Warships. Cruisers. Error in working on errors


A strange feeling from this ship. It seems like working on errors, but there are even more errors than in work. They began to build the ship after the cruisers of the Zara project, but completely without taking into account the experience of building and operating ships. Bolzano rather turned out as a return to Trento, and there is a logical explanation for this.


On the one hand, two Trentos and four Zaras are quite normally divided into two, that is, two divisions of heavy cruisers. In fact, five, because the cruiser "Paul" was originally designed as the flagship of cruising (but in fact it was an acting linear) fleetso I definitely needed another ship.

Separation, albeit minimal, existed among the Italian heavy cruisers. Trento were easier and a bit quicker. Therefore, a ship was needed to match it. Therefore, Bolzano was planned as the third in a pair to Trento and Trieste. But with improvements, since the Zary had already been built by then.

Warships. Cruisers. Error in working on errors

The priority of the design was speed, and they did not play with a displacement like that of Zara. But they began to facilitate the ship wherever possible. The result was a "Trento" with a front superstructure, powerplant and weapons from the "Zara".

We also revised the survivability control system. The reservation was left like that of Trento. Reduced ammunition, both the main caliber and the auxiliary.

The main caliber of the cruiser consisted of eight 203-mm guns of the 1929 model, similar to those installed on cruisers of the Zara type.


The main caliber fire control system remained the same as on the rest of the heavy cruisers. The universal caliber consisted of 16 100 mm guns (8 double-barreled installations), a fire control system of the same type as on Zara cruisers. Anti-aircraft artillery habitually consisted of four 40-mm anti-aircraft guns, eight (4 paired units) 13,2 mm machine guns.

Unlike the Zara cruisers, torpedo weapons for the sake of relief were not eliminated. Eight 533-mm units (four two-pipe units) placed in the same way as on Trento-class cruisers.

With a catapult located on the bow in front of the main-caliber tower, adopted on Italian large ships in the 1920s, they were still tormented by the Trento. Therefore, at Bolzano it was decided to apply a different solution. The cruiser was equipped with a Gagnetto rotary ejection system, which was placed between the chimneys on the boat deck and could be rotated at a certain angle (up to 30 ° on each side) from the diametrical plane.


Aircraft were mounted on a catapult and rose from the water with the help of an arrow, which was abandoned at Dawn altogether. The arrow was attached to the base of the main mast. According to the project, the cruiser was supposed to take three aircraft. The hangar was no longer provided at all, so one plane was stored directly on the catapult, and two more - on special sites on the sides of the front pipe. In reality, the cruiser carried no more than two seaplanes.


Initially, the Piaggio P.6ter was located on the cruiser, and in 1937 they were replaced by IMAM Ro.43.

The crew totaled 725 people.

In the process of service, anti-aircraft artillery was constantly improved, all heavy cruisers were constantly equipped with air defense systems, following the development aviation.


In 1937, 2 aft 100-mm installations were removed from the cruiser. Instead, they appeared two pairs of 37 mm anti-aircraft guns. Further, the crews of the cruisers, without regret, said goodbye to the licensed Vickers 40-mm Pom-Pomami, installing instead of obsolete machine guns and large-caliber machine guns anti-aircraft guns with a caliber of 37 mm and 20 mm. By 1942, the number of anti-aircraft guns at Bolzano was increased to 16 barrels, which was insufficient, but could not be compared with the original equipment.

Together with the obsolete and useless 40-mm machine guns from the main mast were removed the fire control tower of the auxiliary caliber fire. Instead, manual 1,5-meter rangefinders began to be used. At the same time, the rangefinders were installed on the cruiser in towers No. 1 and No. 4, which made it possible to conduct towering and independently of other towers.

And the latest innovation. Just before the start of the war, two 120 mm "O.T.O." howitzers were added to the cruiser, designed for firing lighting shells (ammunition - 120 shells per barrel). The guns were placed behind the first chimney.


In tests in December 1932, the Bolzano showed a record speed of 36,81 knots. But we were in no hurry to applaud and admire; it was a sin not to disperse like that. The ship lacked artillery, ammunition and fire control devices.

In June 1933, a fully equipped cruiser developed “only” 35 knots. A very good result. However, during the service, a fully loaded ship did not show more than 34 knots. And even such a good speed turned out to be a completely worthless “trick”, since the associates in the heavy cruiser division could not give more than 30 knots.

In terms of combat merit, the Bolzano was no worse and no better than other heavy cruisers.


In 1936-1939, he, like almost all the ships of the Italian fleet, provided assistance to the troops of General Franco. In June 1940, when Italy entered World War II, the first operation for Bolzano was to cover a mine-protecting operation. The cruiser participated in two exits to intercept the enemy fleet, but the matter did not reach the battle due to the absence of the enemy.

July 9, the ship took part in the battle of Punto Steelo (Calabria). Bolzano received three 152-mm shells from British cruisers, one of which was removed steering.

After the repair, Bolzano mainly escorted the supply convoys to North Africa.


November 27, 1940 as part of the squadron of cruisers "Bolzano" participated in the battle with the British formation "N". “Bolzano” during the battle had a short fire contact with the battle cruiser “Rinaun”. Here the cruiser’s ability to give full speed with the aim of retreat was definitely useful, since the Rinaun with eight 381 mm guns was not an enemy for the Bolzano. More precisely, the Italian cruiser was not an adversary for the British battlecruiser. As a result, we parted without getting into each other.

The battle at Cape Matapan, fortunately, did not become the last point in the career of Bolzano, and for a long time the cruiser sadly accompanied the North African convoys.

On August 25, 1941, at the northern entrance to Messina, the commander of the Triumph submarine discovered a detachment of Italian ships and decided to attack.

Escort destroyers discovered the “Triumph” and began to drop deep bombs, but Captain Woods managed to trick the Italians, to break away from the destroyers and fired a volley towards the outgoing squadron. And he got into the Bolzano. And he hit well. In the feed compartment.


Damage to the cruiser was severe, he completely lost speed, and it was very difficult to control. With great difficulty, the Bolzano was towed to Messina for repairs at a local factory.

In September 1941, British bombers flew in and added half-ton bombs from above. Repair was delayed, and the cruiser returned to the fleet only in the summer of 1942. By this time, the Italian fleet was paralyzed by the “fuel crisis”. Oil was barely enough to ensure daily combat activities.

Only in August 1942 did the Bolzano go to sea in order to disrupt the supply operation of Malta, where the British forces held their last strength. The British command planned and conducted a convoy supply operation from Gibraltar, code-named "Pedestal." The Italians planned a retaliatory operation.


An Italian cruising squadron entered the sea. It included the cruisers Bolzano, Gorizia, Trieste, Eugenio di Savoy, Montecuccoli, Attendolo and 11 destroyers. Their appearance could be fatal for the British convoy, which suffered heavy losses, including in the guard ships from the actions of the German-Italian air squadron. In fact, there was simply no one to fight the Italian cruisers, and the convoy shone the final rout. But at the crucial moment, on August 12, the Italian ships were recalled.

In the literature, this stupid cowardice, similar to the behavior of the Japanese in Leyte Gulf, was well understood, there are many versions. The fact is that “they could, but did not want to” - this is about the Italian naval command.


