Warships. Cruisers. Not a pancake and not a lump!


In one of the first articles about cruisers, we examined in detail what the Washington Agreement is and how beautifully it fought the evolution of warships in general and cruisers in particular.


But it was this agreement that drew the line between light and heavy cruisers. Yes, it is the British, who stubbornly did not want to let the expensive Hawkins down for scrapping, who take the initiative to introduce a maximum figure of 10 tons of displacement and a 000-mm main caliber.

The states did not object, and the rest, as it were, were not specifically asked. The second half of the restrictions was to prevent the Japanese from building as many ships as they wanted. Therefore, the tonnage of ships under construction was limited, and then the quantity was also limited.

The United States could have no more than 18 heavy cruisers, the United Kingdom and its dominions - no more than 15, Japan - 12. The total displacement of heavy cruisers in the fleets of individual countries participating in the treaty should not exceed: for the USA - 180 thousand tons, for the UK - 146,8 thousand tons, for Japan - 108,4 thousand tons

France and Italy refused to sign the agreement, and the United States and Great Britain had to press them separately. As a result, the French and Italians had to be content with 7 heavy cruisers in the fleet.

Here is a brief summary of what the phases of the Washington Agreement of 1930 and 1932 brought.

But then, interesting miracles began, since the Japanese in 1936 defiantly did not give a damn about the agreements and refused to sign or execute anything. That is why Japan entered the war with 18 heavy cruisers. As much as the United States and Great Britain individually had.

Moreover, given that on the conventions, the Japanese leaned on even earlier when they started building a new fleet and realized that it’s unrealistic to contain everything that’s wanted in 10 tons.

Perhaps that is why the Japanese heavy cruisers turned out to be just beautiful ships. Maybe someone will dispute this, but my opinion is that it was the Japanese heavy cruisers that were the best ships of the Second World War in this class. Both qualitatively and quantitatively.


Of course, we will have Baltimore, Hippers, London, and Suffrens ahead. And of course, we will compare them with each other. But now we’ll start talking about Japanese heavy cruisers, especially since the Myoko have already been considered.

Therefore, we will return to the beginning. And the beginning of the heavy cruisers of the Japanese fleet were cruisers of the Furutaka type.

Warships. Cruisers. Not a pancake and not a lump!

The name in general turned out to be an interesting and even mystical case. In general, heavy cruisers were supposed to be named after the names of mountains, of which there are plenty in Japan. But the lead ship of the series received the name "Kako" in honor of the river in Hyogo Prefecture. And the series was to be named after the first ship, as is well known. And it would be the first Japanese heavy cruisers of the Kako type, but the gods intervened, not otherwise.

In general, it turned out that in Japan there was a strong earthquake. This is a normal and normal thing, they were shaking there from the creation of the world. But a huge gantry crane fell on Kako, which interrupted construction for three months. Thus, the Furutaka was the first to be completed and everything fell into place. The traditions remained intact, and both ships were completed without incident.

The fact that the ships were successful, became clear at the very first sea trials, when the Furutaka showed a speed of 35,2 knots. The contract listed 34,5 knots. Everyone exhaled, the time has come to comprehend on the topic "what happened with us."


But it turned out very well. Somehow, it suddenly dawned on everyone that the Furutaka was a ship that would be stronger than the Hawkins, which was kind of like the standard of the time.

Six 200-mm guns in single-gun towers, arranged in pyramids one above the other, three on the bow and stern, fired 660 kg of metal and explosives in a volley at 544 kg of six guns from Hawkins. Yes, Hawkins had more trunks, seven, but at best only six could shoot. Plus the caliber was smaller, 190 mm.

But the Japanese shipbuilders did not stop there and all unrealized Wishlist were embodied in cruisers of the Aoba type, having invented modern two-gun towers for them. There is a story ahead of the Aobahs, the cruisers generally succeeded, the new turrets with new guns gave a rate of fire of three rounds per minute. The volley weight was 1980 kg.


Why am I painting another ship like this? Everything is elementary. Seeing what could be done better, the Japanese upgraded the Furutaki to Aoba, replacing the single-armed towers with new ones with two barrels.

And so the two types of cruisers actually merged into one. Yes, they did not become full-fledged Washington heavy cruisers, yielding to the Pensacols and the London, which appeared later, for example, but the boats came out quite decent.

