Golden Bullet for the battleship

Golden Bullet for the battleship

Bismarck, Gneisenau, Yamato ... Pearl Harbor! But is it fair to judge the combat stability of an entire class of ships based on a few episodes? Indeed, more than 150 cases of hitting bombs and torpedoes in LCR and LK are known!


"150" - unrealistic a lot? Of course, after all, most of the hits were not remembered by anything. Data about them has been preserved on the pages of monographs, interesting only to historians-modelers.

Analyze the situation will help statistics.

If every second hit causes consequences similar to Bismarck and Gneisenau, then this is a fiasco for everyone who made the decision to build large ships.

If most of the hits could not cause significant damage, the conclusion will sound different.

The fleet included a class of military equipment with very impressive capabilities.


Large highly protected ships, unlike “disposable” destroyers and submarines, could be kept under the pressure of entire fleets and air armies! Then healed the wounds received and again threw themselves into the “hell”.

Personally, I am admired by the lines of the military chronicle. “After three months of repair, I became fully operational.” Or: “A hit by an air bomb damaged the air duct and interrupted the operation of starboard boilers, after 24 minutes Nagato was in full swing again.”

Absolute “terminators”, unstoppable and practically indestructible machines. These qualities explained their strategic “weight” and importance on the theater. And the attention and resources of the enemy, which they riveted to themselves.

As for such stories as the failure of the Gneisenau (27.02.42), no one denies that a heavily defended ship may one day die from a bomb of not the largest caliber. But what is the probability?

The Golden Bullet. So poetic call a successful hit, which unexpectedly had serious results


During the war years there were five “golden” hits in LKR and LK, which every lover of the sea knows about stories. These are bombs and torpedoes. The results of artillery duels will be considered another time.

1. Torpedo jammed Bismarck steering wheel at 12 ° to the left.

The result was a helpless Bismarck circulation in the middle of the Atlantic. The slow-moving battleships of the British got the opportunity to overtake the "fugitive" and put an end to the impressive ocean pursuit (in which about 200 ships took part).

2. A torpedo that fell into the area of ​​the left propeller shaft of the Prince of Wales.

The deformed rotating shaft “pivoted” the board even more, and the water coming through its shaft soon flooded the engine room of the forehead, de-energizing the entire stern.

Given the perplexity aboard the battleship, the absence of an air defense order and the fury with which the Japanese pilots attacked the Z connection, the ship was doomed for sure. But the first hit made the Prince of Wells situation so difficult that it made him hopeless.


3. "The Night of Taranto."

Two of the three torpedoes that hit the Littorio hit in the area of ​​the 163rd and 192nd frames (according to Italian tradition, the numbering was from the stern). In the nose itself, there was no PTZ, and due to the proximity of two explosions, the tightness of the waterproof bulkheads in the entire nose of the hull was broken. By morning, the Littorio sank to the bottom.

Can two torpedoes with a difference of 45 minutes be considered a “golden hit”? The Italians allowed the "whatnots" to shoot their ships with impunity!

However, a shameful fact. The battleship, created by the latest standards of the era, was drowned from just two torpedoes. The third hit in the feed did not have significant consequences.

But ... this is Taranto, gentlemen. If someone seriously believes that in war always and everywhere luck will breathe in the face, and the enemy - ugly to blunt, then this hope will evaporate in a day.

4. Hit 450 kg of the bomb in the "Gneisenau."

On an icy February night, 30 bombers achieved the only hit on the ship. The bomb could not penetrate the main armored deck, but after 25 minutes the fire flame spread inside the barbet of the tower "A" through an open hatch. Ammunition detonation!

5. The death of "Arizona."

There is no doubt that the 800-kg “armor”, machined from the billet of a 410-mm projectile and dropped from a height of 3 km, was required to break through the horizontal defense of “Arizona”. On the other hand, none of the six similar 800-kg bombs that hit other American battleships could cause significant damage.

The bomb that hit the Arizona was undoubtedly the "gold".

Examples of other successful attacks


The hits that led to the death of Barkham or LKR Congo are not “golden hits” in the sense that such ships were designed before the start of World War I. When torpedo bombers and submarines were considered science fiction.

The danger of the consequences of torpedoing these ships was thought back in the 20s. Measures were taken, but the outdated design did not allow to implement the necessary level of protection against threats of modern times. This is the harsh law of war: sometimes you have to go into battle, knowing that your possibilities are limited.

The gloomy situation for the ships of the past era was facilitated by the rarity of the torpedo attacks carried out on them. Despite all the activity of the German submariners, out of five Quins, only one Barham could be sunk.

Hit in the "Marat". First question: which one is a highly secure ship by the standards of the 40s? The second point: the Germans were so close that their dive-bombers had the opportunity to fly to the main KBF base with a 1000-kg bomb load!

The practical complete destruction of the battleship "V. Virginia "as a combat unit - that's right. What was the ship supposed to turn into after 7 or 9 torpedo hits? Nobody could repeat the pogrom, similar to Pearl Harbor, having the same outfit of strength.

Hit in the "Roma": first in history (and last) the use of guided bombs, resulting in the death of a large ship.

Which of the sailors suspected the dangers of flying at high altitude aircraft? Aim bombardment from a height of 6000 m on a moving target was considered impossible. No one made evasion maneuvers, did not try to thwart the attack.

The second Fritz hit caused a fire in the engine room, twenty minutes later the fire crept up to the ammunition cellars. The question remained: did anyone fight the fire, given the coven that was happening on board? If it would be a discovery for someone, the Italian squadron would surrender to Malta, the officers of the Roma took on board the family, the personnel was demoralized. If war for all ended yesterday, who wanted to die in the fire and smoke of the engine room, saving the ship?


V. M. Pokutny, artilleryman of the cruiser "Red Caucasus". Remaining the only survivor of the entire calculation, put out the fire in the tower, preventing the spread of fire in the ammunition cellar

Your attention - a military chronicle of 10 (ten) large ships of the WWII period


Figures and short excerpts of the most impressive moments.

10 ships. 30 combat episodes with damage. 70 hits of air bombs, torpedoes and bombings on sea mines. Of which not one has become a "golden bullet".

The list is formed from the ships of the Axis countries, because they were subjected to continuous attacks and attacks by superior allied forces. They were “beaten up” stronger. Among the allies, through such vicissitudes, probably only Worspite passed.

Scharnhorst

He withstood 6 hits of air bombs and hit 1 torpedo - from a sunk destroyer, which until the last defended the dying AB Glories. Also, German LCR twice blew up on mines when breaking through the English Channel.

After four years of unsuccessful attempts to block and destroy it, the Scharnhorst was still overtaken and sunk by a British squadron in a battle at Cape Nordkapp (December 1943).

Gneisenau

During active participation in hostilities he was twice torpedoed, twice blown up by magnetic mines. Withstood hit 4 bombs.

“The explosion caused significant damage to the hull and flooded several compartments, causing a 0,5 ° roll to the left side. From the concussion, the right low-pressure turbine and the equipment of the aft rangefinder post failed. Repairs carried out in a floating dock in Kiel with 6 on 21 yeast. After a short test run 27 number he returned to Kiel in full combat readiness. "

(The consequences of a meeting with a magnetic mine. The detonation of a couple of hundred kg of explosives under the bottom of the Gneisenau!)

The 5th, last aerial bomb became fatal for a German monster. Usually, citing the Gneisenau as an example, they mention only this, the last hit.

Tirpitz

Tirpitz really stood. Instead, and around him, the entire British fleet ran.

For four years of raids, the British managed to achieve 17 bombs in the strongest ship of the Atlantic. Even 726 kg of “armor-piercing” were dropped on him, but the second “Arizona” from “Tirpitz” did not work. And when they finally guessed what means were needed against him, the war was already drawing to a close.

What can an analysis of the results of using 5-ton Tollboys give? One or two of these bombs will sink the ship. Any ship. But the Lancaster of a special modification with a bomb that did not fit entirely in the bomb bay only appeared in the sky above the Tirpitz in the autumn of 1944. For some reason, it wasn’t there before. It’s strange. What do you think?

Littorio

The familiar name, the "drowned" from Taranto!

After that night attack, the Littorio was picked up and rebuilt in less than five months. And more he did not disgrace. Over the following years, the Littorio withstood the hit of 3 air bombs and 1 torpedo. And each time the damage caused did not lead to loss of stroke or to the failure of the battleship.

The last wound was caused to him by the German Fritz-X guided bomb, but the damage from it turned out to be so small that home-grown lovers of the “wunderwaffe” prefer not to recall this incident.

Vittorio Veneto

The ship, of the same type "Littorio", was twice torpedoed - in 1941 and 1942. Each time, he independently reached the base, underwent repairs and returned to the combat personnel.

In August 1943, while at the berth in La Spezia, Vittorio was hit by the Flying Fortresses. The battleship received two 907-kg armor-piercing bombs, not counting the close gap that opened up another hole. The wounds were serious: the board was damaged on an area of ​​tens of square meters. m, the ship took 1500 tons of water. However, this story had a logical ending:

“On June 16, Vittorio Veneto was docked, and already July 1 was taken out of it. We must pay tribute to the Italian engineers and workers: the hull work took only two weeks - a very short time for this amount of damage. "

(Battleship Vittorio Veneto (1937). History of the creation and service of the battleship of Italy.)

Yamato

Flagship United fleet was greeted three times by a fierce greeting from the US Navy: 2 air bombs and 1 torpedo (not counting the close explosions).

In December 1943, the torpedo launched by the Skate boat overtook the Yamato and flooded the stern tower cellars. He calmly crossed the ocean and got up for repairs. Three months later - in full combat!

Damage from bombs during the Philippine campaign (autumn 1944) caused extensive flooding (3300 tons of water), but the next day the Yamato didn’t act exactly as a heavily damaged ship should.

A breakthrough to Leyte Gulf, a battle of many hours, and three close air bomb explosions followed. Despite all the efforts of the Americans, Yamato got out of the infernal brazier, from the air strikes of a group of 500 aircraft. He went to Brunei. Before his death, less than six months remained.

In the last battle, the Americans had the opportunity to concentrate on one Yamato air army of 300+ aircraft. However, it would be interesting to simulate the situation: in place of the Yamato, a more advanced ship of the Iowa or British Wangard type. Would the pilots manage to cope before nightfall? If they don’t have time, the next morning he will run aground near Okinawa and continue to wind the nerves of the Tuffy-58, the largest of the squadrons that have ever plowed the oceans.

But this is lyrics. Facts - Yamato easily endured single hits.

Musashi

In March 1944, he was “treated” by a torpedo launched by the Tanni submarine. The only consequence was a repair that lasted a whole month.

Of interest is the last battle of Musashi, more precisely, the moment at about two in the afternoon on October 24, 1944. According to the reports of American pilots, according to which the chronology of the battle was constantly restored, by then the Musashi at least 7 air bombs and 8 torpedoes. Despite this, he continued to shoot back, maneuver, and maintained 20 knots!

"Golden hits" that day did not happen, "Musashi" was drowning a long and tedious. Throughout the day, he had to "hollow" the wings of eight aircraft carriers. Numerous American aircraft carriers no longer had forces on other ships of the Japanese compound (among which were such “goodies” as “Yamato” and “Nagato”).

After the sinking of the Musashi, it was concluded that it was necessary to carry out torpedo attacks from only one side. Otherwise, hits mutually “level” each other, causing counter-flooding. Such a powerful ship too long remains on an even keel, maintaining the course and combat efficiency. Which jeopardizes the entire plan to counter the enemy squadron.

Sinano

The third Japanese superlinkor rebuilt into an aircraft carrier. Nevertheless, retaining the identity of his brothers in size and design of the lower part of the body.

The story of Sinano once again emphasizes how difficult it was to sink a ship of this type with torpedoes. Having received four hits in the central part of the starboard side, for several hours he continued to move the same course and without slowing down!

The black humor of the situation is that “Sinano” was not completed. He walked with unsealed bulkheads, and there was no regular amount of funds for pumping water on it.

As a result, even under such conditions, it took as long as six (SIX!) Hours until the spread of water caused a dangerous roll.

The battle chronicle of the Japanese battleships contradicts any conclusions based on the story of the Bismarck, which lost control from hitting one (or two) torpedoes.

Nagato

A happy ship that has been in hell itself. However, without noticeable consequences. During the battle of the Philippines in two days he suffered 4 bombing hits. The consequences of one of them were described at the beginning of the article. The rest were even less important.

In the summer of the 45th, during the next raid on the Yokosuki harbor, the Nagato got hit by two air bombs that caused him cosmetic damage. Then the real farce began. The enemy during the entire war could not inflict serious damage to the Nagato, so the Japanese had to try their best to mislead American air reconnaissance. The Nagato ballast tanks were filled with sea water so that the battleship was as deep as possible "donkey" in the water. All this time, the crew was refueling and preparing to go on a combat campaign with the goal of finally breaking the pattern to the enemy (the exit was canceled at the last moment - August 45).

"Nagato" met the end of the war under the gun of the "Iowa", for this reason it was absent from the ceremony in Tokyo Bay. The Yankees suspected that the old samurai had remained fully operational and was still a threat to them.


The Nagato withstood two nuclear explosions. Experts who climbed aboard were able to experimentally launch the GEM mechanisms, which worked for 36 hours without stopping. Great ship, an outstanding work of Japanese engineering


"Ise"

Another sea monster, which the Americans were so "happy" with.

He was met by an armada of 85 dive bombers and 11 torpedo bombers. Thanks to active maneuvering, Ise avoided almost all hits, except for 1 bomb, which hit the ledge of the stern catapult. On the same day, when he met with another wave of attacking aircraft, he received another bomb (the effect of which was similar to the effect of moonlight on rails).

However, a meeting with a hundred combat aircraft could not go without consequences.

The sea boiled from 34 close gaps. The results were horrific - all the paint was torn off, the seams of the skin parted from hydrodynamic shocks, causing several small leaks in the underwater part of the hull. Worse, due to the ingress of sea water into tanks with fuel oil, the efficiency of the starboard boilers decreased. And fragments of the close explosions injured more than 100 sailors (5% of those on board) ...

What is the interest of the situation?

In previous discussions, my opponents repeatedly mentioned that close gaps were almost more dangerous than direct hits on a ship. As the Ise example demonstrates, this is completely unobvious. Only the proposal for top-mast bombing (three times “ha”) was “more effective”. Against ships with a side thickness many times greater than the thickness of the armored deck.

As for the damaged Ise, he got to Kamrani, and from there moved to Singapore (incidentally jumping into a sea mine). He took on board a strategic cargo of non-ferrous metals, evacuated a thousand Japanese specialists and departed for Japan with the same type of Hyuuga LC. The screening of 25 American submarines on the way did not produce results.


Toward the close, while in Kura as a floating battery, Ise was successfully attacked three times aviation US Navy. The first two attacks (2 and 5 hits, respectively) were not enough, "revenge" for Pearl Harbor did not work. Despite the damage received, the veteran ship (1915) did not roll over, did not burn out, and the ammunition detonated on it. On the contrary, after three days, the efforts of the remaining crew members were put on an even keel. Onboard repairs were carried out, "Ise" was preparing for docking.

The third raid on Ise, committed at the very end of the war, on July 28, 1945, has no sensational connotation. If a ship allows dozens of aircraft to bomb itself with impunity, nothing will help it.

5 “golden bullets” against dozens of other attacks with the opposite result


To avoid allegations of bias, you can mention examples of allied battleships: North Caroline and Maryland torpedoes, kamikaze attacks on American battleships (7 cases), bombs hit Tennessee ... Consequences of attacks on ships built to the same security standards had the same results. No different from the battleships of the Axis countries.


Damage to Maryland

There is no reason for doubt, the "floating fortresses" were significantly superior in combat stability to ships of all other classes. Could it be otherwise? They were created with the expectation of fierce enemy fire.

The discussion about large ships cannot be driven into any framework. To cite the example of another "wunderwaffe", which put an end to the whole class of military equipment.

Have you seen examples?

Each method brought luck only a limited number of times. In other cases, for some reason he stopped working.

There is a known episode when Roma nearly drowned from nearby explosions of 907-kg bombs (the Italian "losers" really got it).

Another time, dozens of nearby explosions did not affect the combat effectiveness of Ise. Just as the consequences of the explosion on the side of the invincible Worspite did not reflect. I quote: “the damage did not prevent it from going to sea” (air strike in Alexandria, 1941)

For each successful hit, there will always be plenty of examples when a ship came out “dry” from enemy attacks, with only scratches.

The advent of the Fritz-X guided bombs in the arsenal of the Luftwaffe made large ships light targets? In the course of the discussion, it suddenly turns out that "just one penny bomb aircraft" is not enough. Effective use of the wonderful ammunition was possible only if there was perfect weather and air supremacy over the theater of operations.

Of course, ships do not fight alone. They are an element of the system. In this case, it is a significant element that is capable of destabilizing the situation in the theater of operations with its mere presence.

At the end of the story, you can ask a simple question. If 70 years ago they were able to build such tenacious units, is it possible to adopt anything from past experience in the interests of the modern Navy?

No one speaks of complete immortality. But to do one shot more than the enemy can do can be priceless.


The Clyde submarine successfully fired a torpedo at Gneisenau. The degree of damage perception depends on the angle; in the following illustration, the same place



Of course, such damage was not fatal to Gneisenau. One, two, three, even five thousand tons of water received do not solve anything on the scale of such a ship. A deadly threat to him is the roll. If you managed to straighten it, the ship will sink forever
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U 11 January 2020 05: 49 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    The deformed rotating shaft “pivoted” the board even more, and the one coming through its shaft The shaft “shaft” is called the propeller shaft corridor. Mine is still a vertical structure. And yes, it’s better to book ships than not to book. )))
  2. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 05: 56 New
    • 22
    • 0
    +22
    it would be interesting to simulate a situation: in place of the Yamato, a more advanced ship such as the Iowa or the British Wengard

    A purely hypothetical question that touches on the huge topic of design features and technical nuances of ships of that era

    So, the American battleships were equipped with a steam turbine power plant of colossal power, like the modern nuclear Nimitsy (250 thousand hp)

    The Iowa power density was 4 bhp / t versus 2,2 bhp / t at Yamato.

    Avoiding torpedo bombers, the Yamato could make a sharp lapel with a 50% loss in speed. But only once. Again, dial 25-27 knots. it became a long problem, and in those conditions it was a sentence.

    In numbers, it looks like this.

    Speed ​​gain from 15 to 27 knots. for battleship peers, Yamato took 19 minutes.

    For the Iow formation, acceleration from 15 to 27 knots took only 7 minutes!
    (According to the Tactical Orders and Doctrine brochures, Battleships and Cruisers, USN.)
    _________________________
    Further, despite the sacrificial stamina of the Yamato, the Iowa was better able to survive under fire from the air.

    1. Limited use of the electric drive in the Yamato design. wherever possible, auxiliary steam engines were used: this simplified the network layout and eliminated the risk of short circuits. But the Japanese outwitted themselves: valves and pipelines were more vulnerable than cable routes (wires did not respond to strong shocks). The use of steam did not allow duplicate drives.

    2. The boiler and engine rooms of Yamato occupied 50 meters of the length of the hull. Two echelons of the Iowa power plant stretched 100 meters! In order to “knock out” all eight compartments with boilers and GTZA, it was necessary to turn the entire stronghold between the bow and stern towers of the GK.

    3. The mass of a minute volley of air defense systems "Yamato" - 9 tons. The mass of a minute volley of Iowa air defense is 18 tons.

