propaganda is a tricky thing. Perhaps this battalion existed and the pilots gave interviews, vowed to give their lives. It impresses people. That's just to act as it seems to me, they were not going to. But to raise the spirit and patriotism were quite suitable.
            2. 27091965 13 January 2020 18: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Liam
              Italian sources do not give any results on this term.


              Gaetano Salvemini is mentioned, but he uses the term "suicide squadron".

              " According to press reports, the "suicide squadron" of 125 Navy pilots who vowed to die was ready to strike at the British fleet in the Mediterranean. Each pilot carrying one bomb in his plane had to choose an enemy warship and attack it. "1954

              HR Wilson may be added, but it is rather an indirect statement;

              " I believe that some members of the British cabinet were impressed by the ongoing reports from Italy that Mussolini and the Italian people were ready to attack Britain if the league accepted the oil embargo, which was then being discussed. Even those cabinet members who did not believe in this could not guarantee that this was not so.. "1941 the official British opinion.

              In my opinion, this was still a propaganda step.
              I think if you want you can find more information on this issue.
  13. Undecim 12 January 2020 13: 39 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10

    All sisterships of Zara class in Naples harbor - from left to right - Zara, Fiume, Paul, Gorizia.
  14. Undecim 12 January 2020 14: 17 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    June 26, 1944 "Gorizia" was blown up by a British-Italian group of combat swimmers.
    After the war, the corps was lifted and disassembled.
    The attack on the cruiser Gorizia was unsuccessful, the ship remained afloat.

    The cruiser Gorizia in the harbor of La Spezia. June 1946 They did not begin to restore the type of severe damage and in 1947 they dismantled it for metal.
  15. Corrie sanders 12 January 2020 15: 51 New
    • 6
    • 12
    -6
    good article, thanks to the author! +

    about combat effectiveness. Well, Italian ships at least participated in a number of campaigns and died, so to speak, “on the field of honor”, ​​in an unequal battle with battleships.
    but for example, Soviet cruisers ??? for the entire war, although there were official shots just in the direction of the surface enemy (I simply am silent about the hits) ??? Even in the direction of at least a torpedo boat? Who shot the "legendary" cruiser "Kirov" ??? somewhere there. Because there was no adjustment, or rather, there was an imitation of the adjustment, but in fact they were beaten by squares with barrage fire. Regarding the "shooting" of "Maxim Gorky" there is generally one slurred in both memoirs and studies. But in 1945 (!!!) “Prince Eugen” emptied its cellars onto the heads of our ground forces without any opposition from the KBF. Well, yes, but on the other hand, we regret the great Admiral Kuznetsov in chorus, whom Zhukov “boorish and redneck” obscured in Stalin’s office for this very incident.
    Who shot all 5 Black Sea cruisers ??? 7 seems volleys in the direction of Constanta before the bombing of Moscow. Then "somewhere there" during the defense of Sevastopol. Oh yes, the Molotov seems to have managed to fire a volley from the PMK (past) through the Italian TK before losing 18 meters of stern. And then after the loss of 3 EMs from German aviation in the autumn of 1943 — through the ports, “like a mouse after a broom,” - as Oktyabrsky wrote in the preface to the book “Tsushima,” describing the “stupid and cowardly tsarist admirals” of Wittgeft, Ukhtomsky, etc. The Germans calmly left Crimea on the BDB and the ramots, with the overall dominance of our aircraft.
    If the Italian "Trento and Zary had at least a dozen hits in the surface enemy, then ALL Soviet ships larger than the TFR in BB2 did not have any, at least officially confirmed by the enemy
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 January 2020 16: 14 New
      • 15
      • 2
      +13
      Quote: Corrie Sanders
      but for example, Soviet cruisers ???