So, what did the Japanese shipbuilders do?


Displacement. Initially: 7 tons (standard), after modernization: 500 tons (standard), 8 (full).
Length: 183,46 m (waterline).
Width: 16,93 m
Draft: 5,61 m.

Reservations.
Armor belt: 76 mm;
Deck: 32-35 mm;
Towers: 25-19 mm;
Bridge: 35 mm;
Barbets: 57 mm.

In general, the reservation did not go very far from the light cruisers of the same Britain, but: the Japanese deliberately sacrificed the reservation in speed and range.

Engines: 4 Mitsubishi-Parsons, 10 Campon Ro Guo, 109 liters. from.

Speed ​​of 35,22 knots in trials, with a full load of 32,95 knots.

The actual cruising range was 7 nautical miles at 900 knots.

Crew - 639 man.

Armament.

The main caliber initially consisted of 6 mm Type 200 guns, which were replaced by 3 towers of 3 2 mm Type 203 # 3 barrels. There was a shift towards the bow, there were now 2 trunks and 4 aft.


Flak. 4 universal guns 120 mm, 4 double-barreled anti-aircraft guns 25 mm, 2 coaxial machine guns 13,2 mm.


Torpedo weapons. 8 (2 × 4) torpedo tubes 610 mm Type 92 with ammunition 16 torpedoes.

Aviation armament. Catapult (was not immediately installed in 1933), 2 seaplanes.

In general, we are faced with such a progressive cruiser-raider, capable of performing a fairly wide range of tasks. Yes, frankly weak anti-aircraft weapons, but the Japanese always had problems with this.


In general, both cruisers have become a kind of testing platforms, on which the concept of Japanese heavy cruisers was developed. And today we can say with confidence that without the rather small Furutak, the handsome Mogami, Tone and Takao would not have taken place.

In the process of improvement, the ships received longer chimneys, the bridge was booked. Seaplane take-offs were replaced with a steam catapult. Four-pipe torpedo tubes were installed near the catapult (instead of two-pipe). Of the new TAs, it was possible to launch combined-cycle 610-mm torpedoes Type 90, and oxygen Type 93.

Cruisers received anti-torpedo boules and wider and longer cheekbones.

They worked very radically on the fire guidance and control system. We replaced fire control devices, installed a Type 92 target course and speed calculator, a Type 92 calculating and deciding device for small elevation angles, and three Type 6 rangefinders (on the bridge and on towers No. 14 and No. 2).

The fire control system of 120-mm guns received two Type 94 and POISO Type 91 rangefinders. 25-mm machine guns were guided by two Type 95 directors.

The air observers on the bridge were armed with 80 mm and 120 mm binoculars.

The torpedo fire control system ultimately consisted of two Type 91 directors, a Type 93 target course and speed calculator, and a Type 93 calculating machine.

We can say that all the processes of cruiser fire control were maximally mechanized for that time.

But the main modernization was the almost complete replacement of the propulsion system. Instead of 12 coal-fired boilers, 10 oil-fired boilers were delivered.

To increase the fuel supply, all available volumes were used: coal bunkers were replaced tanks for oil, tanks were equipped in boulevards and freed up boiler rooms No. 1 and No. 7. Thus, the amount of fuel was brought up to 1852 tons. Cruising range increased to 7900 nautical miles, which was a very good indicator. The maximum speed slightly decreased when fully loaded, but for autonomy it was necessary to pay.

Both cruisers before the war received a demagnetizing winding designed to protect against magnetic sea mines.

After this work (you must admit, the volumes are impressive), Furutaka-type ships began to differ little from the Aoba type, because they (Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, Kinugasa) were recognized as being of the same type.


There was one more nuance, first tested in the construction of Japanese warships. It was at Furutaki for the first time that such a nasal superstructure was used, combined with the focus mast together. The number of open areas was minimized, trying to protect the crew from fragments as much as possible.

The superstructure 26 meters high included a combat, navigational and radio room, navigation bridge and fire control devices. Plus, in the same superstructure, below, the cabins of the senior officers of the ship were located, which was useful if necessary quick action.

The armor plates of the belt and the middle deck were included in the power set of the hull, increasing its longitudinal strength and significantly saving weight. It was useful, but in fact it did not help much, the cruisers turned out to be overloaded.