    4. The horizontal guidance speed of the universal Yamato installations is 16 degrees per second. The five-inch Iowa has 25 degrees per second.
    + use of anti-aircraft missiles with a radar fuse
    + ammunition of Japanese 25 mm anti-aircraft guns - from 15-charge stores. Ammunition 20 mm Erlikon - from 60-charge disks
    + Iowa, by the end of the war, regularly carried 19 four Beaufors installations (76 barrels). The 40-mm artillery system successfully supplemented the universal 127 mm anti-aircraft guns, while its shells were five times the mass of Japanese 25-mm machine guns!

    There are many nuances
    1. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 13: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Radio fuse?
      1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 13: 06 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        No, the principle of radar

        The projectile reacted to the reflection of radio waves from the aircraft body, when flying close
        1. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 13: 44 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          https://patents.google.com/patent/US3166015
          Still, it would be more correct to say "radio fuse" or "radio frequency". At that time, radar could only determine the distance to the point of detonation of the projectile.
      2. iuocsfyu 12 January 2020 03: 05 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze
        Proximity fuze - the most correct, because the emphasis is not on technology, but on the principle of action. In Russian there is no exact translation.
        1. Santa Fe 12 January 2020 05: 33 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          All modern cars have a Proximity key.
          but its principle of action has nothing to do with the anti-aircraft shell of the war

          The projectile had precisely a radar fuse - a reaction to the reflected signal from the skin, a primitive radar
          1. pmkemcity 12 January 2020 08: 52 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            In my time it was called a radio fuse
  3. tlauicol 11 January 2020 07: 06 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    torpedo / bomb that hit the destroyer VI 2000-3000t and LK / LKR VI 40000-60000t yes
    Against Tirpitz and others like him there was a weapon - a torpedo. But this brave man actually climbed into the artificial lake, fenced with dams, booms and a network - that is why Lancaster and Tallboy were needed

    in addition to the "golden bullets" you can recall the "golden shields":
    "Nevada" - a bomb pierced the nose outside the citadel and turned the fuel tank. Fire for two days, save the entire base. It didn’t take off into the air just because it was on rearmament - the ammunition of the main missile was unloaded from the battleship before the attack.
    “Roma” (the bomb didn’t even hit the target), “Littorio” - they rescued the entire base, ran aground. Whether it was deeper or the soil of the porists - the fate of "Giulio Cesare" would have awaited them
    "Lyuttsov" - a torpedo in the stern. Tugboats got out of Kiel and dragged him away. Be the base a little further away ... the fate of "Spee"
    "Jean Bar" steadfastly endured the blows of fate, until a 1000fn bomb (warhead of ancient Termite or Tomahawk) set him on the ground. Again: small, no jet fuel, no six-inch ammunition - easily got off.
    "Italy" is pierced like cardboard - the bomb went deep
    “Worthspite” after Fritz has been towing for six months, otherwise his carcass would have been thrown somewhere in Sicily
    1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 09: 15 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Quote: Tlauicol
      "Italy" is pierced like cardboard - the bomb went deep

      And what's the use?

      Due to the fact that the target had constructive protection, it was necessary to use BB ammunition containing a minuscule of explosives and a fuse with a delay
      But the citadel occupied half the hull. If the BB bomb hit outside the citadel, such a bomb flew overboard, not having time to inflict significant damage

      The mere fact of having a defense made it difficult to conduct an attack and choose a weapon
      Quote: Tlauicol
      “Worthspite” after Fritz has been towing for six months, otherwise his carcass would have been thrown somewhere in Sicily

      There are hundreds of cases of loss of course of different ships from damage. What does this prove?
      in order to deprive the Worspite move, it was necessary to try, ordinary bombs and torpedoes were not suitable for this

      Why throw a ship that has preserved all the complex and expensive mechanisms, weapons and thousands of crew?
      _____
      The unfinished and motionless Bar, in addition to aircraft, shot the battleship Massachusetts with its 1200 kg suitcases. The rest are just cases of combat damage that did not have long consequences. War does not go without damage
      1. tlauicol 11 January 2020 09: 31 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Italy? 10m to the side and there will be a second Roma. Ordinary bombs weren't good? Yeah, the same Roma yes
        Worspite was lucky three times: it did not explode, the proximity of bases and the weather. The armor did not save, and there was nothing to do with it.
        Luttsov lost his course - but to Keel at hand.
        Nevada and Jean have no ammunition - and again, armor has nothing to do with it. Stupid luck and stranded.
        The whole crowd was barely stranded by Littorio - Termite could have inflicted such damage.
        1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 09: 54 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Italy? 10m to the side and there will be a second Roma

          Well, the Germans did not have 10 m
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Worspite was lucky three times: it did not explode, the proximity of bases and the weather. The armor did not save and there is nothing to do with it..

          If it weren’t for the armor, it would have been bombed by the land mines in 1941
          And so I had to wait for Fritz and the end of 43, to at least disable for six months
          1. tlauicol 11 January 2020 10: 16 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            "There was no 10m" is not a merit of armor protection. Some cargo ship or sloop experienced Fritz without armor
            1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 10: 36 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Some cargo ship or sloop experienced Fritz without armor

              They were of such importance on the theater of operations as a large rank 1 warship

              Which can not be allowed to lose from 1 bomb
              1. tlauicol 11 January 2020 10: 50 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                The most interesting thing is that a fugaska in the nose would send any of Littorio to the bottom
  4. andrewkor 11 January 2020 07: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Golden bullet" - something familiar? And, I remembered, the eponymous action movie about Mexican showdowns of the beginning of the last century. Hit video stores of the end of the last century! The plot is quite original, not a "spaghetti western".
  5. BISMARCK94 11 January 2020 08: 28 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    An ideal article for the author of a tea tank. Battleships are a miracle of engineering and military thought, they deserve their place in history.
    1. voyaka uh 11 January 2020 12: 28 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Battleships are very beautiful, elegant warships.
      Stage in the story. This stage has been completed.
      Today they rule missiles like a sword, and missile defense like a shield.
      Only torpedoes remained traditional. But never helped from them
      no armor.
      1. Jager 11 January 2020 21: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Because armor in places where torpedoes usually fall is simply not))
        1. K-612-O 13 January 2020 11: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Modern torpedoes do not fall on board, but go under the keel, and undermining is carried out under the ship.
      2. 3danimal 13 January 2020 04: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Small and maneuverable anti-torpedoes can now protect against torpedoes.
        Today, perhaps, rockets and aircraft rule, therefore - aircraft carriers are the modern battleships. (IMHO)
        1. voyaka uh 13 January 2020 10: 03 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Anti-torpedoes have not yet had a single combat use.
          I have little idea how one can direct one torpedo to another. recourse
          There is no radar, no video.
          Aircraft carriers, yes, replaced the battleships. Here I agree with you. Instead of the number of trunks
          the main caliber is the number of aircraft on board.
          1. Saxahorse 13 January 2020 22: 08 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            I have little idea how one can direct one torpedo to another. There is no radar, no video.

            By the sound. Antitorpeda has an acoustic seeker. Well, previously they throw it closer to the enemy torpedo.
  6. Snail N9 11 January 2020 08: 38 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Very interesting article. I’m interested in the opinion of the author. Did Lunin get into Tirpitz or not, and why was his exit to the defeat of PQ-17 canceled? Personally, I believe that Lunin did not get anywhere and the Germans did not even see his attack.
    1. novel66 11 January 2020 11: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      the explosion was recorded, but it was a torpedo or a mine ....
    2. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 12: 18 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Quote: Snail N9
      hit Lunin in Tirpitz or not

      Yes got

      Here is the official chronicle:
      After Operation Horse Riding, the stay of Tirpitz near Narvik dragged on. Tirpitz has been in Norwegian waters for a long time and required preventive maintenance. For its implementation, the Huascaran floating workshop with the necessary technical personnel arrived in Trondheim. A caisson was built, to replace the battleship steering wheel without docking, especially since docks of a suitable size did not exist in Norway, and returning to Germany was fraught with risk. On October 23, Tirpitz left Bogen Bay and transferred to its former parking lot in the Fatten Fjord. Work on the Tirpice was completed by January 24, 1943. "

      Question: What malfunctions can be at the helm of a ship?

      The ship steering wheel is much simpler in design than the head of a woodpecker, which, as you know, never hurts. The steering wheel consists of a balloon and a pen. Buller is a thick-walled (wall thickness 300 mm) pipe with a diameter of 900 mm. In a schematic approximation, this is the barrel of a 305 mm gun sticking out of the stern. The steering wheel feather is a kind of fragment of an airplane wing with an inner set and an outer skin. The feather of the steering wheel is mounted on the baller, and fastens tightly.

      As can be seen from the diagram, rudders can only be destroyed by backing up, and by hitting a cliff of a fjord or some other obstacle. It is reverse gear, not front gear! For the bottom edge of the rudders is 2 meters 34 centimeters higherthan the bottom of the battleship. To destroy the rudders in the forward run, the Tirpitz must bump into an underwater rock and spread its entire bottom from bow to stern! Therefore, the only realistic option is to reverse the ship, with the Norwegian fjords jumping out onto the cliffs.

      For such a maneuver, the commander of the ship should be at least drunk as a non-manager, which in itself is impossible, because only true Aryans could command fascist battleships.
      (Tonina Olga)


      Further, the steering wheel for some reason was changed THREE MONTHS !!!
      Autumn 1942 ... Most likely, these were the consequences of the K-21 torpedo

      Otherwise, in order to point out other reasons for replacing the steering wheel, historians should dig up documents about the Tirpitz naval accident for a long time because of the commander’s chronic alcoholism
      1. Nehist 11 January 2020 13: 32 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Dear Oleg! Well, do not carry nonsense !!! Lunin did not hit Tirpitz! In specialized topics, this was understood more than once
        1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 13: 45 New
          • 7
          • 3
          +4
          What evidence that did not hit

          There is evidence of a steering wheel replacement. And there is a photo where Tirpitz stands with damaged feed

          We have not had time to repaint the towers after going out to sea (two out of four differ in color, orange is indicated on the coloring schemes)
          1. Nehist 11 January 2020 14: 28 New
            • 6
            • 4
            +2
            Lunin made an attack at diverging courses from a distance of 18-20 kb; the course of the torpedo's course was set at 4000m, which is a maximum of 22 kb. Further, the depth of the torpedoes is set at 2 meters !!! How Karl could they damage the feather of the helm which was at a depth of 6 meters did not think? Further, if the steering wheel of Tirpitz were to be expected, the fate of Bismarck would have expected or even worse since the weight of the explosives in our torpedo is much more than in the British aviation. Regarding the repair of the steering wheel, I remind you that German ships almost always went to sea with a skerry fairway and repeatedly damaged their bottoms and rudders; Tirpitz, as a larger ship, suffered minor damage more easily, just a combination of more than one touch of stones easily led to repair. Yes, and you yourself, about 7 years ago, tried to understand this issue and came to the conclusion that the attack of Lunin was unsuccessful. Yes, and a photo of h about you posted it July 1944
            1. Santa Fe 12 January 2020 05: 44 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Quote: Nehist
              Further, the depth of the torpedoes is set at 2 meters !!! How Karl could they damage the feather of the helm which was at a depth of 6 meters did not think?

              Sucked in by turbulent propeller flows
              Explosion damaged whole stern

              The story about replacing the steering wheel - an attempt to hide much more serious damage
              Quote: Nehist
              and not once damaged your bottom and steering wheels

              steering wheels? AS???

              Examples please
              Quote: Nehist
              Yes, and a photo of h about you posted it July 1944

              British experts after the war most likely appropriated this picture.
              1. Nehist 12 January 2020 09: 55 New
                • 4
                • 4
                0
                N-yes ... After your torpedoes, did Tirpits go for another 4 hours at a speed of 24 knots toward the convoy, not forgetting to carry out anti-submarine maneuvers and then safely returned to base? You lose your grip Oleg, if you write such nonsense. Lyuttsov with three destroyers do not remember why he could not participate in the operation? Just because they bumped into stones and damaged bottoms and rudders. By the way, it is not possible to hide serious damage to large ships; there will be too many documents in different departments. And now there is not a single document regarding Tirpitz on such a complex repair
                1. Santa Fe 12 January 2020 10: 41 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: Nehist
                  irpits for another 4 hours at a speed of 24 knots went towards the convoy, not forgetting to perform

                  Emnip, the Germans returned to the base at 12 bonds.

                  Interesting fact, fuel consumption Tirpitz
                  at 300+ rpm - 128 g / hp / h
                  at 150 rpm - 500 g / hp h
          2. tlauicol 11 January 2020 14: 34 New
            • 3
            • 6
            -3
            Oleg hit the conspiracy theory?
          3. tlauicol 11 January 2020 16: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            he is not only standing with injuries, he is also covered with spots laughing
            because it's 44years yes and coloring is fully acc.
            1. Engineer 11 January 2020 16: 59 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The spots are clearly cadaverous laughing
              Died of fear, lime kicked a lifeless body crying
              1. tlauicol 11 January 2020 17: 01 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I just haven’t seen water for a long time lol
            2. Santa Fe 12 January 2020 05: 34 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              and coloring is fully acc.

              No not appropriate, look carefully!
              1. tlauicol 12 January 2020 06: 10 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Doesn't match 42 yes
                Towers, spots, fuel leaks is 44 years.
                You know, Oleg, a long downtime didn’t do you any good
    3. voyaka uh 11 January 2020 13: 44 New
      • 8
      • 4
      +4
      No torpedo or explosion was recorded in the ship’s logbook.
      Lunin launched torpedoes at Tirpicz from an extraordinary distance.
      Hoping for good luck. But the torpedoes went so far from Tirpitz that
      observers did not notice them.
      1. Ponchik78 12 January 2020 11: 02 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Well, this is such an argument) The destruction of 22 tanks by Kolobanov is also not reflected in the documents 6TD.
        1. voyaka uh 12 January 2020 11: 10 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          The battleship logbook is a strong argument. In it, a special officer records all the events of the day: both combat and non-combat.
          1. Ponchik78 12 January 2020 11: 15 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            The tank division’s ZhBD is no less powerful. A special officer also wrote down everything in him. But the destruction of 22 tanks for some reason I forgot to write.
            1. voyaka uh 12 January 2020 11: 29 New
              • 6
              • 5
              +1
              On the battleship, everything is concentrated in the conning tower, and the whole ship is a single whole.
              In infantry divisions, individual units and tanks are scattered over a large territory. And the headquarters simply does not know the details of the battles. Especially in the mess of the 1941 retreats.
              Therefore, your example is not suitable for comparison.
              1. Ponchik78 12 January 2020 11: 39 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                6TD is a Wehrmacht tank division. What is the retreat in 1941?
                Does the division lose about 10% of its tanks in only one battle and is this not reflected in the railways? How's that?
                1. voyaka uh 12 January 2020 12: 29 New
                  • 8
                  • 4
                  +4
                  The duty officer of the battleship:
                  1) did not report a torpedo entering the battleship body,
                  2) the officer himself didn’t feel the explosion under the ship,
                  4) the hole was not noticed,
                  4) the crew ignored the torpedoing of their ship.
                  With such initial data, one can make statements that ALL surface ships of the Wehrmacht were torpedoed by Soviet submarines. smile
                  Nobody just noticed this ...
                  1. Ponchik78 12 January 2020 14: 43 New
                    • 3
                    • 3
                    0
                    Everything is much simpler. Banal concealment of damage to the last full-fledged battleship kriegsmarine. Why should the adversary know that the ship is not entirely combat-ready?
                    1. voyaka uh 12 January 2020 14: 45 New
                      • 4
                      • 4
                      0
                      We exchanged opinions and remained in our positions. It happens... drinks
                    2. Tavrik 12 January 2020 21: 21 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      Hundreds of shipyard workers would take part in the repair work. The Norwegian “resistance” would certainly have reported such good news to the British.
                      Even if the Gestapo during the war “shut up” their mouths, then after the war why didn’t any of the workers or sailors tell what happened?
                    3. Sasha_rulevoy 14 January 2020 00: 13 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      According to Pikul, a page was torn out of the logbook, and then they found Lunin’s father on some collective farm and hanged him, and Hitler declared Lunin himself his number one enemy. Insanity on senility. From whom to tear out pages? Afraid that the guerrillas would keep the logbook stolen? And if everyone kept it secret that they were afraid to report to Hitler, why then hang Father Lunin? After all, the entire conspiracy immediately breaks. And why didn’t the Germans conceal the damage done by the British? Neither about underwater saboteurs, nor about aerial bombs from the magazine, the sheets were not pulled out, they all accurately documented where it got and how it was repaired.
          2. bk0010 12 January 2020 14: 12 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            In it, a special officer writes down all the events of the day: both combat and non-combat.
            "The captain was sober today"
          3. Saxahorse 12 January 2020 19: 30 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            The battleship logbook is a strong argument. In it, a special officer records all the events of the day: both combat and non-combat.

            Or does not record. And then retroactively fills "as it should." Moreover, both Russians and Americans were clearly seen in this. There is certainly some hope for the German "Ordung". However, the tough organizational conclusions for sloppiness adopted during the Gestapo clearly reminded of caution in documenting their own blunders ..
      2. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 12: 25 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        No torpedo or explosion was recorded in the ship’s logbook.

        Do not forget that the “Tirpitz” in that campaign did not go in splendid isolation. And getting into the LC, as well as the measures that should have been taken on the squadron after such a hit, were not recorded in any document of the ships of the squadron.
  7. Razvedka_Boem 11 January 2020 09: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    When the battleships of the Iowa type were modernized and put back into operation, the Americans considered that ten torpedoes of MK48 were required to sink a battleship of the Iowa type.
    And to demonstrate the flag, these battleships were better than other ships .. Visible power.
    1. tlauicol 11 January 2020 09: 34 New
      • 3
      • 7
      -4
      One "golden" torpedo under the bow of Iowa is enough
      1. tlauicol 11 January 2020 17: 38 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        before minusing, you should know that in the area of ​​the nasal cellar of the PTZ Iow Group of Companies Iow was weak - the “golden” Long Lance or MK48 - it doesn’t matter - the battleship would fly up into the air
  8. Snail N9 11 January 2020 09: 14 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    At the end of the story, you can ask a simple question. If 70 years ago they were able to build such tenacious units, is it possible to adopt anything from past experience in the interests of the modern Navy?

    No one speaks of complete immortality. But to do one shot more than the enemy can do can be priceless.

    It will not work out for a simple reason — the combat stability of a ship is now most of all determined by its armament and detection means. With one missed hit, for example, in the multi-functional container part of its armament in the bow, the ship will completely lose its main armament and will be just a floating “suitcase without a handle”. The same thing with electronic type detection and guidance means - if they are not duplicated, then one hit will make the ship blind and deaf. The only way to increase the stability of the ship, as during the Second World War, is to increase its size and duplication and separation of its detection equipment and weapons. For example, two superstructures with separate redundant electronic means of detection, guidance, control and two universal container installations with armaments in the bow and stern are required. But here we are limited by size and, accordingly, by value. Based on this, the Russian "small-tonnage" under-frigates, Mikto-corvettes and other mosquitoes probably have "zero" combat stability, until the first serious "sneeze" of the enemy.
    1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 09: 25 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Snail N9
      for example, in the multifunctional container part of its armament in the nose

      Ammunition - should be the most protected element of the ship
      Quote: Snail N9
      and will be just a floating "suitcase without a handle"

      In the presence of operational sonar, helicopters, surviving radar, and other weapons on board (from autonomous shells to winged gauges)

      Let's write off the ship and 200-300 sailors, as soon as he scratches the match with his first fragment. Absurd?
      Quote: Snail N9
      to increase the stability of the ship, as in the time of the Second World War, it remains to increase its size and duplication and the separation of its detection means and weapons

      This is one way.
      Quote: Snail N9
      For example, be sure to have two add-ons

      Why are they needed at all
      Quote: Snail N9
      The same thing with electronic type detection and guidance means - if they are not duplicated, then one hit will make the ship blind and deaf.