      The Baltic Fleet has been locked in Leningrad since the beginning of the war. Both banks of the Finnish are in the hands of the enemy! In WWI, the Great and Terrible Fleet of the high seas of the Germans did not dare to pop into the Gulf of Finland. And in 1941, we ourselves were locked in it: a combination of mines, aircraft, coastal batteries - and that's all, you can’t pop out.
      Where did the KBF go? Crawling behind minesweepers in the center of Finland under air strikes? Repeat Tallinn transition only in the opposite direction? We in the base were barely fighting off German aircraft, and then we lost the battleship Marat, and a number of other ships, but what do you suggest? Bring ships to minefields, so that the Germans would be more comfortable drowning them there?
      And for what, let me ask? For the sake of a proud defile on the Baltic Sea? Germans did not hold heavy ships in the Baltic, and the light would have managed to leave before the KBF squadron crawled across Finnish behind the minesweepers. The same applies to transports.
      In general, it is not the sailors' fault that the Germans reached Leningrad. And they came, and in those conditions, trying to get out of the Finnish surface ships was a uniform, and absolutely unnecessary suicide.
      Quote: Corrie Sanders
      But in 1945 (!!!) “Prince Eugen” emptied its cellars onto the heads of our ground forces without any opposition from the KBF.

      Corrie, when you write, at least a little think about the subject of discussion?
      It’s a pity that you can’t take and send you there. So that you explain to the same Kuznetsov how to send a battleship and 2 KRL to battle, which for several years (!) Stood without full combat training in the BLOCKED LENINGRAD, in which it is impossible to provide this training in principle.
      1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 11: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And for what, let me ask? For the sake of a proud defile on the Baltic Sea? Germans did not hold heavy ships in the Baltic, and the light would have managed to leave before the KBF squadron crawled across Finnish behind the minesweepers.

        By the way, in the fall of 1941, the Germans were just holding heavy ships in the Baltic. Then they formed a squadron led by Tirpitz to prevent a possible breakthrough of the Baltic Fleet ships to Sweden for the purpose of internment. In addition to it, the squadron included the Admiral Scheer BB, KRL Emden, Leipzig, Cologne and Nuremberg.
        So the exit of our KRL to the Baltic in the fall of 1941 could end in disastrous condition.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2020 18: 00 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          By the way, in the fall of 1941, the Germans were just holding heavy ships in the Baltic.

          Yes, but still it was a special case. Then another "main gunboat of the Baltic" came, "Eugen" :))))
          Quote: Alexey RA
          So the exit of our KRL to the Baltic in the fall of 1941 could end in disastrous condition.

          That's for sure.
          1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 18: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Yes, but still it was a special case.

            Nevertheless, there was a chance to meet. And the outcome of this meeting would clearly not be in our favor - taking into account the real training of our crews.
            If at our KBF the compound of three EMs and two TFRs when meeting with the German naval base TSH and two TSHs in battle almost lost the “Seven-U” without losses from the enemy ... sad
      2. Victor Leningradets 13 January 2020 12: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I will intercede for Corrie.
        It was enough just to push the forces you indicated to Helsingfors or Hanko, and OKM would have less ambition to shell the coast. Nevertheless, from the second half of 1944, our aviation dominated the theater of operations, so that cover could be provided.
        And the fact that Kuznetsov during the war brought ships larger than the leader into an unfit state is a very sad fact.
        1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 18: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          It was enough just to push the forces you indicated to Helsingfors or Hanko

          By 1944, the "big pots" of the KBF and the Black Sea Fleet, like ships, were not operational. The maximum is a floating self-propelled battery.
          The first blow was the formation of the "crew of the Marine Corps" (KBF - 1941, Black Sea Fleet - 1942). During the formation of marine land units, even ship specialists were taken from the KBF — from towers and radio huts (they were even taken from submarine crews to sea battalions). In the first wave alone, the same “Oktyabrina” gave 450 people. At the Black Sea Fleet in 1942, more than 500 people went to the Marines from the "Parisian". In KB KBF this wave also passed.
          The second blow to the crews was inflicted by Arkhangelsk and Murmansk, the crews of which were manned with the best specialists remaining in the LC and KR.
          According to some reports, the KBF manning crews did not exceed 50% of the staff.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Nevertheless, from the second half of 1944, our aviation dominated the theater of operations, so that cover could be provided.