"You do not score - they hammer you." The football principle is quite applicable at this moment. On the way back the Italian squadron was intercepted by small British submarines.

The submarine commander “Anbroken”, having discovered the marching pleasure of the ships of the Italian fleet, prudently missed the destroyers and calmly fired a four-torpedo salvo.

One torpedo hit the cruiser Attendolo, tearing his nose off, the second - Bolzano. An explosion occurred in the area of ​​fuel tanks at Bolzano, a violent fire broke out that threatened the ammunition cellars. The commander ordered the flooding of the cellars.

The fire was extinguished, but there was so much water that the cruiser had to be stranded off the island of Panorea. Two days later, having gathered strength, the water was partially pumped out, the Bolzano was stranded and towed to Naples, where it was repaired in haste. Then they decided to convert the cruiser into an aircraft carrier and drove to La Spezia.


The Italians tried to solve two problems: to create transport for the delivery of fighters to North Africa, and, if necessary, use it as an aircraft carrier. With Bolzano, they planned to cut off all the superstructures, extend the deck, and mount two catapults on the tank.

It was planned to dismantle part of the main power plant, so the power was reduced to 30 hp, and the speed was up to 000 knots.

The armament of the air transport would be 10 anti-aircraft guns 90 mm and 40 machine guns 37 mm. The ship could carry 12 RE-2001 fighters. Fighters would take off from catapults, and landed on coastal airfields.

But they did not begin to work. On September 8, Italy entered into a truce with the Allies, and on September 9, La Spezia was captured by the Germans. "Bolzano" was not even nominally included in the German fleet, it was completely not interested in Kriegsmarine.

However, the Allies had their own thoughts about the cruiser. There were fears that the Germans would be able to flood the ship in the channel and block the harbor of the port.

Therefore, on the night of June 21-22, 1944, the Italian destroyer Grekale and the Italian torpedo boat MAS-74 approached the harbor, two British small combat craft Charriots were lowered from the torpedo boat, the places in which the Italians took and the British.

Having penetrated the harbor, combat swimmers attached four magnetic mines to the bottom of the ship with a delay of 2 hours, and in order to intensify the explosion, they attached a torpedo warhead with a charge of about 200 kg of explosives. At 6 o’clock. 23 minutes there was an explosion, "Bolzano" capsized and sank. After the war, he was still raised and cut into metal.

As an epilogue.

Bolzano was a good job at Trento's mistakes. The cruiser was more seaworthy, had good habitability, the hull did not “play”, and the speed was just good.


However, as part of the squadron, its 33 nodes were balanced by 30 nodes of the predecessor cruisers. And how many complaints were about the main caliber artillery ...

The ship was not bad, yes, it ran well, but in terms of fighting ... Although, choosing between Bolzano and Zara, I would choose Bolzano. On it one could at least get away from the enemy, since it would be unrealistic to get into an enemy ship anyway.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Yrec 16 January 2020 18: 12 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    The conclusion, as always, is simple - it is not iron that fights, but people. And Italians have proven themselves as warriors so-so. To put it mildly.
    1. Andrzej k 16 January 2020 21: 00 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      And Italians have proven themselves as warriors so-so. To put it mildly.


      This version is accepted, while Italians sank more ships for the British than the latter for Italy. And not having an Ultra Room (and fuel by the way).
  2. The leader of the Redskins 16 January 2020 18: 21 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    I read about "Bolzano" in childhood, in the "marine collection" of the magazine "model designer". Even then he noted what a beautiful and fast ship. And fate did not fall to him very ...
  3. Rurikovich 16 January 2020 18: 39 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    However, as part of the squadron, its 33 nodes were balanced by 30 nodes of the predecessor cruisers. And how many complaints were about the main caliber artillery ...

    But Roman did not think about the fact that if the “Paula” (it happened) is a purely flagship and lives its own life, then the acquisition of two divisions suggests itself based on the performance characteristics of existing ships. Therefore, the remaining trinity “Fiume”, “Zara” and “Gorizia” will make up one division, and the more high-speed “Trento”, “Trieste” and “Bolzano” - another. This follows from ordinary logic. request And there already plan operations based on hypothetical possibilities. So personally, I would do so yes
    The ship was not bad, yes, it ran well, but in terms of war ...

    Already wrote and more than once about ships in the wrong hands lol
    In general, the cruiser is a real handsome smile winked ....
    1. Kuroneko 16 January 2020 19: 58 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Rurikovich
      In general, the cruiser is a real handsome smile winked ....

      Well, it’s not for nothing that the appearance of Soviet ships takes its roots in the Italian shipbuilding school, and the Americans are even quite imagined scientific (!) The study conducted why the Soviet ships look stronger and menacing than the ships of the American fleet:
      https://flot.com/science/view/coldwarships.htm
    2. Romka47 17 January 2020 13: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As I understand it (from a series of articles, I didn’t touch on this topic before) in terms of fighting everything was bad because of the oblique guns of the Civil Code, again whose hands built them)
      1. Alexey RA 17 January 2020 19: 04 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Romka47
        As I understand it (from a series of articles, I didn’t touch on this topic before) in terms of fighting everything was bad because of the oblique guns of the Civil Code, again whose hands built them)

        It was not the guns that were to blame, but what they fired and under what conditions these shots were stored.
        Because on tests the guns showed accuracy and accuracy, comparable with the same systems of other countries. But as soon as it came to firing serial ships, that was how Sodom and Gomorrah began. Most often, this is connected precisely with the shots - they say, for testing, the Italian industry was able to make a small batch of shots of the same mass, but in a large series it could not meet the mass tolerances. As a result, each shell had its own unpredictable initial velocity. In addition, due to non-compliance with the temperature in the cellars, the charges informed the projectile of a slightly higher initial velocity than that taken into account in the calculations.
        1. Romka47 20 January 2020 09: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Thank you hi in the article about this is not at all
  4. NF68 16 January 2020 18: 49 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Roman now switched to ships.
  5. Alexey Petrovichev 16 January 2020 19: 41 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Where does Rinaun have 8 -15 "?
  6. smaug78 16 January 2020 19: 44 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Quote: Rurikovich
    And Roman did not think about

    So Roman is not a thinker, he is copy-pasteur unfortunately (((
  7. Undecim 16 January 2020 19: 48 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Then they decided to convert the cruiser into an aircraft carrier and drove to La Spezia.
  8. Vyacheslav D. 16 January 2020 20: 02 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    since the “Rinaun” with eight 381 mm guns was not an opponent for the “Bolzano”

    Rinaun carries only 6 guns. 3 × 2 381 mm / 42.
  9. Elturisto 16 January 2020 20: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Maybe someone does not know the name of the Italian heavy cruiser-city received by Italy from Austria-Hungary following the results of the First World War.
    1. Kuroneko 16 January 2020 22: 18 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: ElTuristo
      The names of Italian heavy cruisers-cities received by Italy from Austria-Hungary following the results of the First World War.