      As you know, radars are not needed to launch Caliber
      Communication is protected, now each officer can have a satellite phone in his pocket
      Zwolt's Good Idea - Retractable Antenna Devices
      1. Snail N9 11 January 2020 09: 37 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Um, well, the add-on turns out to be unnecessary .... then I look at the British and other adversaries only develop it, and to the heights, of course, by passing stupidity. The fact that the "calibers" - "all of us" in a certain part of the population - did not doubt it at all. But the "zemvolt" turns out to be an example to follow ..... well, yes, he argues, at the price of an aircraft carrier .....
        1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 09: 39 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Snail N9
          Um, well, the add-on turns out to be not needed .... then I look at the British and other adversaries only develop it, moreover, in height

          Will their ships withstand at least one Harpoon hit and retain at least partial combat readiness?

          Therefore, it is more profitable for them to build a ship with a huge empty superstructure, from side to side
          It’s easier to place equipment if there are no other restrictions.
          Quote: Snail N9
          But the "zemvolt" turns out to be an example to follow ....

          The idea with retractable antennas is - do you find it interesting?
          1. Snail N9 11 January 2020 09: 41 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Better yet, hide everything under water - build a submarine and you will be happy.
            1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 09: 42 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Snail N9
              Better yet, hide everything under water - build a submarine and you will be happy.

              Submarine cannot provide air defense squadron

              A surface ship is needed for many tasks.
              1. Snail N9 11 January 2020 09: 48 New
                • 2
                • 5
                -3
                Make a submarine for an air defense squadron. wassat They won’t look what hefty, how many mines can be crammed, and the means of detection of submarines can be dragged on a leap-track on micro-electronics leashes and all that, after all, we live in the XNUMXst century — there is unlimited scope for imagination. wink
                1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 09: 50 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Nonsense that I do not want to comment
                  1. Snail N9 11 January 2020 09: 58 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    Why is "nonsense"? Well, you don’t like the “classic” in the form of a “two-tuning” (albeit with one, but continuous tuning with two equivalent detection and control posts) ship with container installations spaced into the bow and stern? I don’t like the simple and proved its effectiveness, but I like the “exotic” type of the “zemvolta”, and if you like it, then build the “zemvolts”, who’s stopping you. Do you want to better protect the earthquake? Well, hide it in the cart or "transfer it to the third dimension." And there’s no money for them for “zemvolts”? What a byad. Well, build, then "Karakurt" and "Grachenka" on them and it would be a pity to spend the missile on the adversary ....
                    1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 10: 06 New
                      • 7
                      • 0
                      +7
                      Quote: Snail N9
                      I don’t like the simple and proved its effectiveness, but like the “exotic” like the “zemvolt”,

                      How do you know that I like the "type of earth"

                      I wrote only about the idea with retractable antennas
                      Quote: Snail N9
                      Is there no money for them? What a byad

                      I think the first naval battle of the 21st century, for example, the Chinese Navy against the Japanese Navy, with a couple of sunk units. and hundreds of victims in 5 minutes, quickly show that the design needs to be changed

                      Just as the death of Sheffield showed the whole world that there should not be aluminum alloys in the superstructure
                      1. Snail N9 11 January 2020 10: 17 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        And I wrote that in modern conditions, given the capabilities of modern shipbuilding and to keep the value of the ship within a reasonable framework, only spacing at the ends of armaments and detection-control means can give the ship maximum stability in combat conditions. Having experimented with the Zemvolts and other “invisible” “turtles”, the Americans are not building “zemvolts” anymore, and the “turtles” were shoved off by the Saudis, and one of them has already caught a rocket from the Hussites. At the moment, something like "Arly Burke" has maximum stability while still acceptable spending on its construction. Or do you want the “Arly Burke” in the corps and protection from the “Iowa”? Is the criterion of "cost-effectiveness" not understood? Do you still think that the fleets will converge in martial arts? For example, even in the USSR, the fleet’s task was only one thing — to ensure the deployment of its submarines and that’s all! For it was believed that the fleet would no longer be needed, a nuclear war to destroy. Therefore, you need to understand why the fleet is being built, what you are going to do for this task, and not for squadron battles, and build ships again based on your financial capabilities. Or are you just interested in the "absolute", "mythical", "perfectly stable" "no matter how much it costs" "it is not clear for what purpose" the ship?
                      2. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 10: 29 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        There is no criterion. There is another calculation

                        The Yankees built nearly 80 destroyers, and have 10-fold numerical superiority over any enemy
                        It is unprofitable for them to start building a highly protected ship, everyone will rush to repeat. And it instantly makes ALL 80 Berks second-rate and obsolete

                        There is a historical fact. England, the 19th century.
                        The first Lord of the Admiralty at the presentation of the submarine, watching how one of the admirals rejoices at the successful test, said this:

                        Mr. Jervis is happy with the remedy which has little to do with the world's first largest navy, and if successful, threatens to undermine our superiority at sea

                        There was no criterion of effectiveness and support for new technologies. There was another calculation. Do everything so that it does not appear
                        _____
                        The promising high-security ship in question is needed primarily by Russia, not the United States
                      3. Snail N9 11 January 2020 10: 42 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        We read by syllables: "Efficiency-value". I understand your "hobbyhorse" - hide everything in an armored body such as a "turtle" and put forward as you use it. But all that the retractable is firstly not in constant readiness — it still needs to be put forward, secondly — it is less reliable because of the extension, stabilization and locking devices in the working position and inside the housing, and the housing must be sealed after something there it "advanced" and all this increases the cost of construction and is just as successfully drowned as everything else. The Americans, citing experiments with similar ships, admitted that the "game is not worth the candle", too expensive and unreliable.
                        PS: By the way, PL "Santa fe" sank the British, and missiles from helicopters from .... an ice reconnaissance vessel ....
                        http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2018-05-11/13_995_santafe.html
                      4. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 10: 54 New
                        • 7
                        • 0
                        +7
                        Quote: Snail N9
                        Americans citing experiments with similar ships

                        Americans 70 years did not conduct experiments with highly protected ships
                        Quote: Snail N9
                        I understand your "little horse" - hide everything in an armored body like "turtle"

                        No, remove the BIC, cockpits, power plant mechanisms, power station and launch cells in the citadel. The extremities are not protected, there is nothing critical

                        Citadel - 100 mm side and deck + shatterproof bulkhead along the opposite wall of the first compartments from the side

                        No add-ons. Why is she?
                        The location of the radar post is in the form of a tower-like mast, the antenna canvases are covered with radiotransparent covers to protect against fragments (if there is a direct hit - well, the ship will lose its zonal air defense, retaining all other functions. Radars are not needed to launch Onyx and Caliber). If necessary, make the communication antennas extendable

                        Why bridge in the 21st century, where 100 surveillance cameras in all ranges from all sides? BIC and KP - deep inside the citadel.

                        What is incredible and impossible in this concept?

                        A warship is not to live forever. His goal is to survive in battle as long as possible, having managed to inflict max. damage to the enemy

                        This will instantly render 90% of western anti-ship weapons useless
                      5. Snail N9 11 January 2020 11: 00 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Then what to invent? There are Jewish corvettes in the same way. Actually, the wheelhouse on the new western ships is almost everywhere not a BIC-em — it is precisely “a chassis for peaceful conditions”. The BIC is hidden inside. And it’s too difficult to hide the antennas, much less put them out — they are spaced over a large area in the form of panels.
                      6. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 11: 02 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Snail N9
                        she is the "undercarriage for peaceful conditions"

                        What prevents to equip such a module "for peaceful conditions" on the upper deck

                        Only military a ship for a couple of billion $$ a priori is not created for peaceful conditions. And you need to think about it.
                        Quote: Snail N9
                        And it’s too difficult to hide the antennas, much less put them out — they are spaced over a large area in the form of panels.

                        I didn’t offer to put forward a radar
                        The location of the radar post is in the form of a tower-like mast, the antenna canvases are covered with radiotransparent covers to protect against fragments (if there is a direct hit - well, the ship will lose its zonal air defense, retaining all other functions. Radars are not needed to launch Onyx and Caliber). If necessary, make the communication antennas extendable
                      7. Snail N9 11 January 2020 11: 04 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Only a warship for a couple of billion $$

                        All clear. Good luck. hi
                    2. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 14: 32 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      You have now invented a design that is about 60 years old!
                    3. Santa Fe 13 January 2020 02: 00 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: pmkemcity
                      You have now invented a design that is about 60 years old!

                      Example please
                    4. pmkemcity 13 January 2020 05: 36 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, my "native" 956, for example. 58 draft. With the "Varangian" stood side by side in the Dalzavod. Our stupid people climbed into the commander’s cabin and stole a video cassette with the last shooting of the ship. The "Varyag" commander personally asked to be thrown ... Very upset. In my opinion, they did not return it.
                      For a translator, “Moron” is a medical diagnosis, not an insult.
                    5. Santa Fe 13 January 2020 05: 59 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, my "native" 956, for example. 58 project

                      What are they similar to the described design of a protected ship
                    6. pmkemcity 13 January 2020 06: 31 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      "Bridge" is a "wheelhouse" and no more, and the GKP is located in the below-deck rooms.
    2. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 13: 18 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      In vain are you so much about the fleet. As I remember, I read a certain Atlas of the coast of North America, which quite seriously described sections of the coast with comments such as "convenient for landing to the hull inclusive." An equally important task was to accompany and destroy the NATO and Allied strike forces. For example, the same 1155 (according to rumors) had a channel for firing at SLBMs.
    3. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 14: 28 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      In vain you are so about the tasks of the fleet of the USSR! In a past life, I came across an Atlas of the coast of North America, where in all seriousness one could come across something like this description: "this section of the coast is convenient for landing to the corps inclusive."
    4. Valdaev 15 January 2020 21: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Ely-Paly. To promise is not to marry. In the bureaucratic world, setting impossible tasks is the norm
    5. pmkemcity 16 January 2020 06: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You forget, my friend! For the Soviet man there were no impossible tasks! If the party orders, the Komsomol will answer - yes!
    6. 3danimal 20 January 2020 01: 39 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The party ordered to increase the production of meat, and some areas exceeded the plan. Cutting all the cattle in his own district and around, but saying that the blame for the superiority of the social system.
    7. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 05: 36 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1

      And meat and fish and caviar were heaps. An example from my hometown Kamen on the Ob was an example - they built a huge meat factory in the early 70s, and all its products went by trains to the GDR. Look what this hour is - with the complete collapse of agriculture, shops are bursting with "sausage". And if you found the dark times of the early 90s, you could see how, out of nowhere, with a wave of a magic wand, products appeared on the shelves in one day that had not been since 88. Is this what, in your opinion, capitalism produced all in one night? Under socialism, the word "production" did not mean the word "consumption", as now the word "consumption" does not mean the word "production".
    8. atalef 20 January 2020 06: 06 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: pmkemcity
      by a wave of a magic wand, one day on the shelves there were products that had not been around since 88.

      Of course, in order to create the appearance of abundance on a single day, in a separate Uryupinsk in honor of the annual conference of the leading workers of grazing geese - this abundance was created for exactly 1 day by the combined forces of the regional regiment.
      Only this abundance does not reach the hundredth part of today's ordinary magnet and does not end in one second - as it was.
      Quote: pmkemcity
      Under socialism, the word "production" did not mean the word "consumption", as now the word "consumption" does not mean the word "production".

      But can I translate from the provincial into Russian? What did you mean .?
    9. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 06: 44 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      But can I translate from the provincial into Russian? What did you mean .?

      Written in Old Slavonic? Not a single "Aesopian language", literally - they worked a lot, ate little, or rather, didn’t eat those who worked hi
      Of course, in order to create the appearance of abundance on a single day, in a separate Uryupinsk in honor of the annual conference of the leading workers of grazing geese - this abundance was created for exactly 1 day by the combined forces of the regional regiment.
      Only this abundance does not reach the hundredth part of today's ordinary magnet and does not end in one second - as it was.

      At the beginning of the 80s, you went to a store, not in Uryupinsk, but in Kemerovo, Vladivostok? Well, yes, there was no crap, there was Pepsi (on holidays), and citro and pinocchio were 7 kopecks. On alcohol and on cigarettes - such abundance, you now can only see in the tape. Milk, ice cream, but the same sausage - where is all this? Current products are not products at all. For fun, watch old TV programs - people with other faces are sitting in the hall, lush and rosy-cheeked drinks
    10. atalef 20 January 2020 06: 56 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: pmkemcity
      At the beginning of the 80s, you went to a store, not in Uryupinsk, but in Kemerovo, Vladivostok?

      Petersburg
      Quote: pmkemcity
      On alcohol and on cigarettes - such abundance, you now can only see in the tape.

      Come on you with cigarettes may even like that, on alcohol - not standing next.
      Although the small question - with cigarettes and alcohol was okay - it was distinguished by a philanthropic socialist regime.
      Vodka and cigarettes in abundance - meat and oil on coupons.


      Quote: pmkemcity
      Current products are not products at all.

      It depends on what you buy, quite high quality products.
      The price tag is different, but there is a choice.
      Just don’t say that Soviet margarine and liverwurst were better than today.
      Quote: pmkemcity
      For fun, watch old TV programs - people with other faces are sitting in the hall, lush and rosy-cheeked

      I need to have fun.
      On TV, they’ll draw you something else.
      The average life expectancy in the USSR was ten years lower than now.
      Women in 55 looked frankly grandmothers, and men were old men.
      Compare with today and ...
    11. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 07: 07 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      - meat and butter on coupons.

      Come on! Obviously, do you mean the NEP times of the late 80s? There was always a choice on the market, not at 2,20, but at 5,50 (meat), I note, at a fixed price.
      The average life expectancy in the USSR was ten years lower than now.
      Women in 55 looked frankly grandmothers, and men were old men.

      Not much does not cancel what I said - a lot of work, including women. The Soviet system was diaphoretic and absolutely ruthless to both men and women. Those who now work in production also look "not very" and die of cancer at age 60. Only no one cares, unlike the Soviet era (retirement dates, pension itself, medical care, prevention, labor protection).
    12. atalef 20 January 2020 07: 58 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: pmkemcity
      Come on! Obviously, do you mean the NEP times of the late 80s?

      no, seventies - Kalinin region
      Quote: pmkemcity
      There was always a choice on the market, not at 2,20, but at 5,50 (meat), I note, at a fixed price.

      The market? And what does that market differ from today with prices that are 2-3 times higher than in the state network?
      Socialism - and the people have nothing to eat if he did not grow up.
      Quote: pmkemcity
      The Soviet system was diaphoretic and completely ruthless to both men and women.

      So what's good about her?
      Quote: pmkemcity
      Those who now work in production also look "not very" and die of cancer at age 60.

      Empty words, maybe without statistics - it's just request
      Life expectancy has increased, living standards have grown - this is a fact. Therefore, sorry, socialism is in the furnace.
      Quote: pmkemcity
      . Only no one cares, unlike Soviet times

      I would prefer to live to 70, let no one care about this than to be buried with honors at 55.
      Quote: pmkemcity
      (terms of retirement, pension itself, medical care, prevention, labor protection).

      Want to talk about it?
      Are you sure everything was beautiful there?
    13. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 08: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In no case do I defend socialism (Soviet type). Climb to the beginning of the dialogue. I talked about the goals set and the possibilities for their implementation.
      Want to talk about it?
      Are you sure everything was beautiful there?

      After leaving the fleet, since the 95th year, I am the chief engineer in production. This whole kitchen is on my shoulders. So, as Comrade said Kisa - bargaining is inappropriate here!
      In the 70s there were cards somewhere? Maybe you mean factory coupons? I studied at a sports school, so they sold us coupons to a restaurant (!), A ruble a day, a day for 60 kopecks. it was possible to saturate a growing organism. Not eaten, parents walked at the end of the month and took away bags ...
    14. 3danimal 20 January 2020 11: 11 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      There was a perverted planned economy. When the Ministry of pencil cases, how much to produce sofas, toilet paper and how much to take this stuff, and at what price. All sorts of little things, such as pads and diapers, were considered unnecessary for production, and private owners, which could fill in the missing positions, shone considerable terms for production.
    15. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 11: 41 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      You simplify things a lot. And pads, and diapers, and toilet paper were needed, no one denied this. And all this was produced, maybe not in that quantity, but it was produced, only it was not consumed by the producers themselves. And private traders both then (workshops) and now were not able to fill the market, because they are uncompetitive in the world market. Just don’t think that our people are crooked, just the whole system, which is pre-revolutionary (in the sense of the Soviet), that the current one does not contribute to the development of the economy.
    16. 3danimal 20 January 2020 12: 40 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      No one made pads, like diapers. Most of the existence of the USSR for the opening of private production was shining.
    17. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 12: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      No one made pads, like diapers.

      Firstly, the word "diaper" is native Russian.
      Secondly - the production of disposable diapers (diapers) in the states began only in the 78th year. For example, I would be able to go to them only after Zhvanetsky’s concert, and before that, in 1969, only into a diaper or into sliders.
      Thirdly, having raised two children, I can say that diapers do not contain anything good except manure. All this disgrace was invented for lazy mothers who are too lazy to wash a diaper or romper. Certainly, the child did not increase joy from this achievement of democracy.
  9. 3danimal 20 January 2020 12: 41 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Again, now the state is crawling too much into the economy
  10. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 12: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Again, now the state is crawling too much into the economy

    Again you make it easy! “Look at the root!” As K. Prutkov said. Whoever can say “the state is me!”, He “climbs into the economy”.
  11. 3danimal 20 January 2020 10: 10 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    In the 90s, they began to purchase a huge number of missing products and goods. Some of the products (for example, in St. Petersburg) went under the program “oil in exchange for food, while it was successfully plundered by the department under the leadership of the current president in the apparatus of Sobchak.
  12. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 10: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    To steal and eat by himself, even the current president is too much for. No need to demonize him. But stealing and putting into circulation at an exorbitant price is our everything.
  13. 3danimal 20 January 2020 11: 05 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    So no one ate: sold and transferred to the cache. Gangster Petersburg ...
  14. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 11: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Here the keyword is "implemented." So all the same, someone ate. If you don’t throw it in the trash, then this “someone” ate everything, but a little more expensive.
  15. 3danimal 20 January 2020 12: 39 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Why throw it in the trash? Just the proceeds of the black sale went into personal pockets.
  16. pmkemcity 20 January 2020 12: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I was not talking about pockets, but about stomachs ...
  17. 3danimal 20 January 2020 21: 00 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Products purchased in the "west".
    A considerable part of them was sold at exorbitant prices for corruption purposes. And yet, yes, someone bought and eat at exorbitant prices. Therefore, the shadow cabinet is good guys)
  18. pmkemcity 21 January 2020 05: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And yet, yes, someone bought and eat at exorbitant prices.

    See - not everything is so bad! They don’t buy products with hunger. Those to whom it was really bad, and there are many of them now, switched to pasture - they plant potatoes and crack it for days on end.
  19. 3danimal 21 January 2020 09: 58 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    It’s not clear what you mean.
  20. pmkemcity 21 January 2020 09: 59 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    It’s not clear what you mean.

    Not any allegories. All right in the text.
  • Dooplet11 11 January 2020 09: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Communication is protected, now each officer can have a satellite phone in his pocket
    -
    Communication is our everything! It’s just that there can be a mistake with a satellite phone: the satellite constellation can be thinned out, no one canceled the jamming, and the example of the destruction of Dudaev does not evoke any associations for you ?. So a satellite phone in an officer’s pocket is not a panacea.
    1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 09: 48 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Dooplet11
      That's just with a satellite phone, there may be a mistake: and the satellite constellation can be thinned out

      How does this relate to survivability
      I just gave an example that it’s easiest to protect communications - retractable antennas, 21st century compact communications devices
      Quote: Dooplet11
      an example of the destruction of Dudaev does not inspire you any associations?