          The dominance of our aircraft is best described by Miroslav Morozov - "Boar Hunt". In short, with theoretical superiority in forces, the KBF Air Force command was able to allocate for attack on the “Scheer”, which pressed our army men to the ground, only three troop-carriers (the attack of which was actually thwarted by German fighters, despite the presence of cover) and three links of dive-bombers. The rest is IL-2.
          Miroslav Morozov sees the main reason for this inability of the command to organize a strike:
          Over the course of the day, it had countless opportunities to organize a strike on a naval force by forces of the 8th air division, which was not used to carry out other tasks (1st military aviation unit, the main forces of the 12th military unit and the 51st military aviation unit), but did not.

          However, in addition to this, there was a more significant reason - the inability of the KBF rear to organize the supply of the Air Force of the fleet. For example, after moving to the Baltic states, the 1st GMTAP was waiting for the rear for almost a month, and after a couple of weeks the only torpedo remained on the entire regiment. However, only the Air Force suffered - the TKA brigade, which participated in the landing on the islands of the Moonsund archipelago, was forced to actually beg for gas from the army (and then, when the remaining fuel was returned, the crews blocked the pipelines in order to keep the NZ).
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And the fact that Kuznetsov during the war brought ships larger than the leader into an unfit state is a very sad fact.

          Not Kuznetsov left all shipbuilding and ship repairing capacities at the Black Sea Fleet to the Germans. And Kuznetsov did not leave the only base for the KBF - Kronstadt.
          The fate of the inland sea fleets is decided on land. And the fleet there on secondary roles - the best anti-ship weapon is the infantry occupying a foreign naval base.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2020 18: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          It was enough just to push the forces you indicated to Helsingfors or Hanko, and OKM would have less ambition to shell the coast.

          Yes, how to say? Even theoretically it would have been possible to deliver our ships to Helsingfors only after the Moscow Armistice, and even then not immediately - that is, the heavy ships of the Baltic Fleet could not fend off the shelling of Klaipeda by any means. And then - KRL Germans would not be scared, but they could always get away from LC. This is if the Finns could even agree on our ships in Helsinki.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And the fact that Kuznetsov during the war brought ships larger than the leader into an unfit state is a very sad fact.

          ??? Sorry, I didn’t understand this
          1. Victor Leningradets 14 January 2020 10: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            To begin with, at the end of the war N.G. Kuznetsov was the People’s Commissar of the Navy - therefore, he was responsible for his combat effectiveness and combat effectiveness of the KBF ships in particular. Shipbuilding and mechanical plants capable of carrying out the necessary repairs were located in Leningrad (which they actually did). Lack of personnel - maneuver at the expense of irrelevant ships and fleets. Could not have foreseen the actions of the Prince and the two Pickpockets? - you do not correspond to the position held with Nach. GMSH!
            Okay, let’s say they would bring “Oktyabrina.” And KRL to Helsingfors, OKM would have to withdraw its units in pairs, otherwise the repetition of La Plata threatens. It was then that the Air Force could carry out a strategic operation to destroy two enemy SRTs by the forces of the air armies. Such an end justifies the means.
            If the SRT was able to "escape" from the LC, then the operation to support the ground forces was disrupted, which was required. By the way, in vain do you neglect the 180-mm KRL caliber. It is quite fatal for the German KRT.
            1. Alexey RA 15 January 2020 18: 52 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              To begin with, at the end of the war N.G. Kuznetsov was the People’s Commissar of the Navy - therefore, he was responsible for his combat effectiveness and combat effectiveness of the KBF ships in particular.

              How to ensure the combat effectiveness of ships in the absence of ship repair facilities? Or should Kuznetsov foresee the advance of the Red Army to the line of the Caucasian ridge and the blockade of Leningrad before the war?
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              Shipbuilding and mechanical plants capable of carrying out the necessary repairs were located in Leningrad (which they actually did).