      One of the Austro-Hungarian dreadnoughts of the Viribus Unitis type also went to Italy, but the pasta rated it so low that they did not even consider including it in its fleet, cutting it into metal.
      What a pity. The Viribus Units were unique ships (with a bunch of flaws, but at least very distinctive).
  10. 7,62h54 16 January 2020 20: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The structure of storytelling is broken. The first phrase “strange feeling” is alarming, and you think whether to read further. Not mastered.
  11. looker-on 16 January 2020 21: 21 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    I'd like articles from "Andrei from Chelyabinsk" about the Italian history of the main calibers of the fleet. Article plus. Good topic
  12. Andrzej k 16 January 2020 22: 38 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    At first glance at the thumbnail of the photo in the night, I thought it was a HMS Hood photo. Only after a while did numerous differences appear.

    Nevertheless, the ship is equally beautiful with a slender, well-balanced figure.

    Technically, however, I think that Bolzano is a mistake, and Italians should probably focus on amendments like Zara.
    A catapult in the middle, 90-mm anti-aircraft guns and, above all, duplication of main steam pipelines, so it is impossible to immobilize the ship (in the end, having a separate power unit) with one torpedo, as is the case with the Pola.

    And, of course, to improve the quality of the manufactured ammunition - how did Italy manage to hit a controlled ship in the parades before the war, much to the delight of the guests?
    1. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 06: 16 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      There is no money for the battleship, we will build a cruiser.
      In fact, the cruisers from the moment of their appearance (Alabama) showed their failure both in the artillery battle and in the performance of their "cruising" functions. Enhanced protection only led to a merger with the battleships (through armored and battle cruisers). The fight against the merchant fleet finally passed to heterogeneous forces, with the obligatory inclusion of large artillery ships and submarines. The last attempt to find their place under the sun was the creation of cruisers and air defense battleships, but they could not replace fighter aircraft carriers.
      Thus, the concept of "cruiser" has died out and only the name remains, which has nothing to do with the function put into this name. Ship guard. That's all.
      1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 08: 14 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: pmkemcity
        this is the creation of cruisers and air defense battleships

        Things like the "battleship air defense" never existed. The evolution of battleships ended on the creation of high-speed battleships, and they had completely different tasks than anti-air cover. Yes, and the air defense cruisers, in fact, only the Americans with the British seriously bother (Atlanta, Worcester, Dido, Tiger). The rest tried to develop the topic further and did not begin, considering that this role is still more profitable to give to destroyers.
        1. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 09: 21 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Things like the "battleship air defense" never existed.

          So such a "thing" as a "high-speed battleship", the same did not exist. I spoke about the functions of an artillery ship and about their evolution.
          1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 09: 46 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: pmkemcity
            So such a "thing" as a "high-speed battleship", the same did not exist.

            FAQ "High-speed battleship" - a worldwide recognized designation for this subclass of battleships.
            In one respect, it was the Italians who demonstrated the overwhelming advantage of the high-speed battleship over the usual one. During the battle at Matapan, the Vittorio Veneto got a torpedo in the stern, lost half of the propellers and sank into the water on the deck ... But even after that, the old English Valiant could not catch up with him.

            http://old.mirf.ru/Articles/print3305.html
            1. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 09: 54 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              Not a FAQ, but a FAQ? Dear, what do you think is a “battleship”? In what "world" is such a name? First answer this question, and then talk about its speed.
              I had a teacher in the MLF, so he kept repeating all the time - do not read the reader, read the source!
              1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 10: 02 New
                • 6
                • 1
                +5
                Quote: pmkemcity
                and what do you think there is a "battleship"? In what "world" is such a name?

                Short for words linher cornabl. Those. originally it was a ship intended for battle in a line (well then, in fact - as part of a squadron, when the linear battles of the time of the sailing fleets sank in the abyss of time ... although the tactics of linear battle survived to WWII).
                1. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 10: 06 New
                  • 0
                  • 5
                  -5
                  Well! You showed a noticeable awareness, so rarely seen among current interlocutors. But you did not answer the question - in which fleet (besides the Russian-Soviet was such a name)?
                  1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 10: 12 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    Quote: pmkemcity
                    in the fleet (besides the Russian-Soviet was such a name)?

                    Yes, in general, in all. And the bourgeois called them that.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_line
                    See also

                    List of battleships by country
                    List of ships of the line of the Dutch Republic
                    List of ships of the line of france
                    List of ships of the line of Spain
                    List of ships of the line of Italy
                    List of ships of the line of Malta
                    List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy
                    List of ships of the line of Russia
                    List of ships of the line of the Royal Swedish Navy
                    List of ships of the line of Denmark
                    List of ships of the line of the United States Navy
                    List of ships of the line of the Ottoman Empire
                    Man of war

                    Just then, with the development of steam engines, there was a small “rebranding” of the term, and the battleships - ships of the line - were called shorter and more convenient: battleships. The essence still remained the same.
                    I note that it was from ship of the line that the Russian term battleship originated. Those. it is actually a direct translation of a foreign term, and not some kind of independent invention of ours there. Well, we learned to make our battleships from Europe, and not vice versa.
                    1. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 10: 46 New
                      • 1
                      • 4
                      -3
                      I will not bother with foreign words, I only note that the battleships are among the British, that the Germans have Schlachtschiff, all this will be a warship, a battling ship, according to the literal translation. That is, this is a ship that enters the line of battle, in the line of direct contact with the enemy. Both frigate and corvette could be put in this line. By the way, the same British as a rule did not use similar names, but had “betships of 1-2-3-4 rank (like ours). It does not at all come out that ships of 2-3-4 rank evolved into cruisers - they evolved into the same “betships.” The words “frigate” and “corvette” mean only the design features of the ship (sailing), but not as its functional responsibilities. Or if a squadron of battleships cruises off the enemy’s shores, then this is already a squadron of frigates ? No.
                      From here and in the infantry there were "line regiments", that is, those regiments that participated in the battle line.
                      Not even any battleships and batships with "pearl buttons" have ever been.
                      By the way, both in the Soviet navy and in the Russian, a battleship is any warship that is not under repair.
                      1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 11: 11 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: pmkemcity
                        The words "frigate" and "corvette" mean only the design features of the ship (sailing), but not as its functional responsibilities.

                        By the way, yes, the terms "frigate" and "corvette" are a clear return to the era of the sailing fleet. Honestly, I don’t quite understand why. For example, in the USSR, for such ships, for some time, the original name was called "watchman". And the term "anti-submarine ship" is also a purely Soviet invention.
                        Quote: pmkemcity
                        I will not bother with foreign words, I only note that the battleships are among the British, that the Germans have Schlachtschiff, all this will be a warship, a battling ship, according to the literal translation. That is, this is a ship that enters the line of battle, in the line of direct contact with the enemy.

                        The most common term is warship. And battleship is exactly the rebranding of the old ship of the line. Just when such classes as cruisers and destroyers (destroers, literally annihilators) appeared, then it was time for the “ships of the line” to get a more concise and sonorous name.
                        Both frigate and corvette could be put in this line.

                        They could and sometimes they did, but most often either because of hopelessness or if there was some kind of particularly tricky plan. But as part of the theory classic surface combat it was sharply forbidden.

                        I answered your questions above, I suppose? Then I myself will ask again:
                        So such a "thing" as a "high-speed battleship", the same did not exist.