      What will a PRR rocket like a Shrike, where even Harpoon lacks strength))))
      1. Dooplet11 11 January 2020 10: 58 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        How does this relate to survivability
        I just gave an example that it’s easiest to protect communications - retractable antennas, 21st century compact communications devices
        - So it is. You just gave an example that communication in the 21st century is easy to protect, I tried to show that the example is unsuccessful. Concerning retractable antennas - everything is fine (except for the operation of the antennas) when they are hidden. But as soon as they advance for work, they become ordinary antennas, with all their advantages and disadvantages.
        What will a PRR rocket like a Shrike, where even Harpoon lacks strength))))
        - Well, you yourself answered. laughingAlthough the cellar with armaments remained intact, the monster, deprived of the means of guidance and communication, is also deprived of the opportunity to use the surviving armament. It remains to run to the base for repair.
        1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 11: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Alexander, you just didn’t quite get the idea

          Before discussing retractable backup antennas and satellite phones, you need to pay attention to why only they remained on the ship

          The ship described above is well protected from conventional Western-style anti-ship missiles. Of all the important equipment, only radars and conventional antenna devices can quickly fail - they cannot be hidden. and the splinter shield does not protect against direct contact

          Air defense crashes (except for autonomous Cortik-Broadswords), but strike weapons, anti-aircraft defense, and other means that do not use radar remain in force. To obtain information, orders, and coordinates of targets, in this case there can be either backup retractable antennas or mobile means of the 21st century. Communication will be valid until the last, because it is easiest to protect it
          Quote: Dooplet11
          It remains to run to the base for repair.

          In your opinion, it’s better to burn and sink right away on the spot, with unexpended ammunition and the entire crew, a mass grave

          By the way, do you know that the ammunition of the Burke destroyer costs like 1/3 of the destroyer? Stoking such valuables is a crime
          1. Dooplet11 11 January 2020 11: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Before discussing retractable backup antennas and satellite phones, you need to pay attention to why only they remained on the ship

            1. Well, you should turn this passage to yourself, and not to me. wink
            2. Why did you suddenly add “backups” if at first you were not talking about “backups”?
            3. I noticed, and on no ship I saw "only retractable backup antennas and satellite phones." Can you tell me where only they stayed?
            1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 11: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              backup - because it is logical
              although you can remove the main ones, they are hardly used all at the same time, due to mutual interference

              Here is a concept proposed above:
              “remove the CIC, cockpits, power plant mechanisms, power station and launch cells in the citadel. The extremities are not protected, there is nothing critical
              Citadel - 100 mm side and deck + shatterproof bulkhead along the opposite wall of the first compartments from the side
              No add-ons. Why is she?
              The location of the radar post is in the form of a tower-like mast, the antenna canvases are covered with radiotransparent covers to protect against fragments (if there is a direct hit - well, the ship will lose its zonal air defense, retaining all other functions. Radars are not needed to launch Onyx and Caliber). If necessary, make the communication antennas extendable
              Why bridge in the 21st century, where 100 surveillance cameras in all ranges from all sides? BIC and KP - deep inside the citadel.
              What is incredible and impossible in this concept? "
              1. Dooplet11 11 January 2020 11: 45 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                backup - because it is logical
                - some kind of drifting logic. From soft to warm.
                Here is a concept proposed above:
                - super concept. good But just a concept.
    2. max702 13 January 2020 09: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Dooplet11
      It’s just that there can be a mistake with a satellite phone: and the satellite constellation can be thinned out,

      If this happened, the earth has 30-40 minutes to live .. For these actions will occur with the full use of the strategic nuclear forces .. In all other cases, nobody will shoot down satellites and the attempt to mass destroy satellites will provoke the use of strategic nuclear forces .. In this case, the presence of any fleet doesn't matter.
      1. Dooplet11 13 January 2020 10: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        If this happened, the land has 30-40 minutes to live.
        I agree. And these 30-40 minutes satellite phones will be offside. And before that, - active interference and guidance on a satellite phone operating on the high seas. Or their accumulation (in the pockets of officers). The idea is that a satellite phone in the officer’s pocket is not an absolute “communication protection”, as dear Oleg believes.
      2. 3danimal 20 January 2020 01: 42 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        The use of strategic nuclear forces will not cope with the Earth, I am sure. And even with its exhaustion, hostilities will not end.
  • Engineer 11 January 2020 10: 56 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Something indigestible.
    Where is the intelligible analysis? Why do bombs and torpedoes constantly mix even though they have a fundamentally different effect? Where is the problem statement, boundary conditions? What do we think do not? We consider only hits or even sorties? If for bombs, then you need to summarize all the hits and highlight the most successful by specifying the criterion of especially successful. That's all. The same for torpedoes, but separately. Where is it?
    The issue of combat stability has been completely ignored. Well, the ship did not drown, but was forced to return to base, lost combat effectiveness, the operation was disrupted. Where is it?
    The whole article is a fit of the facts to a predefined thesis. Moreover, the scam and distortion is some small, childish, but systemic.
    Effective use of the wonderful ammunition was possible only in the presence of perfect weather andospodstva in the air over the theater of operations.

    In four years of raids The British managed to get 17 air bombs into the strongest ship in the Atlantic.

    And so on throughout the article.
    Oleg can put a clear plus. His articles on VO are original (let's forget about Teslenko for now laughing )
    But the rest ...
    1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 11: 21 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      If for bombs, then you need to summarize all the hits and highlight the most successful by specifying the criterion of especially successful. That's all. The same for torpedoes, but separately. Where is it?

      Good idea, write your article

      I will read it with pleasure
      1. Engineer 11 January 2020 14: 23 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        That's the turn
        Man wrote
        Analyze the situation will help statistics.

        I didn’t give statistics and didn’t do analysis
        To a reasonable remark, do it yourself laughing
  • Catfish 11 January 2020 11: 09 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Oleg hi thank you very much, read with great interest.
    1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 11: 25 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Big Please you Sea Cat hi
  • bubalik 11 January 2020 11: 33 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Golden Bullet for the battleship

    ,,, causes death of battleships:
    Died from aircraft: 19 pcs. (59%)
    From the fire of other battleships: 7 pcs. (21,8%)
    Sunk by submarines: 3 pcs (9%)
    Killed for other reasons: 2 pcs (6%)

    ,,, as the “last argument”, the battleships did not justify themselves completely - the lion's share of them was destroyed with the help of weapons hundreds of times inferior to them in terms of firepower, displacement and cost.

    ,,, a fairly large percentage of the ships were destroyed or died, by and large, without participating in the battle ("Arizona", "Oklahoma", "Brittany", "Roma", "Lutz", "Sheer", "Tirpitz", " Gneisenau ”,“ Haruna ”,“ Hyuuga ”,“ Ise ”,“ Admiral Count Spee ”,“ Mutsu ”,), as well as a number of others (“ Yamato ”,“ Prince of Wales ”) were destroyed without fulfilling even a tenth of the amount assigned for them tasks.
    1. Catfish 11 January 2020 11: 38 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      It turns out that states undermined their financial power by building worthless ships instead of building, say, submarines or more aircraft?
      1. bubalik 11 January 2020 11: 43 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        ,,, so after the war the concept has changed. Where are the after-war battleships?
        ,,, ships of new classes began to come to the fore. These were nuclear missile and multipurpose submarines. They squeezed from the first positions even such ships as attack aircraft carriers.
        1. Catfish 11 January 2020 11: 49 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Seryozha, I had in mind that if Adolf instead of all these Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts began to rivet submarines from the very beginning, the war with Britain could take on a completely different character and have different consequences.
          1. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 12: 46 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Seryozha, I had in mind that if Adolf instead of all these Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts began to rivet submarines from the very beginning, the war with Britain could take on a completely different character and have different consequences.

            The first mistake of the alternative is that only one side can alternatively, the rest stupidly follow the canon. smile
            If Adolf instead of all these Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts would have riveted submarines from the very beginning, then in the second half of the 30s Britain would have focused on the fleet development program not on “big pots”, but on PLO forces. And the armada of German submarines would meet with the same armada of “Khanty”, “flowers”, and even, damn it, the first escort AB. smile
            And taking into account the fact that the German “seven” stands like three “flowers” ​​- for Kriegsmarine this option is very sad.
      2. bk0010 11 January 2020 13: 13 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        That's right: worthless. Too expensive to risk them or to have a lot of them. Really suitable only for linear combat (for the rest you can use it, but it's expensive and scary to lose). That's just massively built them when they were really indispensable: it was the only ship to gain supremacy at sea, no one could cope with the battleship, except for the battleship. Ships for the realization of domination (all kinds of cruisers) were much cheaper and more numerous. But later there appeared sled torpedo bombers, who played a role similar to the cumulative charge for tanks. Of little use against ships of other types (a trifle simply dodged torpedoes, in a serious raid the real task of torpedo bombers was to impede the maneuver of the ships so that it was easier for dive-bombers), torpedo bombers could drown the battleship. With the advent of sane aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and missile ships, the task of gaining dominance at sea passed to them.
      3. Saxahorse 11 January 2020 21: 58 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Sea Cat
        It turns out that states undermined their financial power by building worthless ships

        Exactly so. The Russian Empire is a prime example. The first generation of armadillos is merged with sharply negative consequences. All the same, the army had to fight. The second generation of battleships - during the two world wars have never been used for their intended purpose. And they didn’t even figure out how to do this. Successfully handed over in metal, money written off, the army still had to fight.

        It is also difficult to understand what benefits battleships brought to other countries. Some spent a lot of time (and money) on building battleships, others a lot of time and enthusiasm for their destruction. Both that and another essentially did not influence the course and results of military operations.
    2. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 11: 52 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: bubalik
      Died from aircraft: 19 pcs. (59%)

      What military significance did the destruction of the Hyuuga or Ise at the end of July 1945 have by American aircraft?

      Why did the “omnipotent aviation” not sink them before, at the height of the war?

      As well as the destruction of Tirpitz in the late autumn of 1944. How many months are left until the end of the Reich? What did the previous 4 years expect - when will Lancaster arrive with Tallboy?))
      Quote: bubalik
      and a number of others (Yamato, Prince of Wells) were destroyed without even a tenth of the tasks assigned to them.

      Like ships of any class
      Quote: bubalik
      the lion part they were destroyed with the help of weapons hundreds of times inferior to them in terms of firepower, displacement and cost

      The lion’s is, in your opinion, how much?
      40%, 50%, 60%?

      It’s not difficult for you to give examples
      1. bubalik 11 January 2020 12: 21 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        was destroyed by weapons hundreds of times

        HMS Barham, killing 862 people. Sank in a few minutes.

        Three torpedoes with U-331 with a crew of 49 people.

        ,,, Japanese "Congo" sunk by the USS Sealion.
        1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 12: 28 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          You brought two examples

          Where: the lion part they were destroyed with weapons hundreds of times inferior to them in terms of firepower, displacement and cost (your quote)
          1. bubalik 11 January 2020 12: 34 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Oleg, what to paint all 31 dead battleship? sad
            And so it is clear that either submarines or aircraft.
            What military significance did the destruction of the Hyuuga or Ise at the end of July 1945 have by American aircraft?
            ,, and what contribution did Ise make. ? Only repaired and modernized throughout the war? recourse
            1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 12: 37 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: bubalik
              Oleg, what to paint all 31 dead battleship?

              Why all

              I want to see examples of battleships sunk "with the help of weapons hundreds of times inferior to them in terms of firepower, displacement and cost"
              Quote: bubalik
              ,, and what contribution did Ise make. ?

              100 thousand miles traveled
              examples of operations with his participation - in the article
          2. Catfish 11 January 2020 12: 41 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Where: the lion's part of them was destroyed with the help of weapons hundreds of times inferior to them in terms of firepower, displacement and cost (your quote)

            As I understand it, Sergey also had in mind aviation, where each individual aircraft is certainly inferior to hundreds, but rather many hundreds of times to any battleship. At least I understood him that way. smile
            1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 12: 48 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              The plane could not appear over the ocean from nowhere

              An airplane needs an aircraft carrier, and an aircraft carrier needs an escort. That is - a squadron

              Musashi drowned aircraft with 8 aircraft carriers

              To Tirpitz completed 700 sorties, entire aircraft carrier squadrons went to the shores of Norway
              1. Catfish 11 January 2020 12: 55 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                With regard to aircraft carriers and escort ships, I know Morrison mastered back in the late sixties. But it was Tirpitz that was not drowned by aircraft carriers at all, and each of them, naturally, was weaker than the battleship. But, probably, enough of that, for the further argument is already giving away by open sophistry. hi
                1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 13: 10 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  And what did the remaining 700 flights, walking tours?

                  Only at the end of the war did a bomb of the right size appear and the possibility of its delivery to the Tirpitz base

                  This does not draw at all about the story of David and Goliath. Huge amounts spent, flew until the end of the war
                  1. tlauicol 11 January 2020 13: 53 New
                    • 6
                    • 1
                    +5
                    It is difficult to kill with a sling of a goliath who does not enter the battle, but locked himself in a cave under the guard of ships, aircraft, air defense, networks, dams, booms, batteries, dams, etc.
                    And he hid so that David would not kill him
                  2. Catfish 11 January 2020 15: 50 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Only at the end of the war did a bomb of the right size appear and the possibility of its delivery to the Tirpitz base

                    That’s the question - what the hell did they go for, if they themselves knew perfectly well that they could not do anything. Based on the "golden bullet" or just for a "tick" in the database journal?
                    1. Engineer 11 January 2020 17: 04 New
                      • 5
                      • 0
                      +5
                      what the hell they climbed there

                      Operations against Tirpitz were sometimes linked to the escort of convoys.
                      The British finally created a quantitative equivalent of the American task groups or half of the kido butai. A loaded gun should fire.
                      The golden bullet almost happened. Although almost not considered.
              2. Engineer 11 January 2020 14: 19 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                All this is true, but you, Oleg, as always, saying A, do not want to speak B.
                Let's remember that Tirpitz was not alone in the confrontation with aircraft carriers. During Operation Tangsten (the most successful), he was covered in addition to his own anti-aircraft guns with 7 anti-aircraft batteries plus air defense ships. During subsequent battery raids, it was already 11. Smoke-curtain equipment on the shore and a new additional radar were added. There were a number of fighters who took part in repelling the raids.
                Now about 700 flights of the British
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_attacks_on_the_German_battleship_Tirpitz
                Tangsten 40 barracudas and 80 cover fighters
                Operations Planet, Brown, Tiger Clough. - canceled due to bad weather. Only in one case were planes released (27 strikers and 36 fighters) but recalled before the strike.
                Mascot 44 strikers 40 fighters.
                Goodwood 1, 2, 3, 4 - 44 + 53; 0 + 14; 33 + 44; 26 + 41
                A total of 214 sorties of the strikers (including Brown recalled in operations) 308 sorties of fighters. Of these, several carried bombs during operations, some crushed air defense on the shore and on the ship. Part naturally grazed enemy fighters.
                Let everyone decide whether it is a lot or a little.
                It is obvious to me that the FAA could not in any case (except Tangsten) inflict a massive blow and beat with a palm, not a fist. With the corresponding result.
                1. Catfish 11 January 2020 15: 53 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Let everyone decide whether it is a lot or a little.


                  Whether it’s a lot or a little, what difference would it make sense, but it wasn’t ... until the necessary bomb appeared.
                  1. Engineer 11 January 2020 16: 33 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    There was no sense. Only this shows not so much the strength of Tirpitz as the weakness of the British
                    1. Catfish 11 January 2020 16: 35 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      This is what we are talking about. request
                      1. Engineer 11 January 2020 16: 52 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        The point is that analysis is needed, but it is not. I recall that analysis is a division of the problem, decomposition.
                        Divers, horizontal bombers and Lancaster are completely different sorties. And different bombs. And different crews. They can not be dumped as the author does, announcing about 700 sorties.
                        Count the effectiveness of Lancaster separately. Yes, the end of the war, so what? Since when the end of the war is not an indicator, especially if the author projects the findings in a modern alignment ? There is a fact by the end of the war, if the 617th reaches the goal, then it most likely will fail. Any battleship at the base is almost doomed if it is in range.
                        The post is not so much for you as for Oleg)
                      2. CommanderDIVA 12 January 2020 17: 53 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Wow! The first time I heard the word decomposition here, it’s you who write about system analysis, my respect!
                      3. Engineer 12 January 2020 19: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Thanks of course, but I'm just starting to apply this business.
                        From the point of view of the application of analysis to the war, what I get worse is. Rooted sympathies / antipathies interfere too.
                    2. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 12: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Engineer
                      There is a fact by the end of the war, if the 617th reaches the goal, then it most likely will fail. Any battleship at the base is almost doomed if it is in range.

                      Correction - if you score on the air defense base. In that attack on the Tirpitz, the British crews considered themselves suicide bombers: there were no cover for their fighters, only machine guns could hit the fighter of the early 30s, and the enemy had a radar and a fighter group at the air base near the target.
                      Cochrane faced a new problem. Intelligence reported that 20-30 German fighters were transferred to the Bardufoss airfield, located 30 miles from Tromsø. It’s very clear why! “Tirpitz” was subjected to 2 powerful attacks, the next Germans prepared to meet fully armed. For accurate bombing, a raid should have been carried out during the day in an extended formation, so the planes could not protect each other. The flimsy .303 KVVS machine guns were an unreliable defense against fighter cannons. If the fighters are attacked by bombers, that was quite likely to result in just a massacre. It is unlikely that anyone will be able to return.
                      © Brickhill P. Ship Slayers / Barker R. Flooding Germany!

                      The radar detected the bombers 45 minutes before the strike. But the vaunted German ordn did not work.
                    3. Engineer 13 January 2020 13: 40 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      In that attack on the Tirpitz, British crews considered themselves suicide bombers

                      No. They didn’t count. Calculated British risk at its best.
                      But the vaunted German ordn did not work.

                      "And so three times in a row." Paravan, Abbeyt, Catechism. Straight on the classic laughing
                      Air defense base in all cases was powerless.
                    4. Alexey RA 13 January 2020 16: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Engineer
                      "And so three times in a row." Paravan, Abbeyt, Catechism.

                      Not in a row. Only successful operations were simply remembered. But failures are usually not remembered.
                      “Tirpitz” was hit from the air for a long time and hard.
                      Immediately after the partially successful “Tangsten” there were four failed operations:
                      - Operations "Planets", "Brown", "Tiger Claw" were canceled due to bad weather.
                      - Operation Mascot failed due to the good work of the German airborne engine - by the time 44 “Barracudas” approached under the guise of “Corsairs”, “Hellcat” and “Firefly”, Tirpitz’s parking lot was closed by smoke.

                      Next was a series of four Goodwood operations.
                      The first two are failure, the target is covered by clouds.
                      Goodwood III is a failure. The only bomb that hit the BB (726 kg) pierced the LK armored deck, reached right up to the main switchboard room No. 4 and ... did not explode. The only HE bomb hit the roof of the GC V tower - but everything was limited to a dent, a temporary disabling of the HV drive of one of the guns and the destruction of one of the firling.
                      "Goodwood IV" - a failure, the air defense again managed to close the target with smoke.

                      Next was a partially successful “Paravan”.
                      And behind it - the unsuccessful Obviate: when approaching the target, it was covered with clouds.
                      And only after that was the successful “Catechism”.