              В blockade Leningrad after the evacuation.
              Until October 1941, ship repair from EM and higher still worked somehow. And then the problems began: there are no personnel, hunger, there is practically no electricity. The same damaged EM “Watchdog” was first mothballed for a year, and then equipment was collected for it throughout the city. EMNIP, a set of PUAO was taken from the school, where he was training.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              It was then that the Air Force could carry out a strategic operation to destroy two enemy SRTs by the forces of the air armies.

              What air armies? The Air Force does not engage in naval targets due to the complete lack of experience and means of destruction. Is it possible to bomb the bases ...
              And after the navy has assigned the navy to the navy, the navy has no opportunity to establish supplies - for the navy was a priority in the war of supplying and equipping equipment. While the Air Force KBF sat within the Leningrad Region, the supply was at the very least poor. But in the Baltic states big problems have already begun.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              Lack of personnel - maneuver at the expense of irrelevant ships and fleets.

              What to do with ships? Two years on foot, under enemy fire, with reduced crews, moreover in a blockaded city. It's like a BF in the 20s after the Ice Campaign.
  16. Corrie sanders 12 January 2020 17: 05 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    [/ quote] The Baltic Fleet has been locked in Leningrad since the beginning of the war. Both banks of the Finnish are in the hands of the enemy! [Quote]


    Well, yes, smart people in the Russian Empire spoke of the absolute hopelessness of the Baltic Fleet under Alexander 1. But stupid people in the Russian Empire did not believe this and continued to pump this trap with battleships and frigates, and then armadillos, cruisers, battleships and (!! !) by submarines. And in the end they got the cruiser Aurora, Eh Bullseye, and King Chicken. People from the USSR again went on the rake of stupid people from the Republic of Ingushetia and again relied on the Baltic Fleet as the main fleet. And they got the Tallinn crossing, “Ayshtoss” with the beating by dive-boats of ships frozen in ice, the death of 90% of KBF submarines in land mines with a minimum of results. Later, in the 70s, smart people (Gorshkov, Ustinov) took over the leadership cross on the KBF, leaving it symbolically.
    1. cat Rusich 13 January 2020 00: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      About "smart people" during the Republic of Ingushetia - where besides the Baltic and the Black Sea to keep the fleet of the Russian Empire? Shipyards and heavy metal industry were concentrated in St. Petersburg. The non-freezing port of Romanov-on-Murom was founded in 1916. Who will protect the capital of RI from attack from the sea? - from the British for example? The Black Sea Fleet was located even more “convenient” to enter the Mediterranean Sea through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles ... Before the Second World War, during the Soviet era, the Northern Fleet just started to “give birth” as a “reserve airfield”. After WWII, with the outbreak of the “full-blown Cold World War,” the need arose and the OPPORTUNITY to create a “full-blooded” Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet. During the Republic of Ingushetia, they wanted to create a Pacific Fleet for this and “squeezed” Por-Arthur in 1898, only the railroad was built and regular traffic was established on July 1 (14), 1903, excluding the CER, the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed on October 5 (18), 1916. As an option to “protect” the Baltic during the time of RI, include Denmark in the Russian Empire (for example, to “protect” from Germany ...), but the German fleet is still in the Baltic ...
      1. Corrie sanders 13 January 2020 03: 31 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        well, smart people in RI were able to convince Alexander III to remove the fleet from Kronstadt and the marquise puddle and push it forward into the clear. As a result, by the beginning of the twentieth century a titanic sea fortress-port was erected in Libau, which was not inferior to the best in Europe. The reserve base was designated Helsinki. But the "ideals of the October Revolution" again returned to the marquise puddle with all the consequences. With Murmansk, everything is clear, but what prevented the keeping of the North Ocean’s squadron in Arkhangelsk? The British were in the way. their traditional influence at the Russian court was overwhelming, so they did not allow the creation of naval forces in the North and Kaiser Wilhelm in every possible way squeezed the Russian fleet to the East
        1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 11: 41 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Corrie Sanders
          As a result, by the beginning of the twentieth century a titanic sea fortress-port was erected in Libau, which was not inferior to the best in Europe.