The system of struggle for survivability was, but expressed in the usual set of compartments and bulkheads. The main problem was the engine room, which was very difficult to share with anything other than a central bulkhead. This could lead to flooding and overturning of the ship if a torpedo hits the engine room area.

Because of the bulkhead, there was a long debate, since the designers were afraid of the capsize and the death of the ship, and the General Staff of the Japanese fleet was afraid of flooding the entire engine room and the subsequent loss of course from one shell. In general, everyone had their own truth, as a result, the bulkhead was nevertheless installed and a counter-flooding system was developed to level the bank.

This system then became standard for all large ships of the Imperial Navy.

The only thing that was not on these worthy ships was the human conditions for the crew. Not meant officers, of course. There were only 45 people on the ship, but the lower ranks - 559. And these fifty thousand people were not very well accommodated.


About one square meter per person on Furutaka-type ships (on the Aobahs was exactly the same) meter of living space. The practice of application showed that there were still negative aspects that designers could not take into account when designing. The portholes of the crew’s rooms were too low and flooded even with slight excitement, so it was forbidden to open from.

Ventilation was frankly weak, especially for the tropical and subtropical zones.

In general, far from always many innovations in one bottle bring success. In the case of Furutaki, one cannot say that everything turned out as planned. Therefore, numerous modernizations were needed.

However, it was precisely by modernizing these ships that the Japanese shipbuilders filled their hands and did not repeat such mistakes in the future.

Of course, there were such flaws that modernizations cannot fix. Let me criticize.

For example, the frankly low rate of fire of the main caliber guns in comparison with the ships of a real enemy. Or a very modest air defense. By the way, torpedo armaments, on which the Japanese navy relied, can be attributed to the minuses. Yes, the Long Lances were scary weaponscapable of destroying ships easily and naturally. However, the lack of space on the ships led to the fact that the torpedoes were stored on the upper deck, where they represented a very dangerous option in the event of bombs and fragments.

By the way, it was these oxygen torpedoes that brought the Furutaku to the bottom.

Combat service.


All four cruisers, now considered not without reason, were reduced to the 6th division of heavy cruisers. Aoba was the flagship of Kinugasa, Furutaka, and Kako.

But since we are interested in the original Furutaki, we will appreciate their combat path.

At the beginning of World War II, both cruisers participated in the capture of Guam, Wake, Rabaul and Lae. In principle, while the Japanese blitzkrieg was walking in the Pacific, everything was fine.

The battle in the Coral Sea, where both cruisers also took part, did not bring them special laurels, since aircraft carriers and aircraft crews fought in that battle.

Then there was a night battle near the island of Savo, or, as Japanese historians call it, the first battle at the island of Savo. There, the Japanese inflicted a serious tactical defeat on the American fleet, drowning 4 heavy cruisers of the Americans in a night battle.


On the night of August 9, 1942, the Kako and Furutaka fired a total of 345 203 mm shells and 16 Type 93 oxygen torpedoes. The Kako was clearly noted for the destruction of the Vincent cruiser, which the three Japanese heavy cruisers simply shot at point blank range.

But the music did not last long, and revenge from the Americans overtook the Japanese cruiser. Upon returning to the base, “Kako” was hit by three torpedoes from the submarine S-44 and sank within 5 minutes, 70 people were killed.

Furutaka briefly outlived his fellow man. The cruiser took the last battle during the battle at Cape Esperance on the night of October 12, 1942, during which it received up to 90 hits from American cruisers, lost speed and was left by the team after a two-hour struggle for survivability.

Of course, in that night battle, the Americans had a huge advantage in the form of radars, but for the vanquished, it’s a sin to complain, for the first battle near the island of Savo, the Americans paid. Well, almost paid off.

It should be noted that the shells that hit the Furutaka did not do as much damage as the one that hit the torpedo tube and caused the torpedo to detonate and the ensuing fire. The fire spread throughout the ship, disabled many systems, and therefore the crew could not continue the struggle for survivability and left the ship.

About how well the ship was protected by armor, we can conclude from these figures: more than 90 shells of various calibers that hit the Furutaka killed only 33 people. Meanwhile, the cruiser was what is called a sieve.