                      “Tirpitz” scored strictly according to statistics - if you throw bombs on a target for a long time, then in the end it will be hit. smile
                    5. Engineer 13 January 2020 16: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      There was a conversation about the 617th. Accordingly, he gave examples only for her. All examples are relevant. Air defense in all cases was but did not work.
                      I wrote above that the summation of the departures of aircraft carrier aircraft and Lancaster 617 squadrons is not statistics from the word at all.
  • Catfish 11 January 2020 12: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Three torpedoes with U-331 with a crew of 49 people.


    Von Tiesenhausen. As he himself later said - it’s as if “the devil himself pushed him by the arm” to describe the circulation, which seems to be absolutely unnecessary. More, it seems, he did not glorify himself with anything, but one “Barham" was enough to go down in history.
    1. bubalik 11 January 2020 14: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Sea Cat (Constantine) Today, 13: 46

      ,,, by the way, November 17, 1942 north of Algeria, when U-331 threw out a white flag and signaled surrender, the British shot it anyway, and even torpedoed it.
      1. Catfish 11 January 2020 15: 46 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Such vengeance is unworthy even in relation to the enemy. They could not be destroyed in open battle, so they shot a defenseless enemy, and even under the white flag. A disgrace.
  • pmkemcity 11 January 2020 14: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You can fight and standing in the base. Only one German presence in Norway was worth such a titanic effort for us and our allies.
  • novel66 11 January 2020 11: 34 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Oleg, thank you, your thought will find its embodiment. I want to believe I don’t like foil boats
    1. Santa Fe 11 January 2020 11: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Please Roman. This is an old and very interesting argument. And modern ships, and history, and examples, and technology. But it amuses me how many are ready to deny the obvious)))
  • Denimax 11 January 2020 12: 42 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Fritz X had the wrong fuse on the bombs. One would not have guessed with a slowdown if a detonator was used. The bomb breaks through the deck and the stabilizer in size does not stupidly crawl through the hole and remains outside. The depth of detonation is determined by the length of the cable, which is fastened with a stabilizer and a bomb fuse. IMHO
    1. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 14: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Somehow the word "prolazit" poorly "penetrates" into consciousness.
  • BAI
    BAI 11 January 2020 16: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Something the author forgot about the linear cruiser Hood. One volley of “Bismarck” was enough for him.
    Novorossiysk needed quite a bit. You can recall the "Empress Mary."
    1. Rurikovich 11 January 2020 17: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      BAI. Because the Hood was a battlecruiser, as was the Ripals, which the author didn’t mention either. Despite their 15, “broads and decent displacement.” Gneisenau "was a battleship according to the classification, although both it and the Scharnhorst sistership are often called by different authors as linear cruisers. But these are still battleships. hi
    2. Rurikovich 11 January 2020 18: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      One volley of “Bismarck” was enough for him.

      The first volley of "Bismarck", according to his senior artillery officer Adalbert Schneider, fell short and in front of the "Hood". The second volley gave a flight, but Schneider considered it a cover. The third volley also hit with one possible hit (probably a hit from Prinz Eugen). After the start of the fire on the boat deck of the British ship, the Bismarck artillery officers were able to more confidently determine the distance to the enemy, and Schneider ordered to switch to full eight-gun volleys. The fourth volley of "Bismarck" gave a shortfall.

      Admiral Holland decided to turn away a little, putting in action aft towers. At 6:00 a signal was raised to change course by 20 ° to the left. At this point, “Hood” produced about six, and “Prince of Wales” - eight volleys. During this maneuver at 6:01 a fifth volley of "Bismarck" from a distance of less than 167 hectometers (a measure of distance adopted by the German naval artillery; 1 hectometer = 100 m) hit the enemy lead ship with one or more shells in the mainmast area. There was a huge explosion, and "Hood" - the beauty and pride of the Royal Navy, the personification of the power of Britain in the seas - sank for about three minutes. Of the crew of 1418, only three survived.
  • Saxahorse 11 January 2020 22: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The article is bright and wonderful! But not convincing. :)

    When it was necessary to destroy Musashi or Yamato, no one hoped for a golden bullet. Just scored like a mammoth. And they could not provide any distinct resistance. And in general, to find the contribution of these dear giants to the war is not easy .. How many have they drowned? The same is true for all other WWII battleships. Already clearly useless co-starred.

    To reanimate investments in defense today is completely inappropriate. Guided weapons will inflict exactly as many hits as are enough for death. Not to mention the existence of tactical nuclear weapons.

    Something reminds me of this nostalgia for battleships, lovers of airships. Understand that without prospects, but still like it. :)
    1. bk0010 12 January 2020 00: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Saxahorse
      To reanimate investments in defense today is completely inappropriate. Guided weapons will inflict exactly as many hits as are enough for death.
      The author is sure that there are many chances that the enemy will not live to see the moment when "the guided weapon will inflict exactly as many hits as it is enough for death." In fact, he proposes to build heavy cruisers instead of destroyers. But I’m not at all sure that the armor will help: too much explosive flies with each missile (even Harpoon carries explosives on itself like a dozen armor-piercing battleships (or 3 RP), and LRASM - 450 kg (18 BB or 5 RP)). And this explosive is no longer TNT. Let me remind you that after the appearance of armored ships, they were fought with huge cores, destroying the entire hull, and not punching a plate. A ship with a displacement of 60000 tons is likely to survive the explosion of half a ton of explosives, but 15000 tons (of which 4000 are armor and additional hull structures for it, 2000 tons to strengthen the engine and additional fuel, 9000 to the rest of Arly Burke (book that something less - a perversion, you get a parody of the coastal defense monitor)) - hardly.
      1. Saxahorse 12 January 2020 01: 31 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Somewhere it is, the author himself recalls the 5th Lancaster bombs.
        What can an analysis of the results of using 5-ton Tollboys give? One or two of these bombs will sink the ship. Any ship.

        Well, a dozen of the LRASMs mentioned are the same Tallboy, even worse. And they all get. And the Americans themselves do not just call their destroyers the destroyer, their striking power comes first. Arly Burke has 98 launch cells, how such a blow can be restrained with some kind of armor ..
        1. Santa Fe 12 January 2020 05: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Then answer - why ground armored vehicles didn’t go out of fashion

          Just a couple of Javelin hits - that's all. Why build tanks and armored personnel carriers
          1. bk0010 12 January 2020 14: 09 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Just a couple of Javelin hits - that's all. Why build tanks and armored personnel carriers
            Well, here everything is simple: on land it is full of weapons, except anti-tank: machine guns (bullets), conventional artillery and mortars (fragments of shells and bombs), etc. And they are many times more than specialized anti-tank weapons. Here from them the armor helps unconditionally. An analogue of battles at sea would be the battle "tank against tank." There would be the same situation as at sea, when some Sprut-SD with cardboard armor and normally armored T-72 have the same chance in battle.
            1. Santa Fe 13 January 2020 02: 07 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: bk0010
              Well, it’s just that simple: on land it’s full of weapons, except anti-tank:

              90% of existing anti-ship weapons - powerless against a ship with a sheltered deck and side only 100 mm thick. Scratch

              LRASM is a high-tech exotic, an analogue of Javelin.

              The chance to meet Javelin on land does not impede the development of armored vehicles
              1. bk0010 13 January 2020 22: 20 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe

                90% of the existing anti-ship weapons are powerless against a ship with a protected deck and a side with a thickness of only 100 mm. Scratch

                1 mm citadel is not at all “price” or weight.
                2. Have you checked that you are really powerless?
                3. Against battleships 99% of artillery were powerless. Did it help them much?
                4. Armored ships will have a large displacement and are expensive. For such a good thing, it’s not a pity to make a personal 4-cell rocket.
                1. Santa Fe 13 January 2020 23: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Please provide your estimates of the cost of installing the reservation

                  Here are my facts:
                  1. The cost of the hull is 10% of the total cost of the destroyer Burke
                  2. 100 years ago, armored elements were massively installed on ships. You think technology is fur. processing and productivity over the past 100 years have changed for the worse?
                  -----
                  2. Yes, all examples point to this.

                  3. Why this question? Yes, it helped. When meeting with any type of ammunition

                  4. Do not smack nonsense about large sizes and expensive
                  1. bk0010 14 January 2020 00: 57 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    1. The cost of the hull is 10% of the total cost of the destroyer Burke
                    2. 100 years ago, armored elements were massively installed on ships. You think technology is fur. processing and productivity over the past 100 years have changed for the worse?

                    1. The hull is not armor. 100 years ago, on armadillos, the price of artillery and the price of armor turned out to be approximately the same (last year the article here was about this). From my point of view, this is a lot. Technology has not just changed; it has been lost. There are no rolling mills for ship armor for a long time (I recall that these are huge thick plates).
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    2. Yes, all examples point to this.

                    2. And I recall the Second World War, when the close tear of an American 200 with something kilogram bomb destroyed the Tiger.
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    3. Why this question? Yes, it helped. When meeting with any type of ammunition

                    3. Well, where are they? What tasks, inaccessible to others, could be performed?
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    4. Do not smack nonsense about large sizes and expensive
                    4. Bullshit? Well, compare the price of KRL and TKR.
              2. Saxahorse 13 January 2020 22: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe
                90% of the existing anti-ship weapons are powerless against a ship with a protected deck and a side with a thickness of only 100 mm. Scratch

                And where did you get this? Minimum penetration of the projectile is about half the caliber. Such armor will be pierced even by a land mine even though shrapnel is put on a gift. And if the RCC has an armored warhead (and they are exactly like that) and its penetration will be comparable. Offhand, Harpoon caliber - 340 mm. This means an approximate penetration of 170 mm.

                Quote: Santa Fe
                LRASM is a high-tech exotic, an analogue of Javelin.

                That you are behind the news. :) LRASM was adopted in 2018. But Javelin is already outdated, more than 20 years in production and the chances of meeting him in battle are growing rapidly. Shelf life is running out, must be disposed of. laughing
                1. Santa Fe 13 January 2020 23: 35 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The futility of 90% of existing western anti-ship missiles (exosets / harpoons / ncm) against a 100 mm obstacle follows from the facts:

                  subsonic speed
                  - mechanical fragility of the PCR from aluminum and plastic - the missile will be smeared on the armor, like shot down missiles falling to the ground. Nobody digs up their debris, they roll on the surface

                  This we have not yet taken into account the rebound, at angles of meeting other than normal

                  Undermining the warhead of the western anti-ship missiles on the armor will not do anything - they knew it during the war years, so the Italians created a submerging charge, because the explosion at the armored belt is useless. Or do you think that Prince Borghese in vain complicated the life of his soldiers


                  Lrasm - how many carriers in the world and units equipped with this miracle hi-tech, the most powerful of Western missiles. The analogy with Javelin is obvious. Rarity

                  Moreover, the presence of such a tool as Javelin did not affect the popularity of armored vehicles
                  1. Liam 13 January 2020 23: 59 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    Futility

                    You are again captive of your idea and you deny or do not want to see obvious things. Modern anti-ship missiles are created against modern ships that do not have armor. There are eccentrics who will begin to sculpt armor on ships and will increase the armor penetration of anti-ship missiles.
                    And yet. Do you recall what archaic aerial bombs and air torpedoes were used to arrange the mass mortality of battleships in the WWII? PX, Taranto, that's all. Swordfish as carriers. Do you seriously think that modern torpedoes and missiles are inferior to those?
                    1. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 00: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Moreover, scanty costs compared

                      Then the United States will have to build the fleet again)))

                      Their ships cannot use ammunition with a combination of the necessary properties:

                      - punch 100 mm steel protection
                      -add sufficient explosives to the resulting holeto cause serious damage to the ship’s internal compartments

                      After all, simply pounding it with steel crowbars, leaving holes - it makes no sense

                      Further, a sharp increase in weight and size of the missiles = less in the salvo = easier air defense

                      Winning in all aspects
                      1. Liam 14 January 2020 00: 41 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        After all, simply pounding it with steel crowbars, leaving holes - it makes no sense

                        I won’t even ask how battleships were fired in PX and Taranto with funny aerial bombs and the same funny torpedoes from antediluvian planes and I won’t even ask why bang somewhere if you can take down all the unarmored superstructure, radars, etc. to turn the ship into just a piece of armor or detonate missiles are not on the hull in the surface part, but under the water and shake with a water hammer. And I won’t even draw attention to the fact that you ignore the issue of torpedoes .. how armor will interfere with them.
                        And better I ask, do you know how the SM-6 works in the RCC version?
                      2. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 00: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        From drowned by torpedoes. Which cannot be used by modern aircraft

                        About radars and add-ons - already answered in this thread

                        SM-6 against ships - shnyaga.
                        High-altitude quasi-ballistic trajectory = vulnerability for air defense systems
                        An insignificant mass of the warhead - against a warship 10-15 thousand tons
                      3. Liam 14 January 2020 01: 00 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Which cannot be used by modern aircraft

                        Seriously? What are armed with airplanes and PLO helicopters? And the doctor forbade submarines to shoot torpedoes at your armored dinosaurs? And to change the RCC algorithm so that instead of hitting the board, "diving" under water for a couple of meters at the side of the ship and then explode with Newton’s bin?
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        SM-6 against ships - shnyaga.
                        High-altitude quasi-ballistic trajectory = vulnerability for air defense systems
                        An insignificant mass of the warhead - against a warship 10-15 thousand tons

                        It can be seen that you have no idea.
                        The SM-6 in the RCC variant does not have any warhead. There’s a “piece of iron scrap” weighing almost half a ton. When a GOS is captured by a target, the main engine is switched on again and from a height of 1 km vertically downward at an angle of about 90 g. (Hello and goodbye to the air defense ship) accelerates the rocket with this kinetic zest to 3-4 max. And flashes any ship right through from the deck to the keel. With warm greetings to your 100 mm armor
                      4. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 01: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        PLO aircraft, as well as anti-submarine missiles (ASROK, Waterfall) are equipped with warheads in the form of a detachable small-sized torpedo, parachuting into the water. Attacking a surface ship in this way will not work - its air defense systems will simply spread a torpedo while it hangs on a parachute

                        It’s impossible to simply bring a torpedo at transonic speed for obvious reasons

                        About SM-6 in the form of scrap weighing half a ton - you've read some nonsense somewhere. This missile has a standard warhead of only 64 kg. Half a ton of warhead (1/3 of its starting mass), it simply will not take off
                      5. Liam 14 January 2020 01: 29 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        parachuting into the water. Attacking a surface ship in this way will not work - its air defense systems will simply spread a torpedo

                        And is it necessary to do this in the immediate vicinity of the ship and from a great height?
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        you read delirium somewhere

                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        standard warhead is only 64 kg.

                        On January 18, 2016, the SM-6 rocket sank the decommissioned USS "Reuben James" frigate during training.
                        A missile weighing one and a half tons with a kinetic charge of several hundred kg at a speed of several thousand km / h at an angle of 90 g. From above will cause less harm than 250 kg of bombs of Japanese decks from WWII?
                      6. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 01: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Of course. Otherwise, the torpedo will not reach the target

                        Cruising range and speed of 324 mm are several times less than that of the five-ton Mk. 48

                        About the sinking of SM-6 - the source smacks of nonsense. SM-6 is a relatively small anti-aircraft missile. When installing a steel warhead weighing hundreds of kg - it will break in half when loading))

                        Drowned - we do not know the details. There was just an article:
                        “A very interesting example of the survivability of frigates of the Perry type is given by their use as floating targets. The video below shows the results of many hours of air strikes inflicted on the empty hull of a ship, on which, of course, no one is fighting for any survivability. At the SINKEX-2016 ship sinking exercises, this frigate was subsequently attacked by a submarine of the South Korean Navy that drove the Harpoon into it, then the Australian frigate hit Perry with another Harpoon, and the helicopter from it - ATG Hellfire, then Orion sequentially hit the frigate “Harpoon” and UR “Maverick”, then the “Harpoon” flew into it from the Ticonderoga class cruiser, then the American helicopters hit it with several more Hellfires, after which it fired the F-18 unguided bomb, then controlled by a heavy bomb B-52, but Nets, in the end the American submarine hit him with a torpedo Mk. 48. After that, the frigate remained afloat for another 12 hours

                        To a similar ship quickly drowned from one hole in the deck - contrary to all tests. Which have video confirmation
                2. bk0010 14 January 2020 01: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Torpedoes from airplanes are quite used against submarines (all kinds of Poseidons).
                3. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 01: 17 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Answered a little higher
                  Against surface ships - useless
      2. Saxahorse 14 January 2020 00: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        - mechanical fragility of the PCR from aluminum and plastic - the missile will smear on the armor

        Please look at the picture.

        This is the warhead of the famous Soviet PKR Granit. Caliber 850 mm weight 750 kg. Do you see the shell thickness of this warhead? Do you seriously think that it is aluminum or plastic? Well, Harpoon is the same, only the form is simpler - a cylinder and that's it.
        1. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 00: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Have you decided to sink Russian ships with Russian missiles?))

          The NATO members have nothing of the kind, 90% of their weapons are small-sized PKRs such as harpoon and Ncm. With a shell thickness of a centimeter - their fragments roll on the surface (as with the same downed tomahawks), crumbled upon contact with the ground
          1. Saxahorse 15 January 2020 00: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Have you decided to sink Russian ships with Russian missiles?))
            The NATO members have nothing of the kind, 90% of their weapons are small-sized PKRs such as harpoon and Ncm.

            I can not help but be amazed at your optimism. The “shell” of the RGM-84 Harpoon generally weighs at least 14 ”British projectile (742-765 kg) and flies at almost the speed of sound. Do you hope to stop it with miserable 100 mm armor? , and the shape, thickness and material are secondary bonuses, hence the rule of thumb - any projectile pierces armor at least half its caliber thickness.

            Incidentally, modern anti-tank mines, such as the "strike nucleus", use as a striking element a large drop of liquid (!) Metal of good caliber. And nothing! They penetrate the tank through without any problems, do not smear .. laughing
          2. Santa Fe 15 January 2020 00: 33 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Saxahorse
            Let me remind you once again that the mass and velocity of the projectile are pierced first of all, and the shape, thickness and material are secondary bonuses.

            Then you will have to explain why the shell on the left is called armor-piercing, and on the right - high-explosive. After all, their masses and speeds are equal. Why reduce the amount of explosive in an armor-piercing projectile, it's stupid if the thickness and material do not affect the armor-piercing
            Quote: Saxahorse
            The "shell" of RGM-84 Harpoon generally weighs no less than 14 "British shell (742-765 kg)

            All this will fall apart when meeting with an obstacle, because it is made of plastic
          3. Saxahorse 15 January 2020 00: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Then you will have to explain why the shell on the left is called armor-piercing, and on the right - high-explosive. Their masses and speeds are equal. Why reduce the amount of explosive in an armor-piercing projectile?

            You do not hear me persistently. :) That's why they say about "half caliber", a high-explosive shell will penetrate armor at least half its caliber. Armor-piercing will break at least its caliber.

            Quote: Santa Fe
            All this will fall apart when meeting with an obstacle, because it is made of plastic

            Involuntarily I want to remind a children's riddle. "Which is heavier, a ton of cotton wool or a ton of steel?" laughing

            What a ton of cotton wool that a ton of steel gasps in the armor so it doesn’t seem like much! The steel shell of the warhead here rather plays the role of a hub, so that the contact spot does not increase too quickly. As you don’t, it’s not at all easy to absorb the kinetic energy of a projectile weighing 14 "stupid from Jutland times. Your hope for 100 mm of armor is absolutely nothing, 170 mm is the minimum. Moreover, horizontal armor should also be no less missiles can both from above and from the side ..
          4. Santa Fe 15 January 2020 00: 53 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Saxahorse
            What a ton of cotton wool that a ton of steel gasps in the armor so it doesn’t seem like much!