          Yeah ... that's just the fleet did not succeed in using it - neither in the WWII, nor in the WWII. Money was literally thrown into the water.
          Quote: Corrie Sanders
          With Murmansk, everything is clear, but what prevented the keeping of the North Ocean’s squadron in Arkhangelsk?

          Lack of squadron icebreakers. Arkhangelsk is a freezing port.
          I felt all the charm of basing the ships on the freezing port of the RIF in the RPE by the example of a wok. smile
  17. Saxahorse 12 January 2020 20: 38 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    In fact, the numbers were pretty underestimated. The real standard displacement (it's still how to measure) with cruisers dangled from 11 to 500 tons. And how much was complete, in general no one still knows. The data was classified. But I think that just with full ammunition, all reserves and crew, the ships pulled 11-900 thousand tons easily.

    I don’t know how to remind the authors that all the parameters of the ship are determined by standard or normal displacement. Full displacement, this is his maximum load at which he has not yet drowned. Why moaning about “14-14,5 thousand tons easily” is not clear, with such a load and the armor belt deep in the water and no speed. Fighting is life-threatening. And the indicated 11500 tons fit perfectly into the construction error. It may not be random but quite ordinary.

    By the way, I just can’t agree with the assessment of the Italians cruisers as beautiful .. The eyes of the cruiser are his guns! It’s not by accident that they write - he looked into the vents .. And then the terrible construction of the Civil Code called "eyes in a bunch." It is unlikely that any of the authors would choose a bride with such eyes. laughing
    1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 11: 50 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Saxahorse
      By the way, I just can’t agree with the assessment of the Italians cruisers as beautiful .. The eyes of the cruiser are his guns! It’s not by accident that they write - he looked into the vents .. And then the terrible construction of the Civil Code called "eyes in a bunch."

      Some of them, the Pomnitsa, switched to individual cradles only on the last pre-war heavy cruiser. Moreover, this somebody even on battleships he put three GK guns in a common cradle. wink
      And nothing - ended the war with an absolute victory at sea.
  18. Shadow1 13 January 2020 08: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, you can resemble and try them in the game, and they are not so hot in the game either.