                        They were, and it is recognized by all. So why do you reject their existence? Here are the battleships of air defense, I repeat, was NEVER. Maximum - cruisers. In admiralty, not so much dunduks sit to create the most expensive artillery class ships to fight not with the enemy’s surface fleet, but with its aircraft. For how else Winston Churchill said -
                        If you want to ruin a small country, give her a cruiser.
                      2. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 11: 31 New
                        • 3
                        • 4
                        -1
                        "Speedboats are battleships" are simply "last generation" battleships. The quintessence of class development, so to speak, when battlecruisers and battleships proper degenerated into one class. Class, which by the way. foreseen at the dawn of the era of the couple, one of the famous ones - either Krylov, or someone else. He predicted that battlecruisers would evolve into ships with a greater displacement than battleships with equal armor and speed. The first of these was undoubtedly “Hood,” which, with equal artillery and armor, was noticeably heavier than its one-year battleships (“Barhams-Veliants,” which the English press called fast-moving). Exactly the same thing could be observed among the Germans (Mackensen) and ours (Ishmaels).
                        Why are Iowas not “air defense battleships”, in the complete absence of an “enemy line”? By the way, the last "Kentucky" and planned to finish
                      3. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 11: 45 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: pmkemcity
                        it's just the last generation battleships

                        Alas, no. The subclass of high-speed battleships has a very long history.
                        A good example is the Queen Elizabeth battleships. It, for a minute, were generally first superdreadnoughts in the world, and they were laid back in the shaggy 1912th (sobsno, Elizabeth), but Elizabeth was exactly fast battleships. For that time, their speed was really outstanding, which did not stop them from being full-fledged LCs with battleship booking and the most powerful weapons at the time of their construction.
                        Queen Elizabeth, as well as the same type of Worspite, Valiant, Malaya and Barham, had many important innovations and significantly exceeded their predecessors, they were even singled out in a special subclass of “high-speed battleships”. The high speed allowed the command during the Battle of Jutland to use them together with a squadron of battlecruisers.

                        https://military.wikireading.ru/10006

                        As an additional counterexample, I can recall all the pre-war and inter-war LCs of Americans - they, despite the general advancement of their design, all as one had a speed of 20-22 knots, because America clung to the concept of linear battle until the last. So the slow-moving armored cars riveted to the stop. And American high-speed battleships, which are considered to be the pinnacle of development of a subclass of high-speed battleships (such as North Caroline or Iowa) have already appeared only during WWII.
                      4. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 11: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        The Fleet Battleships operated separately in the Jutland battle.
                        The South Dakota had a speed of over 27 knots.
                      5. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 12: 06 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: pmkemcity
                        The Fleet Battleships operated separately in the Jutland battle.
                        The South Dakota had a speed of over 27 knots.

                        Once again I repeat (if it was not immediately clear): at the time when Queen Elizabeth was created, she was just a high-speed battleship, although she gave out 25 knots under the afterburner. But at the beginning of the 1910s, it was MEGA-cool.
                        As for South Dakota, it gave out (theoretically) only 23 knots (just one knot higher than the usual norm of 20-22 knots). And this is the ship of 1920, 8 years later, Queen Elizabeth in the project.
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Линейные_корабли_типа_«Саут_Дакота»_(1920)
                        And then, later, much later, the series was revived by South Dakota (but it was actually a development of the North Caroline type) in 1939, it issued 27 knots. But by the Second World War, the requirements had changed, now from high-speed battleships a speed of at least 30+ knots was required.
                      6. Andrzej k 17 January 2020 12: 16 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        The 1920 South Dakota battleships were never completed. They were cut into scrap with a readiness of about 35-38%, so it is difficult to say that they appeared.

                        South Dakota BB-57 z 1939 roku is a completely different ship that has absolutely nothing to do with the 1920 project, of course, except for the name.
                      7. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 12: 43 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        My dear man, you are confused in the testimony! You mixed up two Dakota.
                        In addition, following your logic, you can write the "Dreadnought" in the "high-speed battleships." He, this "Dreadnought", thanks to the first-used steam turbines, developed 22 knots, with 18 knots standard for armadillos at that time. Undoubtedly, for their time, both dreadnought and superdreadnoughts were “fast”, but only in relation to the “pre-dreadnought”, which the British immediately transferred to the ships of “2nd rank” (class), but did not call them “slow battleships” .
                        Stop doing verbiage.
                      8. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 13: 29 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: pmkemcity
                        My dear man, you are confused in the testimony!

                        You mixed it up. More precisely, I just did not understand first what exactly you were trying to say, because South Dakot had two episodes. But after thinking and sorting it out, I corrected my post. I just couldn’t imagine that when I talked about Elizabeth 1912-th years, you try to stick me under the nose of South Dakota 1939-th (!), but not 1920. Also right after the phrase about Jutland = _ =
                      9. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 13: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        I accept the apology. Moreover, we did not rock to embrace the vast - four centuries of a linear fleet. Sin is not to get confused.
                2. mmaxx 18 January 2020 16: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  As if, because they acted separately, because the speed was great.
              2. Alexey RA 17 January 2020 19: 14 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Kuroneko
                And American high-speed battleships, which are considered the pinnacle of the development of a subclass of high-speed battleships (such as North Caroline or Iowa) appeared only during WWII.

                Correct - the transition to high-speed LC in the United States occurred in 1935, when the design of the future NorKi was started for the 1937 program. Moreover, the fleet wanted 30 knots and 15 miles from the new LC at once, and even packaged in 000 kt of standard displacement. smile
                And while in the first two stages, the traditional 22-23-node ones were also designed as a safety net for high-speed LCs, then in the next stages only projects of 27-30 hub LCs were considered (well, except for Project VII).
            2. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 12: 58 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: pmkemcity
              He predicted that battlecruisers would evolve into ships with a greater displacement than battleships with equal armor and speed. The first of these was undoubtedly “Hood,” which, with equal artillery and armor, was noticeably heavier than its one-year battleships (“Barhams-Veliants,” which the English press called fast-moving). Exactly the same thing could be observed among the Germans (Mackensen) and ours (Ishmaels).