            Kamikaze was not really cotton, there was a motor in the bow - 600 kg of steel parts.
            Quote: Saxahorse
            Your hope for 100 mm of armor is absolutely nothing, 170 mm is the minimum

            Do you know how much was the thickness of the belt of the cruiser Sussex (this is it in the photo)?
          5. Saxahorse 16 January 2020 00: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Do you know how much was the thickness of the belt of the cruiser Sussex (this is it in the photo)?

            It’s good that they reminded :) Remember why the British considered the minimum possible side armor 76 mm? Because it's half of 6 ":)


            Quote: Santa Fe
            Kamikaze was not really cotton, there was a motor in the bow - 600 kg of steel parts.

            The picture reminds us that in addition to mass, you need to have speed :) Otherwise, yes, uppss ..

            Although it’s probably good to live in a fairy-tale world where rockets bounce off even from a sheet of cardboard. But in life the very first, anti-ship BGM-109B Tomahawk had "the 450-kilogram (1,000-pound) WDU-25B semi-armor piercing warhead"and the freshest AGM-158 JASSM has"a 1,000 pound (454 kg) WDU-42 / B armor-piercing penetrator warhead". You translate what means"semi-armor "And"armor piercing "?

            These "plastic" rockets easily penetrate 1.5 meters of concrete in trials. Yes, and in real life too ..

            Break through concrete differs from breaking through steel about 5-10 times. We again see the same numbers that I, who have been trying to convey a comment to you in a row. The real armor penetration of today's, real cruise missiles is 150-300 mm of armor. Your future battleships will not be bored at sea. laughing
          6. Santa Fe 16 January 2020 00: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Fact - having hit a 76 mm belt, the kamikaze scratched the paint, which contradicts all your comments about tons of cotton wool

            The speed of the Ki-51 dive was 2 times lower than that of Harpoon RCC. And take-off weight is 4 times more
            Kinetic energy is the same

            So why are you fed up that Harpoon will pierce 150 mm))) What are the hopes based
            ----
            Why did you immediately jump from Harpunov to Tomahawks. Discuss the desire to discuss the armor-piercing properties of the remaining 90% of Western anti-ship missiles?

            454 kg at subsonic speed - the warhead of the Ax is inferior to the projectile of the 305 mm gun. And something I can’t recall cases when 305 mm rounds at the end pierced 300 mm of armor laughing
          7. Liam 16 January 2020 01: 17 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The speed of the Ki-51 dive was 2 times lower than that of Harpoon RCC. And take-off weight is 4 times more
            Kinetic energy is the same

            How much physics did you have at school?
            Physics. Grade 8
            The kinetic energy of the body (Ekin) depends on the mass of the body (m) and on the speed of its movement (v).
            Kinetic energy is directly proportional to body weight and squared his speed.
            The kinetic energy is determined by the formula:

            Ekin = m⋅v2 / 2.



            With an increase in body mass in a linear relationship, its kinetic energy also increases.
            If the mass increases by a factor of 2, then the kinetic energy also increases by a factor of 2..


            With increasing speed of a body, its kinetic energy also increases in a quadratic dependence.
            If the speed increases 2 times, then the kinetic energy increases 4 times
            .
          8. Santa Fe 16 January 2020 01: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, what do we have in this case
            When comparing kin. Ki-51 and harpoon energy

            Harpoon is 4 times lighter and twice as fast, the energy is the same

            A plane with the same energy only scratched the paint on board the cruiser
          9. The comment was deleted.
          10. Liam 16 January 2020 01: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Well, what do we have in this case


            We have the fact that with mathematics your situation is even worse than with physics.
            We ignore the topic how much fuel is burned to the target and what is the real mass at the time of the impact.

            1) Max take-off mass Ki-51 2.800 kg. Max speed-420 km / h.


            2) Harpoon mass 700 kg. Speed ​​0.85 Mach = 1.040 km / h

            1) 2.800×420×420=493.920.000
            2)700×1.040×1.040=757.120.000
          11. Santa Fe 16 January 2020 02: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            757 and 493 - the difference is 1,5 times, as it is poorly believed that this will help to break through the 76 mm side)))

            Moreover, they have no 1,5-difference in energy, the rocket loses its already small mass too quickly. A kamikaze dive in its last peak could accelerate faster than its "tabular" 420 km / h horizontal flight

            About the burned fuel - you correctly noticed it. If you want more details:

            Just 3 seconds after the start, Harpoon's mass is reduced by 100+ kg (15% of the starting weight!) - the A / B44G-2 solid fuel starting accelerator is reset

            The Teledine marching turbojet engine turns on and begins to burn kerosene (100 grams per second)

            WWII-era piston aircraft with an engine of 1000 hp per hour of flight burned an average of 300 liters of fuel (250 kg)

            With a normal take-off weight of Ki-51 at 2800 kg.

            So consider the difference in mass

            And then think about what will happen to the rocket if the plane just scratched the paint
    2. Saxahorse 16 January 2020 23: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Santa Fe
      Why did you immediately jump from Harpunov to Tomahawks. Discuss the desire to discuss the armor-piercing properties of the remaining 90% of Western anti-ship missiles?

      First, I saw the name of the warhead specifically for these anti-ship missiles, the BGM-109B Tomahawk and the AGM-158 JASSM. The very name "semi-armor-piercing" and "penetrating armor-piercing" mean that all your arguments about soft missiles should be simply thrown to hell.

      Well, and secondly, I saw specific penetration figures for these missiles, even if only for army concrete, this already allows you to objectively evaluate the real penetration.

      In fact, we see that, based on the empirical formula, Harpoon and Tomahawk have 170-250 mm, respectively. From a concrete grade of 150-300 mm. Both estimates are approximate but the order is clear.

      Quote: Santa Fe
      454 kg at subsonic speed - the warhead of the Ax is inferior to the projectile of the 305 mm gun.

      And who promised you strictly subsonic speed? And Harpoon and Tomahawk and JASSM in addition to a horizontal strike can make a slide with an attack in a dive. And they don’t turn off the dive engine. :)

      By the way, speeding them up two times, and increasing the penetration by the same amount, is also easy, just put a solid fuel accelerator like on concrete bombs, turning on in the last seconds before the strike.
    3. Santa Fe 17 January 2020 00: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      First, I saw the name of the warhead specifically for these anti-ship missiles

      but the names Harpoon (5000 issued, in service with 30 countries of the world), Exoset (30 countries of the world), NATO NSM, Japanese Type 90, Chinese export Yingji, Swedish Robot-15 (RBS), have you ever met?
      Quote: Saxahorse
      In fact, we see that, based on the empirical formula, Harpoon and Tomahawk have 170-250 mm, respectively.

      Calculation in the studio!
      Quote: Saxahorse
      And who promised you strictly subsonic speed? And Harpoon and Tomahawk and JASSM in addition to a horizontal strike can make a slide with an attack in a dive.

      When arguments end, fantasies begin
      Quote: Saxahorse
      By the way, speeding them up two times, and increasing the penetration by the same amount, is also not difficult,

      Just the point? The warhead will be reduced to the size of a hand grenade
    4. Santa Fe 17 January 2020 01: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      In fact, we see that, based on the empirical formula, Harpoon and Tomahawk have 170-250 mm, respectively.

      I am sure that I will not wait for the calculation
      Given the quality of your arguments

      I'll try it myself:
      High-precision air-to-surface missiles of the X-29 type are the most common ammunition for this purpose, in service with the domestic Air Force. The missile is equipped with a high explosive penetration warhead 9B63MN with a mass of 317 kg containing 116 kg of explosive.

      What if we equip the X-29 with a warhead in the form of a mass-size analogue - a German armor-piercing projectile of 283 mm caliber? (The choice is due to the availability of all necessary data for further calculation.)

      Everything coincides except for speed (for a rocket - subsonic, 300 m / s)
      According to the universal Krupp formula for the calculation of armor penetration:

      τ = 5,6246 · 10 ^ -3 * [ρ (V / C) ^ 2] ^ 5 / 8 * D ^ 1 / 4,

      where ρ is the mass to cube ratio of the caliber, V is the speed, D is the caliber. Coefficient C is taken from the German manual G.KDOS.100 "Theoretical foundations and guidelines for the selection of the optimum range and types of projectiles." For Krupp armor “new type” and shells “Deutschland” it is 804.

      If you multiply everything correctly, you get 0,45.

      This is a very poor prognosis for anyone who claims the high breakdown ability of modern anti-ship missiles. If the warhead in the form of an AP of a German projectile were on the X-29 missile, it would penetrate Krupp's armor, with a thickness of less than 0,45 of its caliber (~ 130 mm).

      The filling ratio of the standard combat units of modern anti-ship missiles twenty times biggerthan the armor-piercing shell "Deutschland". Even using the full power of modern technology and the use of tungsten alloys, there is no reason to hope that the fur. the strength of warheads will remain at the level of a solid monolith of steel with a filling of 2%.

      Make a conclusion yourself
    5. Saxahorse 18 January 2020 01: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Santa Fe
      I am sure that I will not wait for the calculation

      You are right, I completely consciously avoid giving formulas, although I use them myself to check myself sometimes. All formulas are extremely dependent on the design features of the product (which are classified) and the set of coefficients (which are unknown). Therefore, I give calculations based on rough empirical estimates. This is very rude, but allows you to roughly estimate the real scale of the problem.

      Quote: Santa Fe
      This is a very poor prognosis for anyone who claims the high breakdown ability of modern anti-ship missiles.

      Regarding the penetrative ability of modern warheads, I highly recommend that you read a short article in Military Review.

      Egorov K. Promising Concrete Aircraft Ammunition of the Leading NATO Countries (Russian) // Foreign Military Review. - M .: “Red Star”, 2001. - No. 2. - ISSN 0134-921X (http://commi.narod.ru/txt/2001/0209.htm)

      In this short article, Art. Lieutenant Egorov, in a short form, outlines the main approaches to increasing the penetration of warheads of modern cruise missiles.

      The tandem warheads described in the article (TBCH) with cumulative precharge (450 kg) are sold today in Tomahawk Block Vb (RGM-109E / UGM-109E). The unitary warheads described there (UBBCH) are already implemented in the warhead (435kg) AGM-158 JASSM.

      The test numbers of these warheads are quite impressive. The penetration depth into the barrier (soil + reinforced concrete) m., And at a BP speed of 300 m / s - for:
      UBBCH AGM-158 JASSM. - 6,1-24,4 + 1,2-2,1 meters.
      TBBCh Tomahawk Block Vb (450 kg) - 6,1-9,1 + 3,4-6,1 meters.

      Frankly, these penetrating warheads were not made at all for hunting battleships, there are none in the sea :) All these warheads were created to destroy ground solid targets. Which does not interfere with the need to apply them against armored naval targets. Penetration of 6 meters of concrete is approximately 600-1200 mm of steel.

      Honestly, it’s very difficult to imagine an adequate battleship with a horizontal and vertical armor thickness of more than a meter .. I'm afraid that you can firmly put a big, bold cross on your beautiful fantasy of modern steel monsters.
    6. Santa Fe 18 January 2020 03: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      product features (which are classified)

      Declassified

      This is a German WWII shell. At a speed of 300 m / s - its limit is 130 mm
      What are your ideas based on, that modern warhead the same mass and caliber will strike more

      Based obvious less strength (filling 30% versus 2,6%) - it will break even less
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Penetration of 6 meters of concrete is approximately 600-1200 mm of steel.

      How did they calculate

      So you do not write nonsense again, here's a reason to think:
      Hardness of oak wood according to Brinell - 4 units
      The hardness of ship's armor STS (Special Treatment Steel, class B) - 240

      Concrete is a close analogue of the first case. On concrete, you can leave a deep scratch with any tool. By try to drill the rail! (hardness and strength are many times less than STS)

      The difference between the hardened steel plate and any other material found in practice is not comparable. Most of them simply do not realize, telling? how bombs penetrate sand and concrete
    7. Saxahorse 18 January 2020 23: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Santa Fe
      What are your ideas based on that a modern warhead of the same mass and caliber will pierce more

      Something completely brought you somewhere in the jungle. You remember about 12 "shells you remembered. Well, so they pierced 250-300 mm at a speed of 200-280 m / s. And at a speed of 600-800 m / s (2M today) penetration is 350-430 mm altogether. Read the article again Egorova: He notes a significant increase in the penetration of modern warheads precisely at low speeds, on the order of 1M.

      Quote: Santa Fe
      So you do not write nonsense again, here's a reason to think:
      Hardness of oak wood according to Brinell - 4 units

      So that you do not write nonsense, I strongly advise you to read a little something out of sopromat. “Brinell” measures the hardness of only metals! The hardness of brittle materials (natural stone) is determined using the Mohs scale. But this is not our case, for concrete is a composite material. In general, reconcile, breaking through concrete is 5-10 times from steel. Depending on the brand of concrete and the hardness of crushed stone. wassat
    8. Santa Fe 19 January 2020 00: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, so they pierced 250-300mm at a speed of 200-280 m / s


      “Brinell” measures the hardness of only metals!

      Also a lie
    9. Saxahorse 19 January 2020 03: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The first British gun. "12" / 50 (30.5 cm) Marks XI, XI * and XII "
      Penetration of AP projectiles 850 lbs. (386 kg)
      0 yards (0 m) 16.8 "(427 mm) 3,010 fps (917 mps)
      10,000 yards (9,144 m) 11.2 "(284 mm) 2,000 fps (610 mps)

      Russian gun. "12" / 52 (30.5 cm) Pattern 1907 "(470.9 kg) APC mod 1911 Shell.
      10,000 yards (9,140 m) 13.85 in (352 mm) 1,667 fps (508 mps)

      I also see such numbers, what is the problem of getting them from RCC?


      Quote: Santa Fe
      “Brinell” measures the hardness of only metals!
      Also a lie

      The Brinell method only measures the hardness of ductile materials. Concrete does not apply to such. Do not argue if you do not know anything about it.

      I think we have already discussed this issue enough.
      1) cruise missiles have significant penetration.
      2) they are constantly working to improve penetration, albeit with an eye on solid ground targets.

      Your idea with armored ships makes no practical sense; they are too vulnerable for modern guided weapons.
    10. Santa Fe 19 January 2020 04: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      I also see such numbers, what is the problem of getting them from RCC?

      A supersonic rocket will weigh 5 times more than a subsonic

      "they penetrated 250-300mm at a speed of 200-280 m / s" laughing
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Concrete does not apply to such

      I have NOT written anywhere about measuring the strength of concrete using the Brinell method

      Wood, like concrete, like any material found in everyday life, does not look like hardened steel plates - neither during compression, nor in tension, nor in bending, nor in hardness, nor in strength, in anything. A nailing gun can easily drive 15-cm nails into the walls - but it won’t leave even scratches on the armor

      because all the examples with punching soil (which can be excavated by hand!) and concrete are not suitable
    11. Saxahorse 19 January 2020 19: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Santa Fe
      A supersonic rocket will weigh 5 times more than a subsonic

      No, how stubborn you are!

      Nothing prevents to disperse the same AGM-158 JASSM to a speed of 2M in dive. It is no accident that he has a wing with great sweep. However, Egorov writes about breaking through 2.4m. concrete at a speed of 300 m \ s. This is quite possible since the relative elongation of the rocket is much larger than a conventional projectile. In this parameter, the rocket needs to be compared with sub-caliber shells, 10-12 instead of 3-4 for conventional caliber armor-piercing shells and 2.5-3 for old 12 "shells. Well, do not forget that the rocket is still heavier than warheads alone, the starting weight of the same JASSM is 1020 kg.

      Quote: Santa Fe
      because all the examples with punching soil (which can be excavated by hand!) and concrete are not suitable

      Instead of arguing about methods for measuring strength, let's just compare the finished results. Concrete is divided into 21 categories from B3.5 to B80. The number means the compressive strength in MPa. See the table of the most common brands. The military understandably use the most durable varieties.


      The bottom table is the strength of steel in the same MPa. As we look at the compressive strength, see the "yield strength" column. Talking about armor, see cemented steels ("C"). Ordinary, water-hardened type B35 can be harder, but too fragile.

      It is easy to notice that the strength of concrete of category B60 differs from steel by just 6-7 times.
  • Liam 16 January 2020 02: 20 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Quote: Saxahorse
    What a ton of cotton wool that a ton of steel gasps in the armor so it doesn’t seem like much!


    Kamikaze was not really cotton, there was a motor in the bow - 600 kg of steel parts.
    Quote: Saxahorse
    Your hope for 100 mm of armor is absolutely nothing, 170 mm is the minimum

    Do you know how much was the thickness of the belt of the cruiser Sussex (this is it in the photo)?

    And this is direct double-dealing on your part.

    Impression of a Ki-51 "Sonia" kamikaze on the hull of the HMS Sussex. The Sonia (reported as a Val, as often happened), is said to have hit the water before hitting the hull, probably losing its bomb in the process. / Imprint of the Ki-51 "Sonia" kamikaze on the hull of the heavy cruiser Sussex. "Sonya ”hit the water before a collision with the body, possibly losing her bomb
  • Santa Fe 16 January 2020 03: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And what does it change

    We look at how many mm of armor a plane weighing 2+ tons can penetrate.

    The answer - I couldn’t even break through the thin belt of the British cruiser
  • Liam 16 January 2020 10: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Santa Fe
    And what does it change

    For you, it may not change. In the real world, with the speed of the plane after hitting the water, some significant changes have occurred)
  • Santa Fe 16 January 2020 18: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If you were careful, you would have noticed that in that “fingerprint” position and the remaining traces of the chassis, touching the water could only be the edge of the wing, in the last moment in front of the ram. It had little effect on speed

    In all other cases, the Ki-51 would have lost an indelible chassis - they would simply be torn off when hit by water. And he no longer rises so high from the water to leave an imprint on board
  • Saxahorse 16 January 2020 23: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    We look at how many mm of armor a plane weighing 2+ tons can penetrate. The answer - I couldn’t even break through the thin belt of the British cruiser

    Fuuuu .. You not only fantasize but also distort. The stall speed of WWII aircraft is about 120 km / h (~ 40 m / s). If he also managed to touch the water, then he lost another half speed. And here you compare a shell with a speed of 20 m \ s with a blow at the speed of sound? Yes, even with a significant view, are you trying to draw any conclusions from this !? Fuuuuuuu ....
  • Santa Fe 17 January 2020 00: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Saxahorse
    . The stall speed of WWII aircraft is about 120 km / h (~ 40 m / s).

    Kamikaze attacked at stall speed? fool

    Are they about to land?
  • Saxahorse 18 January 2020 00: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Kamikaze attacked at stall speed?

    If on the approach the plane clings to the water, then it barely holds in the air. Forgive him there, they’re not meeting me with flowers .. Even the photo shows that the right wing in the water is already broken, as well as the right landing gear. And you are delighted that in this form, crawling, he failed to break through the armor belt?

    Actually, this is a hit in a pillar at a speed of 60-70 km. If you don’t forget to fasten your seatbelt, you’ll also stay alive. And you compare it with a blow at a speed of 1193 km \ h?
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 04: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Saxahorse
    If on the approach the plane clings to the water, then it barely holds in the air.

    This means that the kamikaze pilot missed

    The wing struck the water, the plane "crashed" into the side at the waterline
  • Saxahorse 18 January 2020 23: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    The wing struck the water, the plane "crashed" into the side at the waterline

    No need to fantasize. To strike at a speed of 400 km \ h is instantly fly to pieces. Moreover, in this particular aircraft, underneath the landing gear are sticking out. How are you going to strike them at such a speed? They do not tighten up if that ..