Summing up the project of cruisers like “Furutaka”, we can say that this pancake came out a bit loudly at first, but it was really corrected. And it turned out to be a completely viable and warship, albeit not without flaws.


Although to be honest, the Washington agreements could not produce anything harmonious. Therefore, what the Japanese did with the Furutaki is a huge merit and a very successful experiment. But the achievements that they used to create other ships, - that was the most valuable.

But more about that in the following materials.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vitaly L 24 January 2020 07: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Interestingly, did they produce engines under license?
  2. Vladimir_2U 24 January 2020 07: 22 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    The most beautiful cruisers still had the Japanese, “Stalingrad” does not count.
    1. Lexus 24 January 2020 17: 49 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      I haven’t started reading the article yet, I just looked at the first picture, and it became clear that Roman took up the “samurai”. A huge tower-tower, the first chimney with a characteristic “knee” and a nose with the outline of a bath in profile - these are purely Japanese chips.
      1. Vladimir_2U 24 January 2020 17: 58 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        The most characteristic silhouettes were among the Japanese.
      2. SASHA OLD 24 January 2020 19: 56 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: lexus
        and nose with outlines of the bath in profile

        on this nose, I also immediately identify them, beautiful contours as for me
  3. Ross xnumx 24 January 2020 07: 37 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Novel! good
    Interestingly, even then the ships developed speeds above 30 knots:
    Furutaka showed a speed of 35,2 knots

    Solid numbers ...
    1. Potter 24 January 2020 08: 44 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      The Japanese somewhat exaggerated the quality of their ships, this is their tradition. Most likely, 35,2 knots in tests are the shortest maximum speed achieved, but 32,95 knots. full load - this is more believable.
      1. ANB
        ANB 24 January 2020 11: 31 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Almost 33 nodes - this is now very cool.
      2. SASHA OLD 24 January 2020 19: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Potter
        Most likely, 35,2 knots in trials - short-term maximum speed

        on a measured mile.
  4. Charlie 24 January 2020 08: 08 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    "Cruisers" is of course writing correctly, but in the Navy, in my opinion, they say "cruisers"))
    1. Graz 24 January 2020 08: 54 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      In V. Pikul, the novel was called Cruiser
      1. tima_ga 27 January 2020 20: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Exactly. Valentin Savich has a number of good books on the theme of marinism: Cruisers, Three ages Okini-san, Boys with bows, Ocean Patrol.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. bars042 24 January 2020 20: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Thank you for fag.
        1. bars042 24 January 2020 20: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The word srach did not pass.
    4. bars042 24 January 2020 20: 45 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Shitting on the forum is an old tradition that originated in Ancient Rome
  5. Potter 24 January 2020 08: 48 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    A small edit.
    There is a story ahead of the Aobahs, the cruisers generally succeeded, the new turrets with new guns gave a rate of fire of three rounds per minute. The volley weight was 1980 kg.
    - regarding this phrase - it cannot be a volley weight, the volley weight in this case is 660 kg, this is the minute productivity at 3 volleys per minute. In general, the article plus Roman raises an interesting layer of history, which is often familiar to a narrow circle of specialists and amateurs. But you need to increase your professionalism.
  6. Potter 24 January 2020 09: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And by the way, the data of the Japanese artillery system is not so impressive. Projectile weight 110 kg, rate of fire 3 rounds per minute. For comparison, the German SKC / 34 data - 122kg projectile weight, rate of fire up to 5 rounds per minute - under comparable conditions, Germans will have 1,87 times more minute firepower than the Japanese.
    1. 2 Level Advisor 24 January 2020 09: 35 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Do not forget that between the adoption of the Japsystem (1922) and the Nemsystem (1939) in service - 15 years .. The next generation of Japanese guns 203,2mm (1934) was inferior to the Germans only in range
  7. Charlie 24 January 2020 09: 51 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    Quote: Graz
    In V. Pikul, the novel was called Cruiser

    Yes, he has a novel called that, but Pikul is a storyteller
    1. Krasnoyarsk 24 January 2020 11: 14 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Quote: Charlie
      Quote: Graz
      In V. Pikul, the novel was called Cruiser

      Yes, he has a novel called that, but Pikul is a storyteller

      Any writer is a storyteller. Tell me a writer who is not a storyteller.
      Even historians, to some extent, are storytellers.
      1. God save the king 24 January 2020 13: 34 New
        • 4
        • 10
        -6
        In this case, the word "storyteller" means - "an outright falsifier of history."
        And here far from every writer and historian compares with Pikul.
        1. Glory1974 24 January 2020 14: 43 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          “An outright falsifier of history.”

          what did he falsify? The Tsushima battle or the battle for the Moonsund?
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Octopus 24 January 2020 15: 00 New
          • 10
          • 1
          +9
          Quote: God save the King
          far from every writer and historian compares with Pikul.