              There have already been a lot of articles on this subject even in VO. I especially recommend the authorship of Andrei from Chelyabinsk. Very intelligible and reasoned.
              The result is that evolution in real life has gone not from battle cruisers to high-speed battleships, but from battleships to high-speed battleships. As a result, battlecruisers remained as "don’t sew a dog’s tail," although in a certain, albeit narrow period of time, they were definitely useful and in demand.
              The class of battlecruisers themselves caused the greatest number of disputes and doubts in all the admiralties of the world (and not in vain). When technological progress made it possible to make high-speed battleships out of battleships, the class of battlecruisers died immediately. In principle, the Americans still showed off at the end of World War II with their type “Alaska” (calling, however, their “big cruisers” there), but it’s not without reason that “Alaska” again and again entered the top most useless of all built warships.
              Quote: pmkemcity
              Why are Iowas not “air defense battleships”, in the complete absence of an “enemy line”? By the way, the last "Kentucky" and planned to finish

              To those. American LCs, although they have the best air defense system of the Second World War among battleships, but it is aimed purely at self-defense. In addition, the task of the American high-speed battleships was to escort aircraft carriers (for this they needed a speed of 30+ knots). Maintenance and protection from surface artillery ships of the enemy. The air defense umbrella was much better provided by numerous cheap (and much more brisk) destroyers.
            3. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 13: 21 New
              • 1
              • 7
              -6
              Evolution has been going on as it has been going on. None of the "Darwin" from Chelyabinsk can not rewrite it.
              The idea of ​​a "squadron cruiser" died with the very first battles of the Russo-Japanese War. It is no coincidence that Japan immediately laid down Tsukuba, Germany Blucher and Russia Rurik 2. But everyone was deceived by England, which immediately crossed out everything that had previously been built, laying the Dreadnought and Invincibles. The latter were a dead end branch, which in the end degenerated into nothing adapted Koreanges. Fischer's madness is a problem of a rich nation. But “Tsukuba” went in the direction of the battleships (“Congo”), “Blucher” became “Derfliger”, “Rurik” “Ishmael”. Yes, and the British themselves through the “Lions” to “Hood” went rapprochement with the betships. The battlecruisers did not become battleships because of "the power of technological progress," because they were unable to fulfill their tasks in the form of "incompletors."
              Having made a circle, evolution came to a model that was previously established in the sailing fleet - the tasks of the vanguard and rear guard began to be performed by the same battleships.
            4. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 13: 42 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: pmkemcity
              But “Tsukuba” went towards the battleships (“Congo”)

              With what fright did Congo become a battleship? 0_o '
              No, I understand that after the interwar modernization, the yapes brought him to a minimum, which allowed him to be reclassified as a fast battleship, but how not to call him - the Congo type always remained a battle cruiser. True, at the time of its creation, it was the best in the world (because of which, in England, even a big scandal flared up: as they say, we are making some kind of Japs ship that surpasses our best battlecruiser Lyon in its performance characteristics!)
              And yes, Tsukuba could not go in the direction of the Congo, if only because Congo was originally designed by the British.
            5. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 13: 51 New
              • 0
              • 7
              -7
              Unfortunately you did not understand my promise. Juggling with terms and playing sophistry, you miss the main thing - the mission of the ship. And what it will be called the Ural "borosopisy" (English, Japanese) is not important.
              The concept of "artillery cruiser" died with the Alabama. The concept of "artillery squadron cruiser" died with 2 squadrons. But the battleships remained.
            6. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 14: 02 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: pmkemcity
              The concept of "artillery squadron cruiser" died with 2 squadrons.

              Yah? https://topwar.ru/100617-kreysera-tipa-chapaev-chast-1-istoriya-proektirovaniya.html
              True, this article is just from Andrei from Chelyabinsk, so God forbid you, do not read this cycle. ^ _ ^
              Suddenly you learn something new for yourself and you have to change the whole settled paradigm in your head.
            7. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 15: 18 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              What is the reference? Have you read it well yourself?
              Moreover, it very quickly became clear that the battleship “B” in size tends to approach the battleship of type “A”, while not possessing its effectiveness, which is why in early 1938 the battleships of type “B” were finally abandoned in favor of the strongest ship type "A", which was to be built for all maritime theaters.

              That says it all -
              The program of "major marine shipbuilding" made its own corrections to these views: although it was developed by V.M. Namorsi Orlov and his deputy I.M. Ludry, but of course, the last word belonged to Joseph Vissarionovich. It is likely that it was the secretiveness of its development that led to a series of frankly strange decisions regarding the number and types of ships planned for the construction of the ships and their distribution in theaters.

              Only confirms the selection previously -
              As a result, the “cleaning” of the ranks of the Navy began, and the creators of the program of “major marine shipbuilding”, V. Namorsi, Orlov and his deputy I.M. Ludry, were repressed.

              Leading light forces do you call a "squadron cruiser"? However, yes. What a squadron, such and leaders (squadron cruisers). This only confirms everything that I said earlier (Krylov) - the squadron cruiser should be larger and faster than the battleship (destroyer) with similar armor (lack thereof) and armament. This, if you want, is a direct extrapolation from the highest (betelship) to the lowest (destroyer) squadron level.
      2. Victor Leningradets 17 January 2020 13: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Absolutely fair!
        It was the battlecruisers of the Derflinger principle (balance of armament / speed / defense) embodied in the class of high-speed battleships. And the class of “battle line ships” itself ended with the creation of two outlandish superdreadnoughts “Nelson” and “Rodney”.
        And the high-speed battleships acted exactly like linear battlecruisers — as a separate detachment of 2–3 units, or in general alone, with or without cover from light forces. They did not build any line of battle, and fire contact with the enemy was extremely fleeting. Therefore, the maximum density of fire during rapprochement was extremely important. The caliber, however, was chosen not for reasons of prestige, but from conditions of sufficiency to defeat a potential adversary (Dunkirk, Richelieu, Bismarck).
      3. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 15: 30 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        The Nelsons are not at all the apogee of the development of betships.
        The battleships of the Second World War acted alone not because they swam quickly, but because the battleships became so expensive that they became few. From such an amount, it was simply impossible to draw up a “line” (unless the Americans have Leite).
        The concentration of guns in the bow of the ship is not a desire to concentrate all the fire in the "front hemisphere", it is a compromise of limited displacement, armament and armoring. By the way, for the “Nelsons” the British sacrificed speed. The subsequent King George 5, and especially Lyon, almost doubled the displacement to increase speed.
      4. Victor Leningradets 17 January 2020 16: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The fleet battleships of World War II acted in exactly the same way as battlecruisers — a small group at the decisive end of the battle at the right time. Low-speed battleships in Leyte Gulf portrayed a classic linear battle with "crossing the" t "".
        Do not confuse Nelson with Dunkirk. If the first was created within the framework of the Procrustean bed of 35 T, the second was designed specifically to intercept the pickpockets, which implies maximum running fire, and considerations of saving displacement were secondary. By the way, Nelson’s linear fire does not differ from most high-speed battleships - the same six barrels.
        King George V, when it entered service in 1940, added rounded 1927 tons to the standard displacement of Nelson (3000), and Laoyne (in the 1939 draft) - less than 7000 tons.
      5. pmkemcity 17 January 2020 18: 36 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Kohl went such a booze, please tell me how do you think the "battle cruisers" operate?
        Tsushima is the first and immediately failed attempt to put into practice pre-war theories. The Jutland clash is the latest scholastic attempt by couch admirals to subordinate the laws of war to their ideas.
        "King George" 42 thousand, "Lion" and "Wengard" (especially significant, since he had the same artillery) for a half-hour - 53 thousand. t. that is 1,7 times more than the "Royal". Thus, the speed increase is 6-7 knots. It cost 20 thousand. t. displacement. Of course, I'm exaggerating in something, but in general it is clearly visible that the ships just reached their limit, as now the planes - having rushed beyond 3M and not finding anything there, quietly dropped to 1,5M.
        Any "non-gunner" can show you on his fingers that shooting at a narrow but long target is much more agile than at a wide bearing, but "short" in distance. Shell scattering is more pronounced in distance (scattering ellipse).
        The French battleships were limited by their dry docks, and from here such a "non-traditional orientation" to various innovations (for example, a 4-gun turret is not the best solution both for shooting, as well as for combat and technical survivability). For your information, “Dunkirk” were built to the peak of England, and not Germany, as well as “Algeria”.
      6. Octopus 18 January 2020 03: 16 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: pmkemcity
        Thus, the speed increase is 6-7 knots. It cost 20 thousand. t. displacement

        Have mercy, you can’t distort so brazenly.
        Quote: pmkemcity
        Shell scattering is more pronounced in distance (scattering ellipse).