    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 January 2020 07: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And Gorizia came straight to me :)
  19. Victor Leningradets 13 January 2020 10: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To all critics of Italian heavy cruisers (certainly not without flaws!) I advise you to compare the number of hits received by Italian heavy cruisers with the number of hits in enemy cruisers. Matapan, of course, does not count.
    Just fights were fought over long distances and did not involve the destruction of the enemy.
    As for the class of heavy cruisers of 10000 tons of standard displacement, it was stillborn from its very appearance, since it excluded the possibility of light armored units participating in decisive artillery combat. As for cruising operations and support of light forces, 12-15 six-inch is much more useful than 8-10 eight-inch.
    In my amateurish opinion, the most optimal heavy (or "superheavy") cruiser is the Alaska, but the speed characteristics of these ships leave much to be desired. If it were possible to increase the speed of these ships by a couple of knots, then the Americans would get an ideal heavy cruiser, capable of smashing the "Washington" cruisers, supporting the landing forces with fire and, if necessary, waging battles with battleships at long distances (on the way out, or on the principle of " several for one "). At the same time, the total number of such cruisers built instead of the Baltimore would be seven, and, taking into account the Alaska and Guam, nine.
    1. Andrzej k 13 January 2020 13: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Do not forget about Algerie i Wichita - these were successful, well-balanced and decently armored ships - especially the first one also with an excellent system of protection against torpedoes
      1. Victor Leningradets 13 January 2020 13: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Good execution of a worthless plan, alas.
        Set Algerie against Belfast and lose!
        And by versatility and even more so. No, the optimized heir to the linear cruisers with the main caliber of 11 - 12 inches, a standard displacement of the order of 25000 T and a speed of 33 - 34 knots should have become a real heavy cruiser. Board armor - from eight inches at a decisive battle distance, decks - from own caliber to 130 - 150 cab.
        He really could act as a scarecrow against light forces (a battle in Helgoland Bay on 28.08.1914/10000/08.12.1914), against undershots of 31.05.1916 tons each (battle at the Falkland Islands on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX), and, if necessary, wage a fight on the move (Skagerrak XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX g.).
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 January 2020 07: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I'm afraid you are mistaken. Eight inches is much more useful than six inches, and Alaska, generally speaking, were extremely unsuccessful ships. To raise their speed without a significant increase in displacement is impossible in principle. In addition, large cruisers are too expensive for mass construction, and there must be many cruisers
      1. Victor Leningradets 14 January 2020 11: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        "All things - question it." R. Descartes.
        Well, it is generally accepted that Alaska and Guam are extremely unsuccessful and expensive ships, and so you believed it. For 1945, all US battleships, except for old chests - are useless and expensive - they have no enemy! And the shore is much better to iron from the old dreadnoughts. At the same time (paradox!) “California” is twice as effective as “South Dakota”.
        In fact, in the classic naval battle against the Japanese SRTs, it was precisely the “big cruisers” that could surely act, inflicting fatal damage to the enemy at long and medium distances, while remaining invulnerable. However, the trouble of “Alaska” and “Guam” is a speed of 32 knots against the Japanese 33 -35 knots. By the way, Baltimore’s move is no better. An increase in the displacement of Alaska by 3000 tons allows you to place a power plant with a capacity of 200 hp, which provides 000 knots. At a cost, one Alaska is cheaper than two Baltimore.
        The real rate of fire of six-inch cruisers was one and a half times higher than that of eight-inch ones, and the number of trunks for cruisers of 10000 T also differs by one and a half times. And on the effectiveness of the six-inch anti-SRT, exhaustive experimental data were obtained during the battle of La Plata on 13.12.1939/08.04.1940/31.12.1942, Operation "Weserubung" on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX and "New Year's Shame" on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 January 2020 23: 24 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Victor, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Alaska is really a bad cruiser, and not because someone said something like that. Alaska is a poor cruiser for a variety of reasons.
          As you yourself noted, it is very expensive. Baltimore cost about $ 39,3 million, and Guam (second Alaska) $ 74 million. Thus, Alaska alone cost almost 2 good conventional 203 mm TKR of increased displacement. But, unlike the 2 Baltimore, Alaska could not be in two places at the same time. This is the first, and very serious minus.
          The second minus. The main enemy of the ships at that time was still aviation, and not enemy ships. But the Alaskan air defense system was practically no different from what it was placed on the Baltimore, that is, putting the Alaska aircraft carrier or transport group of ships (vessels) on guard, instead of the Baltimore pair, we double in air defense.
          The third minus. Combat survivability. “Alasok” was useless for the ship of its displacement PTZ - payment for speed. In fact, the protection against torpedoes was not much different from Baltimore. That is, it turned out this way: if Alaska, guarding the convoy, is attacked from the air, then its air defense is twice as bad as 2 Baltimore, and the chances of seizing a torpedo in one attack are probably even greater, because the cruiser is longer and, most likely, less agile . And hitting aviatorpedi almost guaranteed puts Alaska out of action, while the convoy remains unprotected.
          If the convoy is guarded by two Baltimore, then a torpedo hit in one of them weakens the protection of the convoy by half - but not to zero. And the chances of surviving a torpedo strike while maintaining combat capability are in Iowa, but not in Alaska.
          That is, in terms of air defense, 2 Baltimore is noticeably better than Alaska alone.
          Further. You talk about the fight at a long or medium distance with the TKR of Japan and believe that Alaska will have an overwhelming advantage in it - especially if you add speed to it. Alas, everything here is also not as straightforward as we would like.