    The picture is clear and obvious. A heavily damaged aircraft, and not a kamikaze, tried to ram the cruiser after being knocked out. It turned out badly, not enough speed. He is not a kamikaze, because there is no built-in charge with an explosion under impact. Otherwise, the cruiser would not get off with scratched paint.
  • Dooplet11 16 January 2020 14: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Kamikaze wasn’t completely wool, there was a motor in the bow - 600 kg of steel parts.

    - 600 kg metal details. Such a thin-walled box of decent size made of aluminum alloy, filled with metal parts. No, of course there are steel parts, the heaviest of which is a crankshaft weighing as much as ~ 40 kg, - at the moment of impact it is separated from the armor by a pillow from other small parts. Kamikaze is not cotton wool. Kamikaze - a bucket of bolts and gears.
  • Santa Fe 16 January 2020 19: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You are so ridiculously trying to convince yourself of the low strength of the 14-cylinder powertrain, the “thin-walled box”

    You probably didn't quite understand the context.
    There is no comparison of the Zusey motor with an iron-nickel meteorite. The subject of comparison - small-sized RCC Western-style

    Now in the same terms (“thin-walled box”, “pillow made of small parts”) try to describe RCC Harpoon.

    You can start like this: a plastic bucket with wires ...
    -----------
    And before you start about the small parts that separate the crankshaft at the time of the impact, first look at the radiolucent fairing and the radar homing system in the head of the harpoon. Behind which, however, there is no crankshaft mechanically difficult to separate from 14 connecting rods and pistons "made of aluminum"
  • Dooplet11 16 January 2020 20: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I looked that he writes about the warhead of Harpoon Ayrvar:
    The penetrating high-explosive fragmentation warhead WDU-18 / B (weight 222 kg, length 0,9 m) has an armored enclosure that prevents the destruction of warheads when meeting with an armored obstacle. The warhead is equipped with an actuating safety mechanism, a shock fuse and a non-contact fuse.

    I think that the penetrating ability of the armored hull (in the latest titanium versions) of the Harpoon warhead weighing 222 kg and transonic speed is still higher than the penetrating ability of a screw shaft weighing tens of kilograms and with a maximum speed of 600 km / h
  • Santa Fe 16 January 2020 20: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    PF warhead with an armored hull. Who wrote this))

    Of course, the warhead is enclosed in a shell so that it does not fall apart immediately upon contact with the board

    221 kg warhead contains 98 kg of Destex brand explosives.

    What are the bombs with a coefficient? filling 45%?
    still higher than

    Well, if we argue about the depth of the dent)))

    In all other cases, except for a strike perpendicular to the side, the Harpoon awaits a rebound. It will burst and fly off like the shell of an empty nut. Due to the location of the warhead (the only relatively strong element of its structure) in the middle of the case
    -------
    Let me remind you that the dispute is caused by the statement that armor penetration depends on energy and does not depend much on fur. properties. In fact - individually they mean nothing.

    Discussing kamikaze, the argument very quickly came to one engine, maybe to discuss the depth of the imprint from the wings, the chassis and the fuselage - no one has any desire)))
  • Dooplet11 17 January 2020 04: 54 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I remember what caused the argument. And I perfectly understand that the penetrating ability of an armored cylinder is 0,34x0.9m weighing 222 kg and is twice as fast with a coefficient. 0,45 more filling than a set of steel parts with a TOTAL weight of 600 kg and half the speed, connected by aluminum jumpers over an area of ​​0.8 m2 and a void coefficient of 0,8.
  • Liam 17 January 2020 14: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Maryland, after defeating the lead ships of the Japanese fleet, continued to patrol the strait until October 29. Then the battleship retreated to retrofit and refuel to the Admiral Islands in order to continue patrolling around Leyte on November 16, protecting the Marines from Japanese air strikes. On November 29, during another suicidal Kamikaze attack, Maryland was damaged. The plane crashed between 1 and 2 main-caliber towers, pierced the deck, 4-inch armored bulkheads, causing serious damage and fire. During this attack, 31 people died, another 30 were injured and the ship’s infirmary was destroyed
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 04: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Liam
    pierced the deck, 4-inch armored bulkheads, causing serious damage and fire

    Who wrote this, at least represented the Maryland device? laughing

    Which 4 inch bulkheads? What and what was pierced?

    The horizontal defense of all standard US battleships consisted of a main deck and a lower anti-shatter deck

    The main one is the “puff” of 12,7 mild structural steel and two layers of armor plates (2x38) = 89 mm
    In the process of modernization, the main deck on all battleships was reinforced with another layer of slabs - this is how 4-inches turned out. No other "four-inch bulkheads" in the construction of the battleship, in the interval between the main and upper deck could not be

    Here are the eyewitness accounts:


    He writes nothing about the plane - it exploded and fell apart on the upper deck
    An armor-piercing bomb flew down, which detonated on the main deck - in the cubicle l / s
    An eyewitness writes that the bomb exploded in the cockpit and immediately writes that she broke through the main deck. How did she break if she had exploded before that?
    This is an explosive explosive effect.

    (At the same time, the explosion could not penetrate the GP through - the bomb has a too small caliber and there is no description of damage below the GP. I believe that what the sailor saw was the disheveled upper part of the “puff” of armor plates. Further, eyewitnesses describe only the destroyed cubicles and the medical unit - they were all ABOVE the main deck)

    The example of kamikaze getting into Maryend - does not correspond at all to the topic of armor penetration of air attack weapons - on the example of kamikaze

    Kamikaze plane did not hit the armor
  • Liam 18 January 2020 08: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Two kamikaze chose the light cruiser Columbia as their target. One of the planes crashed into the sea next to the ship, a few hours later the other crashed into its gun turret at high speed, shot through three decks and exploded inside the ship. The plane almost got into the artillery cellars, which would lead to the inevitable death of the cruiser..
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 09: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And the tower, and as many as three decks? Struck!

    We look at the report:

    Kamikaze did not hit the tower, but on the upper deck.
    The wreckage of the plane and engine pierced only the upper (unarmored) deck and stuck

    800 kg bomb pierced two more decks below, which is quite common for a bomb of this size
    It’s hard to say whether the armor met on its way, the Citadel of KRL “Cleveland” just ended right after tower No. 4. In any case, 51 mm of armor for such a bomb - did not represent a barrier

    Kamikaze a lot of armor and this time did not break. Even the next, lower (also unarmored) deck has not been mastered))) Although it seems, the dive, indicate that he flew at high speed
  • Liam 18 January 2020 11: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As you can see, not only the paint was scratched and the silhouettes on the asphalt were left)
    I understand that you have a theory and therefore it is necessary to deny everything that does not fit.
    The fact is that tens of thousands of major experts around the world at the same time after the war abandoned their armor at sea, simply because they proved their failure against air bombs and torpedoes, even then) .The current ones are many times more powerful and more accurate than those.
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 11: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Liam
    I understand that you have a theory and therefore it is necessary to deny everything that does not fit.

    Bring at least one factwhen bombs and shells are equivalent in mass and coefficient. filling warheads of modern missiles inflicted significant damage when meeting with armor of at least 100 mm thickness

    Just find that fact
    I still haven't found
    Quote: Liam
    armor on the sea. Just because it has proved its worth against air bombs and torpedoes

    Constructive protection completed its tasks

    Maybe the reason was something else?
  • Liam 18 January 2020 19: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    How many mm of armor do different Cornets, Fanots, TOUs and other Javelins penetrate? And what is their mass, the mass of their warheads compared to RCC?
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 23: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    These are cumulative ammunition, they will not do anything to ships

    Cornets and TOU are dangerous only for tanks, where in a tightly booked volume bored weapons, people and fuel

    The ship immediately overboard has nothing important. Therefore, you can make holes in the board
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Santa Fe 19 January 2020 06: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Funny fake.
    Here is the original -

    There was not much margin, however, and if the tests were carried
    out with the bomb separated from the main deck sys¬
    has by the three light decks of the superstructure,
    success could not be achieved.
    but if the bomb detonates
    on top of the superstructure the jet must travel 24
    ft through air before it has a chance to work on the
    main part of the target. Even the 2,000-lb size [900 kg bomb !!!] When
    tested oil a model scale could not defeat the battle
    ship target with superstructure.

    AN-M65 1,000-lb (IP bomb eases were cut apart
    10 in. back from the nose, and the cones were welded
    in place. The base of the cone was thus about 10 in.
    from the nose of the bomb. The bombs were loaded
    with about 130 lb of Composition B. This represents
    a 28 Jo decrease in the load of 505 lb of Composition
    B contained in the standard AN-M65 1,000-lb bomb.

    ... were tested statically at Dahlgren ... In some of the tests, the
    space representing the hold of the ship contained
    drums of diesel oil; in others this space contained
    bombs loaded with east TNT

    Against the target without superstructure, the results were generally suc
    cessful ... In agreement with
    the results of the model tests, the bombs could not
    defeat the target with superstructure. This is a very
    serious drawback to the effectiveness of these bombs,
    since over two-thirds of the deck area is covered by
    superstructure.
    In agreement also with the small-
    scale test results, the 2,000-lb shaped-charge bomb
    was ineffective against the target with superstructure.


    link https://archive.org/stream/DTIC_AD0221595/DTIC_AD0221595_djvu.txt
    chapter 3, p. 51

    These tests did not open America - the cumulative charge is dangerous only when placing combustible / explosive materials immediately behind the barrier. Against such a large target as a ship, with a system of internal decks and bulkheads = you can forget about cumulative

    I’ll add on my own that the diameter of the cumulative hole is practically not related to the mass of the charge and depends only on the diameter (usually 0,2 caliber), and the cumulatively high-explosive charges do not exist in nature (just as there is no armor-piercing shrapnel or anti-aircraft anchor mines). The cumulative effect is performed under a severe combination of conditions - otherwise it is a high-explosive directed explosion.
  • Liam 19 January 2020 10: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    and high-explosive cumulative charges do not exist in nature

    Penguin Mk.3
    "High-explosive cumulative warhead"
    http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/pkr/penguin.html

    "The Kh-15S missile is equipped with a high-explosive cumulative warhead weighing 150 kg"
    http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/raduga/kh/15/kh15.htm


    P-6 / P-35
    "The missiles were equipped with a high explosive-cumulative warhead 4G-48 (weight 800-1000kg), developed in NII-6, or a special warhead."
    http://www.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/p35/p35.shtml

    P-70 Amethyst
    "High-explosive-cumulative or nuclear warhead"
    http://ship.bsu.by/main.asp?id=1000055

    P-500 Basalt
    "According to the aerodynamic and structural layout, the P-500 was similar to the P-6, but had a higher flight speed, increased firing range and a more powerful explosive-cumulative warhead, designed in GSKB-47."
    http://ship.bsu.by/main.asp?id=1000025
  • Santa Fe 19 January 2020 10: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The cumulative effect is performed under a severe combination of conditions - otherwise it is a high-explosive directed explosion

    high explosive cumulative is like a little pregnant

    "at an approach speed of 800 m / s the area of ​​the hole was 22 sq. m, and the internal compartments of the ships were burned by a cumulative jet to a depth of 12 m" (from the description of the HE-22 high-explosive cumulative warhead)

    22 sq. meters - this is a directed explosion of 630 kg of explosives
    I do not know why in articles on military equipment they are called explosive-cumulative. Probably a beautiful word
  • Liam 19 January 2020 11: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, call it what you want. The fact is that they pierce and burn tens of meters.
  • Santa Fe 19 January 2020 11: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Liam
    pierce and burn tens of meters.

    This is the Soviet X-22 did. with b / h 1000 kg

    And there’s nothing to punch there, the purpose of the defense was not
  • Saxahorse 19 January 2020 19: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    high explosive cumulative is like a little pregnant

    This is apparently what Tomahawk Block Vb is currently selling, Egorov calls them tandem warheads. Ahead is a cumulative precharge softening the armor several meters ahead, followed by a powerful, penetrating warhead, designed to explode inside the protected space.
  • Dooplet11 16 January 2020 20: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    hard to separate from 14 connecting rods and pistons "aluminum"
    - You agree that the engine is not 600 kg steel? Now, would you still agree that a crankshaft strike with connecting rods and pistons compared to a Harpoon warhead strike is like a strike with a spread palm compared to a fist strike.
  • Santa Fe 16 January 2020 21: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And do you agree that a “700 kg” missile (weight as a 14dm projectile) is in fact only its warhead. Everything else does not participate in the process of breaking through, turning into crumbly


    “There were three holes on the attacked board - one large, the largest fuselage of the projectile, and two small ones, the diameter of the cargo at the ends of its wings. The wings of the shell were cut off like scissors.An exit with an area of ​​more than 10 square meters was breaking out at the exit. However, the "Red Caucasus" remained afloat and continued to move in a circle. ”

    Upper belt KK - 25 mm
    ------
    With that disparate quantity, mass and density of massive parts weighing tens of kg - compared to microchips and thin-shell RP of the warhead of Harpoon

    A blow with an engine is just a blow with a clenched fist
  • Dooplet11 17 January 2020 05: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And do you agree that a “700 kg” missile (weight as a 14dm projectile) is in fact only its warhead. Everything else does not participate in the process of breaking through, turning into crumbly
    - I agree.
    thin-walled warhead harpoon warhead
    - Do you have a drawing of a thin-shell warhead Harpoon weighing 123 kg of armored steel 0,34x0,9? I would like to see where she has thin!
    A blow with an engine is just a blow with a clenched fist
    - friable cam. Compared to the Harpoon warhead (in my opinion).
  • Dooplet11 17 January 2020 11: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I will illustrate the "fists":

    Red, - steel engine parts, blue, - aluminum connection between them. Green, - Harpoon shell under condition of uniform distribution of thickness, yellow, - BB. All to scale
    What do we have? Between the steel elements of the engine are solid "energy-absorbing elements." Right fist in a boxing glove. As for the Harpoon warhead, the shell is most likely not equally thick, and its front part is not a fact that it is flat and in full diameter, and even in these sources:
    https://modernforces.ru/agm-84a/
    http://www.militaryparitet.com/nomen/usa/rocket/data/ic_nomenusarocket/13/
    Harpoon warhead is indicated as cumulative.
    And in this:
    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2004-12-17/6_kalibr.html
    as semi-armor-high explosive.
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 03: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Green, - Harpoon casing provided that the thickness is evenly distributed

    Q.E.D)))

    Thanks for the work done, Alexander, a great example
    There is such a small thickness that if you don’t change the shape, nothing will change much
    Quote: Dooplet11
    Between the steel elements of the engine solid "energy-absorbing elements"

    "Energy-absorbing elements" in density and hardness surpass any harpoon filling
    Quote: Dooplet11
    Harpoon warhead is indicated as cumulative.

    Get a hole in the board, with a diameter of 0,2 gauge))
  • Dooplet11 18 January 2020 08: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    There is such a small thickness that if you don’t change the shape, nothing will change much

    - reminds your slogans about the speed of bombs and the Luftwaffe experience that drowned in Lamansch. No warhead drawings? With a certain change in shape, the 23mm equally distributed shell easily becomes 80mm. But that is not all. BB also has penetrative ability. Unlike engine voids.
    in density and hardness surpass any harpoon filling
    - they are unlikely to exceed the density and hardness of the warhead shell. And when they hit the armor, they will not hold the steel parts of the engine as a unit.
    Get a hole in the board, with a diameter of 0,2 gauge))
    - In any board? And what is overboard? What is the armor action? And in any case, this is a hole. laughing
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 09: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You have given enough reasons that the speed of bombs when dropped from 2000 is close to 200 m / s. Only in the case of attacked ships does this change anything. And on the go, in the open sea, attacks were carried out from much lower heights
    Quote: Dooplet11
    With a certain change in shape, the 23mm equally distributed shell easily becomes 80mm

    Crack like an empty nut
    It’s impossible to make armor-piercing from a bomb, as you don’t change the shape
    Quote: Dooplet11
    Unlike engine voids.

    It weighs almost 600 kg
    And every detail has a mechanical connection with the rest
    Quote: Dooplet11
    And when they hit the armor, they will not hold the steel parts of the engine as one

    Harpoon warheads will undoubtedly remain as a whole
    Quote: Dooplet11
    And what is overboard?

    It's nothing.
    A ship is not a tank. No flammable or explosive materials immediately behind
    Therefore, tanks can withstand "several RPG hits" - until the hot stream touches the fuel and ammunition
    Quote: Dooplet11
    And anyway, it's a hole

    It will rain water will flow laughing
  • Dooplet11 18 January 2020 10: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Only in the case of attacked ships does this change anything.
    - except for penetration.
    And on the go, in the open sea, attacks were carried out from much lower heights
    - Firstly, not a fact, and secondly, "Only in the case of attacked ships does this change anything." (with)
    Crack like an empty nut
    - Another slogan.
    It’s impossible to make armor-piercing from a bomb, as you don’t change the shape
    - from a land mine, - no. And with the initial design penetrating ammunition, - Yes
    It weighs almost 600 kg
    And every detail has a mechanical connection with the rest
    - The whole question is the strength of these bonds when hitting an obstacle.
    Harpoon warheads will undoubtedly remain as a whole
    - Of course not. One of the fuses will fire and fragments of the shell will acquire an additional impulse. The impact of the shock wave will be added to the fragments. Could this happen to the engine? Obviously, no.
    It will rain water will flow laughing
    - Let me remind you of the essence of our discussion with you. You put forward the slogan that the engine is 600kg of steel and it is cooler to break through than the Harpoon warhead. I allowed myself to disagree with either the first or the second. hi
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 11: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Dooplet11
    - except for penetration.

    40-50 m / s gives nothing significant
    The shells that were seriously trying to break through the defense of the ships had a large factor of speed
    Quote: Dooplet11
    Firstly, not a fact

    Another fact
    Quote: Dooplet11
    And in the initial design of penetrating ammunition, yes

    The design of penetrating ammunition cannot be carried out according to the standards for high explosive.

    Otherwise, the creators of BB shells with a coefficient. filling 2% were wrong and did not understand the technique at all

    If you give an example of armor-piercing Fritz-X with a coefficient of filling of 30%, then first check out the size of the bomb itself. Introduce modern anti-ship missiles with warheads over 1000 kg ?? They will launch from Baikonur)))))
    Quote: Dooplet11
    One of the fuses will fire and fragments of the shell will acquire an additional impulse. The impact of the shock wave will be added to the fragments.

    Those. explosion on the armor. Yes, such an explosion can displace several 100 mm armor plates and deform a dozen frames (unless of course the creators of the modern armored destroyer can guess to include plates in the power pack).

    Saboteurs of the X flotilla considered such a result for the lack of result. Therefore, a cracking boat with a submersible charge was used against the KR "York". Say - in vain? You could just swim up and detonate the bomb near the waist armor
    _____

    The goal is not to maintain the integrity of the armor. Armor is a means. The enemy needs to damage not the armor, but the ship’s mechanisms and systems located within a dozen meters behind it. And here 90% of NATO anti-ship weapons are waiting for a bummer
  • Dooplet11 18 January 2020 11: 58 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    40-50 m / s gives nothing significant
    The shells, which seriously tried to break through the defense of the ships, were many times faster

    The kinetic energy of a bomb at 150m / s and at 200m / s differs 1,78 times. But the bomb can drop at a speed of 300m / s, but then the kinetic energy is already 4 times more. So, a trifle! wink Oh, and by the way, at a distance of 10000-20000m, the shells were unlikely to have a speed greater at times 300m / s
    Another fact
    - then a fact in the studio! From what height did mobile targets bomb in the sea and in what way?
    The design of penetrating ammunition cannot be carried out according to the standards for high explosive.
    - naturally! With what we designers Harpoon and congratulations!
    Those. explosion on the armor. Yes, such an explosion can displace several 100 mm armor plates and deform a dozen frames
    - Unlike the engine (this goes back to the essence of the discussion wink )
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 12: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Dooplet11
    The kinetic energy of a bomb at 150m / s and at 200m / s differs 1,78 times.