        What is the thought? If we assume that in a "linear" battle the ships side to side.
        Quote: pmkemcity
        French battleships were limited to their dry docks

        French ships were limited by budget and Washington / London restrictions.
        Quote: pmkemcity
        For your information, “Dunkirk” were built in peak of England, and not Germany, as well as “Algeria”.

        Something went wrong. With whom should Dunkirk have to fight, with Hood and Nelson? And why are you talking about Algeri in the plural, how many do you think were built?
      7. pmkemcity 18 January 2020 09: 53 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Have mercy, you can’t distort so brazenly.

        And what do you see "such" distortion? Yes, part of the displacement went to increase the reservation, but in general, Wengard remained a battleship of World War I both in terms of armament and mechanisms, and most importantly, in the design of anti-torpedo protection.
        What is the thought? If we assume that in a "linear" battle the ships side to side.

        The idea is that the "advanced", according to some history buffs, nasal artillery arrangement, supposedly should contribute to the development of combat at the bow course angles. And this, as I have already said, is not the most profitable scenario.
        French ships were limited by budget and Washington / London restrictions.

        I repeat - the French ships were limited to their dry docks. Take an interest in the construction of dreadnoughts in France and why they had a displacement limit of 25 thousand tons. All subsequent decisions of both Dunkirks and Alsace Resilles stem from the ideas of World War I. The development of Algeria was supposed to be the C1 project, either three, or four ships they wanted to lay down. And ask where Dunkirks were based and what they did in the pre-war time. This really intrigued England.
      8. Octopus 18 January 2020 12: 05 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: pmkemcity
        And what do you see "such" distortion?

        The fact that you are comparing a ship, "shrunken" under the contract, with a ship built as convenient as possible. At Wengard they could even place a football field, they could afford it.
        Quote: pmkemcity
        according to some history buffs

        Well, there are so many lovers, so many opinions. Especially if these are not history buffs, but WoW. There, the French only fight.
        Quote: pmkemcity
        Take an interest in the construction of dreadnoughts in France and why they had a displacement limit of 25 thousand tons.

        Dunkirk was built without a nose, EMNIP. Strasbourg was built in Saint-Nazaire, where Normandy was lowered to 80K before that.
        Quote: pmkemcity
        The development of Algeria was supposed to be the C5 project, either three, or four ships they wanted to lay down.

        Who knows what he wanted. What do the British have to do with these Wishlist?
        Quote: pmkemcity
        Dunkirks were based and what they did in the pre-war time. This really intrigued England.

        What is your alternative story there? Dunkirk swept through the colonies to show the flag, then stood in Brest with Strasbourg. Where else should he stand if he was served as a hunter for Deutschlands? He went out for joint maneuvers with the British, by the way.
        Again. Who did Dunkirk have to fight with you, with 15 "British?
  13. Octopus 18 January 2020 03: 06 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: pmkemcity
    The Nelsons are not at all the apogee of the development of betships.

    How to say. You correctly noted that all later ships were already oriented to a different battle pattern. To some extent, Kinga was indeed the Lyon-Ripals-Hood line super-cruiser, and not the Dreadnought-Orion-Queen-Nelson battleships.
    Quote: pmkemcity
    battleships became so expensive that they became few. From such an amount, it was simply impossible to draw up a “line” (unless the Americans have Leite).

    The British in the Mediterranean several times. And if we assume that the line is built at two points, then the battle in the Danish Strait, for example, is a battle of two lines))).
    Quote: pmkemcity
    The concentration of guns in the bow of the ship is not a desire to concentrate all the fire in the "front hemisphere"

    Yes, there was no such desire. 4x2 was fine with everyone. Another thing is that three-gun towers of four did not fit in any way (only to Montana), and the return to two-gun towers had its drawbacks, even except for the minus the trunk.
    Quote: pmkemcity
    for the "Nelsons" the British sacrificed speed

    They sacrificed a lot. Booking from 16 "in 35K will not fit in any other way. But we can say that it turned out very well, no worse than Nagato, even modernized.
    Quote: pmkemcity
    The subsequent King George 5, and especially Lyon, almost doubled the displacement to increase speed.

    What nonsense is this? George and Nelson on VI are the same, 35K. Lyon thought about 40. Wangard yes, got too hot at 50, but here the role of lifting the restrictions played a role, it's like eating a whole box of chocolates at once.
  14. pmkemcity 18 January 2020 10: 24 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Respected! This is a pointless argument! You take an interest in what you write about (displacement). Take a calculator and calculate the displacement ratios. You can’t use a calculator, count in a column.
    Between two points, you can draw a curve.
    Ask someone on the forum, since you yourself can’t read at which course angles the battle was fought in the Danish Strait.
    On your part, it would be more tactful to ask than to categorically carry that same nonsense.
  15. Octopus 18 January 2020 11: 07 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: pmkemcity
    at which course angles the battle was fought in the Danish Strait.

    And what, under Tsushima or Yutland there were no converging / diverging courses? Or do you have everything except the battles of the four-decadents - not labor?
    Quote: pmkemcity
    You take an interest in what you write about (displacement).

    Excuse me, do you consider yourself very informed? The Nelsons and Kinges were designed under the same Washington restrictions, the latter were a little heavier in completion, the restrictions were gone, but the Nelsons gained weight during modernization. Nelsons 33.3K, Books 36.7K standard, the difference, if you take the calculator, 10 (ten) percent.
    Almost doubling - This, sorry somewhere to Yamato / Montana / Soviet Union.
  16. pmkemcity 18 January 2020 13: 29 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Nelson full 38, King full 43, Wangard 52. Rivenge - 31. 52 \ 31 = 1.68 where is the distortion?

    Back to the cruisers. Do you have any complaints for cruisers (buttons)?
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Octopus 18 January 2020 13: 43 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: pmkemcity
    for the "Nelsons" the British sacrificed speed. The subsequent King George 5, and especially Lyon, almost doubled the displacement to increase speed.

    Now we have the P-type and Vengard, not standard, but complete (considering how much fuel is needed for more powerful cars), as convenient.
    Quote: pmkemcity
    Do you have any complaints for cruisers (buttons)?