          Firstly, if Alaska is almost 2 Baltimore in value, then its battle should be considered not against one, but against 2 Japanese TCRs. And here everything is already completely not so clear, because, although at a great distance the citadel and artillery of Alaska is quite well protected, its armored extremities and KDP may well be hit. Of course, 305-mm suitcases are a force, they are capable of causing serious damage to the TKR without even getting into them, and tearing next to them, but 1-2 successful hits of a 203-mm in the nose or stern of Alaska are quite capable of slowing it down, or incapacitate the directors of the OMS and in that case she will not be able to continue an effective battle. And then night will come, and the Japanese TKR will return.
          In a night battle against the Japanese, ships like Alaska had a chance only at the end of the war, when very good fire control radars appeared. But the question is that in this case, Baltimore will cope no worse, or even better. Just because in a night battle not only the weight of an individual shell matters, but also the rate of fire and the number of guns. So, for example, the 152 mm cruiser coped with the Japanese destroyers significantly better than the 203 mm. But the 152 mm cruisers could not really fight with the Japanese TKR over a long distance in the afternoon, so the 203 mm looked like a reasonable compromise. But Alaska, with its 9 * 305 mm in night combat, is far less effective than a pair of Baltimore with 18 203 mm.
          And finally, the operational-tactical issue. Do not forget that, in addition to TKR, the Japanese had 4 battle cruisers of the Congo type, which they actively used for risky operations. So, “Alaska” in terms of armor and weapons is roughly equivalent to “Congo”, a long-distance battle can happen very differently, but ceteris paribus, if Alaska wins, it will obviously suffer heavy damage.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 January 2020 23: 27 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            On the other hand, for a battleship such as "Iowa", "Congo" is a legitimate game. Booking "Iowa" well protected from 356-mm shells (but not higher), and its 406-mm shells did not leave the Japanese LCR a single chance. At the same time, the cost of battleships of the Iowa type ranged from 100 to 114 million dollars. Accepting an average cost of 107 million dollars, we understand that for the cost of 3 Alaska you can build 2 Iowa and there will still be money!
            In other words, oddly enough, in most combat situations (night fighting, repelling the attacks of destroyers and aircraft), the Baltimore pair has an advantage over Alaska, while the Alaskan advantage over the Baltimore pair in the daytime classic battle, although there is, but not absolutely, a combination of battleships Iowa + TK Baltimore makes Alaska simply not needed for the US Navy.
            I can’t even imagine how in your mind the battle of La Plata and, especially, the Weserubung demonstrated the advantage of 152 mm guns over 203 mm. As for the New Year’s battle, here 2 British cruisers (each of which was inferior in terms of cost to the TKR) were able to achieve surprise in the attack and achieved a “golden hit” - at the time of Hipper’s turn, the shell hit the exposed waterline and damaged the boiler room. The Hipper retreated, although it could well continue the battle. That is, his only serious damage, in essence, is luck, and the retreat is the admiral's decision, and not a necessity.
            The advantage of the 152 mm caliber is night battle, reflection of destroyer attacks. The disadvantage is that there is too much dispersion at distances under 100 cables, that is, in the daytime battle at a long distance of the KRL with 152 mm guns - the victim. It has been proven repeatedly - here you can remember the battle in the Java Sea, and the actions of the English 152-mm cruisers, which at a great distance sharply lost accuracy.
            1. Victor Leningradets 16 January 2020 13: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Thanks for the informative answer.
              I never argued that “Alaska” is not consistent in defending a fight with “Congo” or “Ripals”. But against the Japanese CRT, she is booked excessively. And the battle at medium and long range was prescribed to her not because of the Japanese eight-inch, but because of their "long copies". Here lies the main trouble, “Alasok” with its front door of 31,76 knots at rated power - they simply could not control the distance!
              About air defense and convoys - it’s not the business of the KRT to replace the Atlanta and Cleveland, but I agree that 16 to 20 barrels in the Mk-12 installations are necessary for such ships.
              The battle with the Japanese cruisers looks exactly as you defined: "two by four." Here, the main advantage of Alaska over Tacao is better accuracy, both due to the laying of a heavier projectile and due to a more stable artillery platform. And as for the damaging effect, you ask Exeter that he had the happiness of La Plata to get a 300-kg suitcase!
              We won’t talk about aviation at all - ships against ships or a fleet against a fleet, and then the Marian turkey hunt.
              About the battle with the battleship (two on one) - if the "Homeland ordered", and so - it is a dangerous, but not hopeless. Especially against modernized old people. The distance is distant, an armor-piercing projectile is dangerous even for Bismarck. Again, the fire advantage in rate of fire is behind the Alaska.
              The main thing is to consider Alaska simply as heavy cruisers, and not as "half-dead" with all that it implies: there is nothing to be afraid of losing a heavy cruiser! It’s necessary to fight.
              About eight- and six-inch you are right about 100 cab., Although decently only Germans fired at great distances. But it is worth letting the enemy get closer and everything - the khan to the cardboard "Washington" - will be thrown with shells and finished off with torpedoes.
              And about the "Congo" ... Upgraded "not there." Nine long-range ten-inch guns and 33 knots, plus adequate air defense, that’s what was needed.
              1. Victor Leningradets 16 January 2020 15: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I will add that at long distances (the beginning of a battle) a hail of eight-inch shells is impossible because of the difficulties with adjusting the fire and the huge dispersion when conducting light fire with mounted shells. This, by the way, was not understood by Soviet sailors and shipbuilders, who hung the designed battleships with armor all over the board. And the defeat of ships in the battle style at Guadalcanal and the shooting of the Bismarck are possible only from medium and close ranges. So, theoretically, the battle between the two Alaskans and the four Tacao would more likely resemble the destruction of the Spee squadron on 08.12.1914/XNUMX/XNUMX. However, most likely practical Japanese would divide the forces into a cover group and a rescue group and get off with the loss of two ships out of four.
  20. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 10: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    At about 22 p.m., the British discovered a cruiser and opened artillery fire at 22 p.m. All three British battleships fired at Zara: Worthspite, Valiant and Barham.
    The British always knew how to shoot. Therefore, after just a few minutes, the 381-mm Zara guns caught in the exact fire burned like a dawn.