    Shells that seriously tried to break through ship protection had a great speed at times
    Quote: Dooplet11
    From what height did mobile targets bomb in the sea and in what way?

    Dive

    Bombing from horizontal flight on moving targets from a height had no result. All who have tried, repeated the exploits of the B-17 at Midway
    Quote: Dooplet11
    With what we designers Harpoon and congratulations!

    And what do you say to the designers of armor-piercing shells of the WWII era?

    Dumb?
    Quote: Dooplet11
    - Unlike the engine

    But the idea of ​​an armored destroyer has nothing to do with kamikaze rams
  • Dooplet11 18 January 2020 12: 28 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The shells, which seriously tried to break through the defense of the ships, were many times faster
    - 1. greater than 150 or 200, or 300? 2. What specifically did the speed of the shells when meeting with the armor of the ship? 3. How did the mass of these shells compare with the mass of bombs?
    Dive
    - then to the speed of the bomb, gained in the fall from a lower 2000m height, we must safely add the speed of the carrier during the reset (vector, of course!)
    And what do you say to the designers of armor-piercing shells of the WWII era
    - What should I tell them? "Envy the post-knowledge and experimental capabilities of post-war designers?"
    But the idea of ​​an armored destroyer has nothing to do with kamikaze rams
    Undoubtedly! But how does the idea of ​​an armored destroyer relate to the assertion that an aircraft engine of the Second World War = 600 kg of steel, and is it cooler than the Harpoon warhead?
  • Dooplet11 18 January 2020 10: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2

    It’s impossible to make armor-piercing from a bomb, as you don’t change the shape
    .
    Harpoon warheads will undoubtedly remain as a whole

    For example, the Exocet warhead looks like this (pos. 5):

    All my engineering experience suggests that Harpoon warheads look similar.
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 11: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Looks and what's next
    165 kg, filling 30%. How much wall thickness, again 2 centimeters?

    Bombs with such parameters, nothing more serious than the horizontal armor of the "negotiated" cruisers for the entire war, did not penetrate
  • Dooplet11 18 January 2020 11: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Looks and what's next

    Farther? I will return you to the essence of my objections:
    Let me remind you of the essence of our discussion with you. You put forward the slogan that the engine is 600kg of steel and it is cooler to break through than the Harpoon warhead. I allowed myself to disagree with either the first or the second.
    - Something like this.
    Bombs with such parameters, nothing more serious than the horizontal armor of the "negotiated" cruisers for the entire war, did not penetrate
    - brave claim.
  • Santa Fe 18 January 2020 11: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Kamikaze was just a fun example. It shows the trend well, which means getting into the protected side of the aircraft. It can be criticized for its low speed, but its design should not be underestimated. Hundreds of kg of metal in the bow, almost three times the mass of warheads of perfect missiles.
    Quote: Dooplet11
    - brave claim.

    Well now your right to refute this with examples
  • Dooplet11 18 January 2020 12: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Hundreds of kg of metal in the bow, almost three times the mass of warheads of perfect missiles.
    - according to the mass of explosives in the warhead? Or high hardness steel?
    Well now your right to refute this with examples
    - not all stupidity requires a refutation.
  • Saxahorse 18 January 2020 00: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Dooplet11
    And do you agree that a “700 kg” missile (weight as a 14dm projectile) is in fact only its warhead. Everything else does not participate in the process of breaking through, turning into crumbly
    - I agree.

    --- But I do not agree. The entire mass of the rocket is directly involved in the penetration. And hereafter, in the breach, a warhead and a fragment of a missile fragment slip through. All these fragments did not just turn into a crumb, but previously transferred their part of the kinetic energy in front of the standing elements.

    An armor-piercing bullet with a core also pierces with one core, but it carries the total energy of the entire mass of the bullet.
  • Dooplet11 18 January 2020 08: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    but it carries the total energy of the entire mass of the bullet.
    - here you sin against physics. But the core takes away part of the energy of the shell mass. But only a part.
  • Saxahorse 18 January 2020 23: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Dooplet11
    - here you sin against physics. But the core takes away part of the energy of the shell mass. But only a part.

    Sin, I do not argue. But this part depends on the layout. In the case of an airplane, when the structure is voluminous and sweeping, only part of the total mass will work in the direction of the impact vector. But in the case of a rocket, where all the masses are pulled into the string, almost all the kinetic energy of the structure will work as a plus.

    The ancients knew a lot about perversions; it was no accident that the ancient triremes designed for ramming had a fantastic elongation of 10-12 units.
  • bk0010 14 January 2020 01: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Undermining the warhead of the Western anti-ship missiles on the armor will not do anything - they knew it during the war, so the Italians created a submerging charge, because the explosion at the armored belt
    So the armored belt was much more solid, and explosives - much less. I have suspicions (not supported by documents, just the impression) that if a TGA half-ton is blown up on the TKR armored belt, this belt will turn into striking elements, or at least the entire armored plate will fly inside, destroy the contents of the ship.
    1. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 01: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So the armored belt was much more solid, and explosives - much less.

      Both assumptions are incorrect.
      British cruisers belt thickness was less than 100 mm
      Submersible charges contained hundreds of kg of explosives

      Read about the attack on the cruiser "York", there is the answer to all your questions
  • Saxahorse 12 January 2020 19: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Then answer - why ground armored vehicles didn’t go out of fashion

    I join the opinion of the previous commentator and want to add. Just heavy armored vehicles are beginning to go out of fashion. Both the Merkavas and the Abrams and Leopards have already shown helplessness against modern ATGMs. Recent discussions have been around heavy infantry fighting vehicles and active defense. Moreover, even when talking about MBTs, they begin to evaluate the caliber of the guns in much of the discussion - but how large can the ATGM be launched through this barrel?

    Guided weapons and heavy tanks definitely puts an end to. No one will go to them face to face, exchange uranium scrap. Clogged from closed or remote positions with guided or homing missiles.
    1. bk0010 12 January 2020 20: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Guided weapons and heavy tanks definitely puts an end to.
      I do not agree: the appearance of guided weapons caused a crisis on the combat platform in all areas (ships (the boat failed the destroyer), airplanes (an infantryman shots down an attack aircraft from MANPADS), ground equipment (ATGMs and cluster munitions)). But for some reason only tanks are buried. A simple question: what is in their place? What will you fight? Again, roll a cannon-colonel to support the infantry? Or walk through the "lesion"? And who will go behind the fire shaft? BMP?
      1. Saxahorse 12 January 2020 21: 11 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: bk0010
        But for some reason only tanks are buried. A simple question: what is in their place?

        Instead of MBT, the same tanks and a new generation of infantry fighting vehicles. You correctly write that there is a bunch of infantry weapons that require protection in the form of armor. But it is no less correct that armor is no longer an absolute defense. Hence the new generation of infantry fighting vehicles protecting from at least 12.7, and heavy infantry fighting vehicles capable of holding 23-35 mm autocannons common as an auxiliary infantry weapon.

        From heavy ATGMs, there is no armor protection in principle, only anti-weapons are active systems of both a passive (air curtain) and an active plan (anti-missile). Heavy and inactive tanks in such a system are ineffective. But pay attention to the renaissance of light tanks! The idea is that active armor needs a fairly serious lining, it cannot be marked on an armored personnel carrier. Moreover, it is quite useful against relatively light weapons like RPGs and ATGMs of the first generations. Moreover, the tank gun thing is more than useful, again, against infantry targets and light fortifications.

        I do not want to say that all tanks will finally disappear from the battlefield, the need for their heaviest and most armored versions has simply disappeared, just as the need for armored monsters, battleships, has disappeared into the sea. Destroyers reign on the sea today, on land the time has come for light tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
        1. CommanderDIVA 12 January 2020 22: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "On land, the time has come for light tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles" - exactly, but the work on robots like "Uranus" and T-15 just fit into this topic
        2. bk0010 13 January 2020 00: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          A light tank will not replace the MBT because it is not able to fulfill one of the main tasks of the tank: to go 100 m behind the fire shaft (well, or through the epicenter). And for that, and for another, serious armor is needed (at least in front). I don’t like the idea of ​​a heavy infantry fighting vehicle: well, you shouldn’t drag troops to where tank armor is needed for survival, he needs to go outside, and it’s so bad there. Yes, and if the BMP is like a tank (but with tank armor and a tank gun it doesn’t work out differently), then you need to take a tank.
          1. Santa Fe 13 January 2020 02: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: bk0010
            A light tank will not replace the MBT because it is not able to fulfill one of the main tasks of the tank

            How many words, what a long discussion from a simple question:
            Quote: Santa Fe
            why ground armored vehicles didn’t go out of fashion

            Gentlemen, you do not see the essence in your disputes

            Ground armored vehicles fights daily - and therefore is constantly being improved

            Sea battles did not happen for 70 years. The fleet has become a beautiful picture and a unit of the Ministry of Emergencies.

            In times of rocket euphoria, it came to ships with an aluminum superstructure and cables openly laid on its outer surface. A couple of attacks in Vietnam and the Falklands quickly changed approaches, no talk of cost-effectiveness, now only steel. After each new attack on ships (a phenomenon very rare these days) - it follows a series of changes, with the addition of constructive protection

            The first major naval battle of the 21st century will surpass Jutland in its influence on the minds and tactics. The level of losses will be considered unacceptable, all eyes on the design of ships will be watched
          2. max702 13 January 2020 10: 41 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: bk0010
            A light tank will not replace the MBT because it is not able to fulfill one of the main tasks of the tank: to go 100 m behind the fire shaft (well, or through the epicenter).

            When was the fire shaft used for the last time? How many decades ago? And will there be at least one application in the coming decades? Here, similar to battleships, they were built counting on a battle in a line BUT there were no such battles .. The same story with the AUG and the cover of the deployment of the SSBNs all prepare for them but fight committed in other conflicts .. The light tank is somewhat utopian, especially on the basis of Octopus it’s painfully flimsy, a little heavier capable of holding at least 30mm and explosions in 5m-155mm shells yes .. But it seems to me that again we will approach the dimension t-72 ..
            1. bk0010 13 January 2020 22: 31 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: max702
              And will there be at least one application in the coming decades?
              What if it will be? Indeed, the enemy will not always be so weaker that his defense will not have to be suppressed by artillery. Here, the Americans, based on their experience of the war, created brigades on the Strikers, were happy to the point: they were not so expensive, they were easy to transfer, the enemy could not cope with them (and the one that could, Abrams, too, would manage). And then suddenly - Ukraine. And in the clashes, suddenly, artillery spoke again. the Americans clutched their heads, began to rebuild heavy teams: Strikers in such conditions are victims. No need to follow their path, fraught.
              1. max702 13 January 2020 23: 38 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: bk0010
                And then suddenly - Ukraine. And in the clashes, suddenly, artillery spoke again. the Americans clutched their heads,

                Oppa .. C'mon .. Ukraine .. But nothing about the conflict of the USSR? Who is it then? One US insisted army hoping that there the Zulus suddenly ran into another USSR army ... And why? It’s clear that there was no one waiting for such a reaction, and they started a database with a fool .. Died .. And what? In the USA, when it comes to their brains, everything is fine, but all sorts of worthless things
          3. Saxahorse 13 January 2020 22: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: bk0010
            one of the main tasks of the tank: to go 100 m behind the fire shaft (well, or through the epicenter). And for that, and for another, serious armor is needed (at least in front).

            Shatterproof armor is 25 mm. This is not enough for a tank, it should also keep the enemy BMP autocannons, and this is a minimum of 40 mm. Well, it’s even more useless, unless dynamic protection from above from RPG-7 and KAZ from ATGMs. In fact, this is the level of the T-55 or the latest Chinese "mountain" tanks.
            1. bk0010 14 January 2020 01: 01 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I agree, the T-55 is the minimum. And one more thing: I have a strong feeling that the price of the entire T-55 is less than the price of one Javelin.
    2. Santa Fe 13 January 2020 02: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Just heavy armored vehicles are beginning to go out of fashion

      Your conclusion does not correspond to the observed situation

      The mass and security of armored vehicles is only growing. And there are many new designs - from Almaty to heavy Israeli armored personnel carriers
      1. Saxahorse 13 January 2020 23: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Your conclusion does not match the observed situation.
        The mass and security of armored vehicles is only growing.

        And the limit has already been passed. Israeli Merkava with its mass of almost 70 tons is the limit of mobility, the tank will not find the train even harder. transportation platforms and bridges for movement. And while the Merkavas suffered huge losses in Lebanon from the Cornets.

        This was the end of the mass growth, today interest is concentrated around KAZ of different types and not at all the thickness of the armor of new tanks. The Chinese won their "mountain" tank. And we are supplying the T-55 with might and main to Syria, and there are enough of them.
        1. Santa Fe 13 January 2020 23: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Today, interest is concentrated around KAZ of various types and not at all the thickness of the armor of new tanks

          The observed situation does not confirm this.

          All major players are developing a new generation of MBT. Which still has powerful structural protection

          And it was not about evolution and mass growth, but the fact of widespread use of BTT in any conflicts now and everywhere
          1. Golovan Jack 13 January 2020 23: 25 New
            • 7
            • 2
            +5
            Quote: Santa Fe
            All major players are developing a new generation of MBT. Which still has powerful structural protection

            Dear Author,

            Well, why bother the battleships - which were discussed in the article, with some kind of tank?

            I'm a little closer to the tanks just)))
            1. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 00: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I had a question - why the availability of funds capable of destroying any tank with one or two hits did not lead to the abandonment of Btt

              On the contrary, ground-based armored vehicles are in their prime. Mounted armor kits, modular protection, the appearance of tracked heavy armored personnel carriers and the development of armatures
              1. Saxahorse 14 January 2020 00: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe
                why the availability of funds capable of destroying any tank with one or two hits did not lead to the abandonment of Btt

                Well, so it led! They have long been talking about the death of MBT! See for yourself how old Abrams or Leopard is. Nothing new has appeared over the past 30 years ..
              2. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 01: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And let them say further, but in battle - always armored vehicles

                Armata and T-90 appeared. The Germans and Franks announced the development of the new generation MGCS
            2. Golovan Jack 14 January 2020 08: 02 New
              • 6
              • 2
              +4
              Quote: Santa Fe
              why the availability of funds capable of destroying any tank with one or two hits did not lead to the abandonment of Btt

              Because you still have to get there. At least once ))). And this is not at all as simple and linear as it is drawn in a video.

              Battleship, IMHO - is still a much more vulnerable thing: it is much more difficult, “has something to hook”, and the terrain is not available to him ... IMHO, I repeat - I have never been a marine.

              Thanks for the answer, I heard you hi
            3. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 08: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Golovan Jack
              Battleship, IMHO - the thing is still much more vulnerable

              Are you really

              The reserved volume of the tank is five cubic meters. m. The reserved volume of the ship is estimated at tens of thousands of cubic meters. m
            4. Golovan Jack 14 January 2020 08: 51 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +5
              Quote: Santa Fe
              The reserved volume of the tank is five cubic meters. m. The reserved volume of the ship is estimated at tens of thousands of cubic meters. m

              Damn ... don't act like that laughing

              The large cupboard falls louder. A watch is much more vulnerable than a hammer. This is an analogy, if that. On the water - you hide a vegetable, again ...

              I can continue, but I see no reason. I already expressed my IMHU yes
            5. Santa Fe 14 January 2020 08: 53 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Golovan Jack
              A watch is much more vulnerable than a hammer

              And here is a clock and a hammer
              Quote: Golovan Jack
              I can continue, but I see no reason.

              Given the level of discussion, I also don’t see the point in it.
            6. Golovan Jack 14 January 2020 08: 54 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +5
              Quote: Santa Fe
              And here is a clock and a hammer

              Tank versus battleship, in complexity and vulnerabilities products are not even a hammer. This is a blank for this.

              A tank, for example, is extremely difficult to burn even with a major overhaul (remember Kuznetsov, think about it) wink

              Quote: Santa Fe
              Given the level of discussion, I also don’t see the point in it.

              Ok mutually hi
  • CommanderDIVA 12 January 2020 17: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The death of Sinano is described in great detail in the memoirs of Commander Inright, Commander of Archer Fish, US Navy torpedoed an aircraft carrier, in 1946, the US and Japanese technical commissions called the death of the ship from four torpedoes falling into the initially defective connection between the anti-armor on the hull and anti-torpedo on the underwater part of the aircraft carrier, so here is 100 percent the "golden bullet"
    1. Tavrik 12 January 2020 21: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I read Inright. Well, after all, a man spent the whole war in the rear, and then went camping - and such luck. Exactly, the "golden bullet."
  • Taoist 12 January 2020 20: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Again Kaptsov, again armor and battleships ...
    - He wonders about such a thing as the war economy heard?
    Yes, of course, a large warship protected by armor (And most importantly, having a trained crew ready to fight for survivability) has quite impressive survivability ... But here's one interesting question - what for goat bayan? A warship does not exist in a vacuum, it must carry out certain well-defined combat missions, and taking into account the cost of building and maintaining the "super dreadnought", using it as a raider or guarding convoys is, to put it mildly, unprofitable ... But more as it turned out, there were no tasks for them .. .. The battleships left the stage not because they were not powerful enough ... but because there were no tasks for such ships ... And they will not be able to be reborn in any of their forms before the corresponding prerequisites appear ... Well, taking into account the fact that physics is all Always on the side of active protection in front of the passive, then the chances of it are less than nothing ...
  • Tavrik 12 January 2020 21: 42 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Santa Fe
    I just gave an example that it’s easiest to protect communications - retractable antennas, 21st century compact communications devices

    Not at all. By type of communication:
    Satellite parabolic antennas, together with a gyro platform, an auto tracking and guidance system, a receiver and a power amplifier (LNA and BUC) are located outside, under a radiolucent compaction. If not a parabola, but a phased array (HEADLIGHT) - the same thing. One shard is enough to incapacitate them. I can’t imagine how to remove them together with the platform. Plus not everywhere they can be placed.
    HF radio communication for the lower part of the range has IOP antennas, such “sausages” of cables. You can't hide these at all. But in the event of a cliff, they are easily repaired by communication heroes (I recall "New Year's Shame"). For the upper part of the range can be "pins". They know how to clean.
    VHF radio in the part of the antennas is normal. Different pin can be removed and extended.
    By the way, and in a combat situation, how do you propose to push and pull the antennas? On schedule or as needed? I think that normal signalmen put forward everything that is possible so that at least some channel works.
    Compact communications - it is possible. Only range is limited.
    1. bk0010 13 January 2020 00: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Tavrik
      I can’t imagine how to remove them together with the platform.
      Like P404 antennas (rather, even an antenna car from a 4-machine version of P414). Pedestal on a retractable arched structure. A few pieces per ship (at least the main and backup). Plus, civilian cheap radar and civilian cheap communication antennas for peacetime (installed stationary), so as not to ditch the resource of expensive military systems ahead of time and not lose them in case of a sudden terrorist attack.
  • Mustached Kok 26 January 2020 00: 01 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Thanks to the author for the article. But still I would like clarification.
    Firstly, what exactly from the experience of the past should be emphasized by modern shipbuilders?
    And secondly - and where are the benefits calculated from such ships when they are used? After all, all the examples of successful survival presented in the article do not say how much the fleet in the region has weakened, having lost a large ship for the time of repair. And is it economically and logically profitable to create ships that after each battle need to be repaired for 2-6 months.
    Wouldn't it be the best solution to build a series of weaker and cheaper, but numerous ships?
    It is very interesting to look at the continuation, but taking into account these issues.
    Thanks again to the author, I look forward to continuing!