          I understand you, but you are not quite right.

          Pikul - grows thin. Like, I don’t know, Tolstoy or Dumas. If for some reason the reader sees a historical source in Pikul, these are the reader’s problems.
          1. Looking for 24 January 2020 16: 58 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Pikul in comparison with other "writers" is simply an encyclopedist.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Vladimir_2U 24 January 2020 17: 51 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Charlie
      Pikul storyteller in general
      But good.
      1. Mordred79 25 January 2020 00: 00 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yeah. In Bayazet, he exposed the true hero of the defense of the fortress Ismail Khan of Nakhichevan as a coward, a traitor and a fool. After that I stopped respecting Pikul, and I am cool towards all his creations.
        1. tima_ga 27 January 2020 20: 23 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Pikul is a Soviet writer and reflected the point of view of Soviet historians. And how there really was a long time to argue.
    3. tima_ga 27 January 2020 20: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is called fiction. He does not pretend to be historic, but it is interesting to read it.
    4. Living7111972 11 February 2020 21: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Absolutely, it’s interesting to read, but as it turns out, it’s practically Dumas ...
  8. ANB
    ANB 24 January 2020 11: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    combined-cycle 610-mm torpedoes Type 90, and oxygen Type 93.

    And how are gas-vapor torpedoes different from oxygen ones?
    1. Dmitry V. 24 January 2020 12: 03 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: ANB
      And how are gas-vapor torpedoes different from oxygen ones


      Combined cycle - compressed air, kerosene, water
      Oxygen - the same gas-vapor principle of the engine - but instead of compressed air - compressed oxygen.
      https://midnike.livejournal.com/2976.html
      1. ANB
        ANB 24 January 2020 14: 02 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        243 and 298 are both combined-cycle. There were. In both fuel kerosene. But in 243, the oxidizing agent is oxygen, and in 298, hydrogen peroxide.
    2. Undecim 24 January 2020 12: 07 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Fundamentally - nothing. An oxygen torpedo is also a gas-vapor torpedo, but not compressed air, but compressed oxygen is used as an oxidizing agent for fuel.
    3. Octopus 24 January 2020 15: 02 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: ANB
      are gas-vapor torpedoes different from oxygen?

      You are right, negligence. By steam and gas was meant specifically with an oxidizing agent - compressed air.
  9. Undecim 24 January 2020 11: 41 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    By the way, torpedo armaments, on which the Japanese navy relied, can be attributed to the minuses. Yes, the Long Lance was a terrible weapon, capable of destroying ships easily and naturally. However, the lack of space on the ships led to the fact that the torpedoes were stored on the upper deck, where they represented a very dangerous option in the event of bombs and fragments.
    Initially, torpedo tubes of the “12 Nendo Shiki” type of 1923 were installed pairwise motionless on the middle deck and had protection made of high-strength steel 19–25,4 mm thick. Four pairs were placed above the engine rooms and two pairs between the main-caliber tower No. 3 and the superstructure.
    And the designers. and the sailors were categorically against the installation of torpedo tubes on the cruiser.
    But the naval general staff was planning to compensate for the numerical advantage of potential opponents with intensive night torpedo attacks, so almost all large ships armed with torpedo tubes and special destroyers such as “Fubuki” were created.
    During the modernization of 1936-1939, the stationary traverse torpedo tubes were replaced by two four-tube deck-mounted rotary mounts, and to accommodate the shelves of spare torpedoes, the 120-mm gun mounts were moved to the fore end.

    In this 1941 photograph, four-tube torpedo tubes and torpedo racks are clearly visible.
    1. Undecim 24 January 2020 12: 01 New
      • 15
      • 0
      +15

      And so they look today at a depth of 1400 meters.
      1. Catfish 24 January 2020 14: 03 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Good afternoon, Victor Nikolaevich. On Mikum these t / a were located the same?
        1. Undecim 24 January 2020 14: 52 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          For Mogami class cruisers, they were inside an easy superstructure. Pretty much the same thing.