    ABK was especially impressed by the remark of the battleship commander, a former artilleryman: “Great God! But we hit! ”Immediately after the battle, he ordered that expression be written down in case he needed to wipe his nose at the artillery school of the fleet.
    smile
    In fact, it is very difficult to miss, firing almost direct fire at the “pistol” distance - from “Warspite” to “Fiume” that was walking alongside the Zara, there were only 15 cables.
    The Worspite and Valiant simultaneously fired on the Fiume of 15 "guns. The distance to the target was 2900 yards for the Worspite and 4000 yards for the Valiant.
  21. Pavel57 13 January 2020 10: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Italian architects had their own style.
  22. Andrzej k 13 January 2020 12: 54 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It was believed that booking heavy cruisers of the Zara type was able to withstand armor-piercing 203 mm British shells in the range from 65 to 125 cable (from 12 to 23 km). But the war made some adjustments.


    I absolutely do not understand this sentence. During the war, none of the cruisers received a blow from the British 203 mm cannons, so it is not known whether they were really capable of withstanding armor-piercing 203 mm British shells in the range from 65 to 125 cable. the war did not make even the slightest correction in this matter.
  23. Narak-zempo 13 January 2020 17: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    for some reason (translated from Italian - by sloppiness)

    And they say that there was order during the Duce. And the trains went on schedule, and the mafia was pressed to the nail.
    1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 18: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      And they say that there was order during the Duce. And the trains went on schedule, and the mafia was pressed to the nail.

      So ... to the campaign the power of Duce ended in a sea surf. smile
      However, in other states with an "order" the naval forces split their knees cleaner than the Italian. One “New Year’s fight” is worth it - when a panzer chiffe brought straight to KON (distance of about 30 cables) instead of destroying “bare” ships (the entire escort was distracted by Hipper - as planned) began to maneuver to provide better visibility - and maneuvered to breaking contact with the convoy and going straight to his escort. Oh yeah, I still started shooting at KON Panzerschiffe, but only after the distance increased one and a half times - and I drove it so precisely that I never hit it. smile