    To your "cruise-needed"? This is the position of the Americans of the time of the battleship race, no one considers it particularly smart, including the Americans themselves. But I'm not going to get into this topic.
  19. pmkemcity 18 January 2020 15: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In those days, an artillery ship was needed to control (hold, conquer) communications. This is a message from which we can draw conclusions:
    1. No ship except the battleship will be able to conduct an artillery battle;
    2. Oddly enough, but for stability, the battleship needs "light forces". Ocean "light forces" can only be ships from 4-5 thousand tons. Displacement. 203 mm is redundant to combat the merchant fleet, but insufficient to withstand battleships. Independently, "light forces" are quickly swept out of the theater of operations.
    3. The "Cruiser", as an independent element and as an element of the "cruising squadron" to the battle on the communications, from its very appearance, was unable.
  20. Octopus 18 January 2020 15: 40 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: pmkemcity
    No ship except the battleship will be able to conduct an artillery battle;

    Yes please. I will not argue with you, I am too lazy.

    Zhvanetsky - well, link books are normal, well, goodies.
  • Alexey RA 17 January 2020 11: 48 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Kuroneko
    Yes, and the air defense cruisers, in fact, only the Americans with the British seriously bother (Atlanta, Worcester, Dido, Tiger).

    Atlanta is a little off topic. It was used like air defense missile defense, but designed it for other tasks - like a scout and an EM leader. Hence the torpedo tubes, which are so uncharacteristic of the United States of America.
    In the role of the Kyrgyz Republic Air Defense Atlanta was used forcefully. And they were not particularly suitable for this role - they had too few KDP for air defense. If when firing at EM one KDP for four towers is the norm, then for air defense I would like to have at least 1 KDP for 2-3 towers, otherwise the number of simultaneously fired targets is too small.
    1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 12: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      In the role of the Kyrgyz Republic Air Defense Atlanta was used forcefully.

      Well, the German Niobe was also a purely nominal air defense cruiser. Only with him a little bit different - yes, it was definitely air defense, but in fact it was not a cruiser, but an armored carrier of coastal defense. Floating battery. ^ _ ^
  • Octopus 18 January 2020 02: 29 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Kuroneko
    The evolution of battleships has ended with the creation of high-speed battleships,

    After WWII, the Americans seriously discussed the idea of ​​completing the remaining Iowe corps (Kentucky / Illinois) as anti-aircraft battleships with fully universal weapons, but nevertheless spat on this matter, fortunately.
    1. Kuroneko 19 January 2020 06: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Octopus
      After WWII, the Americans seriously discussed the idea of ​​completing the remaining Iowe corps (Kentucky / Illinois) as anti-aircraft battleships with fully universal weapons, but nevertheless spat on this matter, fortunately.

      Oh, they began to develop nuclear weapons for the main Iowe, but, fortunately, they also spat. It’s just that the Admiralty clutched at everything in order to at least somehow justify the continued existence and maintenance of such expensive animals.
      1. Octopus 19 January 2020 06: 37 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Kuroneko
        the main caliber nuclear shells were taken to be developed, but, fortunately, they also spat.

        No, they didn’t start developing, but no, they didn’t spit. A special projectile was adopted, an adaptation of an army projectile of a smaller caliber.
        Quote: Kuroneko
        It’s just that the Admiralty clutched at everything in order to at least somehow justify the continued existence and maintenance of such expensive animals.
        Reply

        And also not. In one fell swoop, the fleet wrote off all LCs except Missouri to the reserve in 47-48. In the 55th, Missouri also wrote off, the Americans did not have more LC. True, three years have not passed - they changed their minds.

        Here you need to understand the tryndets that was happening among the Americans in the late 40s in terms of military thought, structures, OShS, armaments - everything. It is customary to talk about Khrushchev’s missile euphoria, but American post-war nuclear-nuclear euphoria was much harder.
  • Engineer 17 January 2020 11: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Nevertheless, the ship is equally beautiful with a slender, well-balanced figure.

    No matter the article, compliments to the design of the cruisers)
    As for me, the stem is not Atlantic and the pipes are straight. The appearance of this lacks swiftness
    1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 12: 34 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      As for me, the stem is not Atlantic and the pipes are straight.

      Pasta designed their fleet strictly for the Mediterranean puddle. That is why their ships and had a lot of outstanding characteristics, because for seaworthiness and autonomy, it was initially possible with a clear conscience to hammer a threaded bolt.
  • Magic archer 17 January 2020 09: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The sailors from Italians were so-so, as evidenced by the fact that the Italian naval swimmers sent to the bottom more tonnage of ships than the entire Italian fleet !!! Bravissimo)))) read a book about these guys, drowned by the way Novorossiysk, aka Giulio Caesar ...
    1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 09: 55 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Magic Archer
      read a book about these guys, drowned by the way Novorossiysk, aka Giulio Caesar ...

      Bullshit and myth. By the way, not Giulio Cesare, but Giulio Чezare.
      Not so long ago at VO there was an interesting article about Novorossiysk. https://topwar.ru/163911-i-ty-brut-gibel-sovetskogo-cezarja.html
      And I, too, am inclined to believe that “Novorossiysk” died precisely because the British had laid a “present” in the bow before the transfer of the Soviet battleship to the Soviet Union in Malta.
      1. Romka47 17 January 2020 13: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        I support, I tend (I used to be inclined) now I am sure (as far as possible over time) to the version:“Novorossiysk” died precisely because of the British “mortgage” in the bow end that was laid down by the British back in Malta before the transfer of the battleship of the USSR.
  • Engineer 17 January 2020 10: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Does anyone remember that Italians with anti-torpedo protection? And it turns out that even a single fish completely disables them (heavy cruisers)
    1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 11: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Does anyone remember that Italians with anti-torpedo protection? And it turns out that even a single fish completely disables them (heavy cruisers)

      In theory, much higher than the hospital average, but in practice - all the time.
      Check out an example:
      http://battleships.spb.ru/Novorossiysk/ptz.html
      In theory, the Puglièse system had great potential and favorably differed in its low weight from other PTZ systems.

      Just torpedoes by the time of WWII had evolved (including in attack modes, and in the mass of the warhead) so much that the Italian PTZ didn’t save much from them.
      1. Engineer 17 January 2020 11: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I know about LC. It seems that even with battleship protection it’s very awkward in Taranto
        But I don’t remember about TKR, but I was too lazy to search)
        1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 11: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Engineer
          But I don’t remember about TKR, but I was too lazy to search)

          For all Washingtonians (and even for “false” Washingtonians, like Mioko or Zara - they seriously went beyond the allowed 10k tons) PTZ was always clean for a tick and didn’t save from anything. Here the device of the ship, its design features in terms of compartments and the general layout, played a role.
          Those. if you look at the effectiveness of the PTZ, then you need to look at either the battleships / aircraft carriers of the warring parties, or not look at all.
          1. Engineer 17 January 2020 11: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            By PTZ, I also understood the integral sum of all the characteristics responsible for ensuring survivability in the event of a torpedo hit, not only anti-tank vehicles and boules, but also compartments, drainage facilities, etc.
            The limit of 10 thousand tons was violated by both Yapi and Italians, but the Yapi kept a torpedo, but the Italians did not.
            1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 12: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Engineer
              The limit of 10 thousand tons was violated by both Yapi and Italians, but the Yapi kept a torpedo, but the Italians did not.