          Rectangular cuts closer to the stern.
          1. Catfish 24 January 2020 14: 53 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            For Mogami class cruisers, they were inside an easy superstructure.

            Therefore, the question arose. Thank.
          2. Undecim 24 January 2020 14: 56 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9

            And this is the Mikum cruiser, sinking at Midway. It can be seen how torpedoes fall out of the vehicles.
            1. Catfish 24 January 2020 15: 36 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              And it always seemed to me that not torpedoes fell out, but half of the apparatus itself “dives” into the water. But the ship was beautiful nevertheless ...
  10. Engineer 24 January 2020 11: 57 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Although to be honest, the Washington agreements could not produce anything harmonious.

    A statement of the imbalance of contractual ships has become a commonplace. But for some reason it seems that without limitations there would be no balance. If you can’t think out a coherent concept, then there will be little of 10 and 20 thousand tons. “Hippers” and “Baltimore” were designed and built without restrictions, but this did not help them much. The further evolution of the big cruisers with their meaningless Alaska and Stalingrad is well known. It turns out it is not a matter of limitations. They partly played a positive role in moderating the appetites of Mr. Admirals.
  11. God save the king 24 January 2020 13: 44 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    what is the Washington agreement and how beautifully it fought the evolution of warships in general and cruisers in particular.
    It’s even interesting how the limitation of displacement delimits the evolution of ships?
    Weren't these agreements a powerful incentive to move naval commanders from intensive to an extensive development path? The displacement is less, but the ships themselves are much more perfect, the fleets of the leading countries freed from obsolete rubbish that ate a bunch of resources, all this led to the fact that World War 2 at sea was very different from the previous war.
    the rest, as it were, were not specifically asked. The second half of the restrictions was to prevent the Japanese from building as many ships as they wanted.
    again, agreements worked both ways. At the same time, the Japanese, even without any agreements, could not even approach the tonnage launched. As soon as the rest of the countries removed their restrictions, the imperial ambitions of the Land of the Rising Sun were immediately extinguished.
    1. Glory1974 24 January 2020 14: 45 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      an incentive to switch naval commanders from intensive to an extensive path of development? Displacement is less, but the ships themselves are much more perfect

      So it seems to be the other way around? Intensively - means less displacement and more perfect ship? repeat
  12. monster 24 January 2020 16: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    No wonder the children of Amaterasu, of all the elements, most of all venerate the water-ships they have are handsome, powerful, and at the same time elegant.
    1. unknown 24 January 2020 19: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      From the point of view of geographical astrology, the totem animal of Japan is the Monkey, it is considered marine. The totem animal of Great Britain is the Rat, it is also considered marine.
    2. tima_ga 27 January 2020 20: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They also had good aviation, but in the armed forces of the ground forces they really lagged behind
  13. unknown 24 January 2020 19: 37 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    No, still not in vain, the British believed that the Japanese in shipbuilding were "amateurs."
    The first two pairs of heavy cruisers were unsuccessful. Due to the huge construction overload, the ships had to be radically modernized, as a result of which their displacement increased significantly.
    But, at the same time, there were still problems with stability, survivability, crew living conditions.
    But it was impossible to initially design these ships in a larger displacement?
    Similar cruisers such as the "York" did not have to be rebuilt like that, because they were originally designed competently, not in "amateurish" ways.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. unknown 26 January 2020 07: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        On these ships, for each crew member, there were 1,3 mXNUMX of cubic living space.
        Perhaps this is habitual for the Japanese, but now they live in apartments - "capsules."
        As for the English ships, they were designed correctly. For everyday use, they were adapted much better than the Japanese.
      2. tima_ga 27 January 2020 20: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In fairness, I note that Hood got into a fight with a battleship, in which he had nothing to catch, and Ripals and Prince were sunk by aircraft, bombs and torpedoes left them no chance.
        1. Usher 28 January 2020 16: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: tima_ga
          In fairness, I note that Hood got into a fight with a battleship, in which he had nothing to catch, and Ripals and Prince were sunk by aircraft, bombs and torpedoes left them no chance.

          Well, bombs and torpedoes than they stop, armor and competent design. What the British did not have. The same Bismarck sank after hours of beating, Tirpitz after hitting many-ton bombs. Yamato and Musassi held on for just as long. And that your "non-amateurs" from a pair of bombs and torpedoes roamed out. Competent shipbuilders, you can’t say anything) The same Barham, Hood, Prince, Ripals, and a bunch of cruisers, during the capture of Crete, the Britons lost 3 cruisers, not because of fierce fighting, but because of their stupidity and weakness of the air defense of ships. And you say that they are "not amateurs."
          1. tima_ga 31 January 2020 02: 53 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            In my comment above, I do not discuss whether they are amateur or not, I only mentioned the circumstances of the death of specific ships. I do not argue with your point of view, but I think that the topic you have raised is large and complex, for the whole study.
  14. SASHA OLD 24 January 2020 19: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    thanks again to Roman for interesting material
  15. Saxahorse 24 January 2020 22: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, the article is wonderful. Thanks to the author!
  16. Corrie sanders 25 January 2020 01: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Good article, many thanks to the author! good

    But according to the conclusions, there are considerable questions. The basic project “Kako” (“Furutaka”) cannot be called successful in any way - it was a test of a pen with its Japanese flavor and shoved unbeaten. Heavy weapons were pushed into the light cruiser’s hull; as a result, it didn’t become normal heavy:
    1. There is no reservation in fact, not only from 8 "shells - from 6" shells the main "reservation" did not save.
    2. Artillery in 1-gun turrets is generally slag and sludge, aiming and feeding mechanisms were implemented according to outdated solutions, as a result - disgusting aiming speed and rate of fire.
    3. The layout of the artillery in the "pyramid" is also a very unfortunate grotesque, the 3rd tower in most situations is superfluous, it cannot shoot normally. But on the other hand, the nose pulls heavily, great stresses on the hull (as our 7s burst between the second tower and the superstructure)
    4. Survival survivability systems are primitive, narrow and low rooms, the practical absence of normal lighting on the lower decks and in the hold and so on and so forth.

    The Japanese themselves called Aoba and Furutaki "suizokukan" - an aquarium - like glass, fragile
    Bottom line: in the first normal battle with worthy opponents sunk.
  17. Charlie 25 January 2020 12: 08 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: glory1974
    “An outright falsifier of history.”

    what did he falsify? The Tsushima battle or the battle for the Moonsund?

    Yes, open his "immortal creation" "I have the honor", there, in my opinion, in the fourth paragraph, he smacks of rubbish about Germany, which preserved territorial integrity after the First World War. In the novel "Cruiser", there are actually pearls, even reluctant to list
  18. NF68 25 January 2020 16: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Engines: 4 Mitsubishi-Parsons, 10 Campon Ro Guo, 109 liters. from.


    Not engines, but power plants. At least it didn't hurt to know, a multi-page writer.
  19. Fat
    Fat 25 January 2020 21: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    [/ quote] [quote = Vitaliy L] That's interesting, they produced engines under license?
    I don’t know. And to say ... But the Washington agreement was of great importance only for the two countries of the USA and for Britain .. Those percentages for the Japanese fleet were just a fancy. So did the strategists think until December 1941 ... And then they gave back a third of the budget. Such japas EVERYONE have mocked and built 3 super battleships and an armored carrier ... And what was it?
  20. Andrzej k 26 January 2020 13: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Here is a brief summary of what the phases of the Washington Agreement of 1930 and 1932 brought.

    This is a strange phrase.
    It was not until 1922 that a disarmament conference took place in Washington. In 1930, this happened in London, in 1932 in Geneva. You could write earlier about the next stages of the disarmament agreements (and not about the subsequent stages of the Washington Treaty!)

    Moreover, the Washington Treaty specifies only the maximum parameters of ships that are not subject to quantitative restrictions, that is, a standard displacement of up to 10000 tons and guns up to 203 mm.
    Only the 1930 London Treaty introduced a distinction between cruisers A (heavy) and cruisers B (light) along with tonnage restrictions for individual subscription fleets.

    In 1932, in Geneva, the issue of cruisers of the main naval power fleets, including Japan, was not discussed, making it difficult to discuss its influence on the development of this class of ships