              So yap was the main emphasis on seaworthiness, and pasta - on speed (in the Mediterranean puddle something ...). And seaworthiness - it very much affects the survival of the ship after a torpedo hit. Nobody really kept a torpedo from them, but it was precisely due to seaworthiness that the Japanese cruisers had a much higher chance of crawling out of the battlefield and reaching their native port.
              1. Engineer 17 January 2020 12: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                So yapes had a major emphasis on seaworthiness

                I honestly did not understand what they emphasize. Their TCR seems to have no weaknesses. The booking is not bad, but everything else is excellent. In terms of speed, some Tacao will not yield to Italians
                1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 13: 21 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Their TCR seems to have no weaknesses. The booking is not bad, but everything else is excellent. In terms of speed, some Tacao will not yield to Italians

                  Well, I’ll say right away that the Tacao type was a masterpiece of design at that time. But the Japanese were fixated on the idea of ​​the qualitative superiority of their separate military units over roughly the same enemy units (due to the lower quotas of the Washington Agreement in comparison with the British-Americans), and therefore literally all their ships suffered from constructive congestion (which also worsened protection, because the armored belt went deep into the water), there were big problems with stability and metacentric height (a couple of their cruisers and destroyers even made an “overclock” turn), and because specific completeness coefficient (VERY long and narrow hull) ships experienced significant lateral loads, and the stability of the ship as an artillery platform was seriously impaired (our Novik type EMs also suffered, although they were also the best ships of this class in the world at one time. Assa). Although the Italians with guns were even worse, but precisely what happened with the guns themselves (and especially with shells), the design features of the carrier had nothing to do with it.
                  1. Engineer 17 January 2020 13: 31 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I am familiar with these allegations. But just reading the description of the database gives the impression that half of this exaggeration, the second half is the problem of all ships.
                    For example, congestion is a problem for all WWII ships when radars, anti-aircraft guns and the crew began to shove on them to service them.
                    There is a fact- Takao sustained two torpedoes and where the Italians somehow held one.
                    1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 13: 55 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Engineer
                      For example, congestion is a problem for all WWII ships when radars, anti-aircraft guns and the crew began to shove on them to service them.

                      There is just overload, but there is overload constructive. This byak is much worse. In fact, all Japanese ships suffered precisely from structural overload (that is, when they already draw more into the ship at the design stage than it is capable of pulling - from whence a lot of various troubles come out during construction).
                      Quote: Engineer
                      There is a fact- Takao sustained two torpedoes and where the Italians somehow held one.

                      The golden bullet factor has not been canceled. The same Hood demonstrated this clearly and with a “twinkle”, although in theory he even surpassed many battleships built in the twenties in general defense.
                      1. Engineer 17 January 2020 14: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        On Haguro - three torpedoes left. ON ASIGARA FIVE!
                        Vitality in Yap is clearly above average. And no overloads prevented this.
                      2. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 14: 55 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Vitality in Yap is clearly above average. And no overloads prevented this.

                        Nobody argues with this. In addition, the Japanese traditionally paid much more attention to protection against torpedoes than Italians (those mainly focused on protection from surface artillery fire - and hoping, moreover, that the operation of submarines in the Mediterranean Sea is greatly hampered by the theater of operations and the proximity of allied coastal aviation) .
                        By the way, a little off topic, but the famous Japanese "Long Lances" appeared due to the British fake, which Japanese intelligence believed in. Like, Britain successfully creates oxygen torpedoes. What was complete bullshit. Many tried, but no one came up with anything sensible. But the Japanese believed, engaged, strained themselves, spent a lot of time and energy ... but they could!
                      3. Engineer 17 January 2020 15: 07 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        I remember that
                        Midnike had a series of posts about this topic. And about air No. 2 for oxygen for secrecy purposes.
                        In general, I have an seditious idea that from the point of view of bare shipbuilding, the Japanese have surpassed absolutely everyone. The same Takao is all the more surprising when you consider that this is a project already in the 20s! in this case, as many as five towers GK and no high-performance compact power plant of the late 30s.
                        The British called the Japanese school amateurish, but in fact they looked like amateurs.
  • Alexey RA 17 January 2020 11: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Kuroneko
    In theory, the Puglièse system had great potential and favorably differed in its low weight from other PTZ systems.

    Judging by the domestic full-scale tests of the experimental compartment with two PTZ systems, carried out as part of work on the LC 23 (in Vasiliev’s book), the Italian PTZ system was at or even better than the American one. Moreover, the reports noted that with the high-quality production of PTZ and a small redistribution of thicknesses, the system will be able to withstand an explosion and a more powerful charge.
    1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 12: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA

      Judging by the domestic full-scale tests of the experimental compartment with two PTZ systems, carried out as part of work on the LC 23 (in Vasiliev’s book), the Italian PTZ system was at or even better than the American one.

      Well, I said so. Higher in the hospital in theory, but the actual performance let us down. Like everywhere.
      1. Alexey RA 17 January 2020 13: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Kuroneko
        Well, I said so. Higher in the hospital in theory, but the actual performance let us down.

        Duc ... bent bulkheads and a hanging pipe - and now we’ll try to make it all at domestic factories, and then also assemble it by domestic forces so that it works properly. smile
        "American boxes", despite the slightly worse performance, compares favorably with manufacturability - vertical bulkheads of various thicknesses. Why, in fact, they switched to them after pr. 23.
        1. Kuroneko 17 January 2020 14: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          "American boxes", despite the slightly worse performance, compares favorably with manufacturability - vertical bulkheads of various thicknesses. Why, in fact, they switched to them after pr. 23.

          True German principle, heh: "Practicum, quadratic, gut." ^ _ ^
    2. Grafova Irina 17 January 2020 19: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Vasiliev, like Morin, I have in the library. And as I recall, there, on the contrary, it was said that the PTZ Pugliès turned out to be less stable than the American one. With more weight and more laborious
  • Romka47 17 January 2020 13: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Many thanks to the author! Roman, I never criticized you, and now I won’t, just in my humble opinion 3 articles about practically the same cruisers .., no, of course, due to the fact that there are 3 of them, I can distinguish the difference, but in fact these are the same that didn’t get anywhere, it would be better to have 3 articles about the Japanese, here where I wanted to read more and more. But you are the author who knows best, continue, I look forward to it. good
  • Grafova Irina 17 January 2020 19: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All the time "itches if yes if" ... Italians would have other admirals and even more fuel .. To establish interaction between aviation and the fleet ... But, alas, all these are good wishes ... And we have what with a good ship composition, individually bold and skillful sailors (for some reason, the mass of them didn’t work very well for them), we get the completely unpleasant history of the Italian fleet in the war. Moreover, no extra effort, in the form of separation of forces between the theater of war, was required from the fleet
  • Sasha_rulevoy 17 January 2020 21: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: pmkemcity
    In fact, the cruisers from the moment of their appearance (Alabama) showed their failure both in the artillery battle and in the performance of their "cruising" functions.


    Scout?
  • cat Rusich 26 January 2020 15: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Maybe the Italians needed the whole fleet to "collapse on Malta? Use cruisers as artillery batteries ... to land troops. Take a foothold, closer to Gibraltar for aviation," soften "Gibraltar with aviation - make an attempt to occupy it (the English fleet is driven away by aviation). There were options, but "a bad player saves with a couple of aces" (about poker with a hint of the Italian fleet) ...