Warships. Cruisers. "Perefurutaki" in metal


In fact, we continue the conversation that was raised in the topic about Furutaki, because our two heroes today, Aoba and Kinugasa, are nothing more than the Furutaka project, but with some alterations.


Here you need to know the Asian trick. History These cruisers were born precisely under the cover of cunning. In general, the Aoba and Kinugasa were to be built as the third and fourth ships of the Furutaka series, but by that time the Japanese admirals had already wanted to make numerous design changes.

The chief designer of the cruisers Hiragi was very opposed, because he knew how the attempts to realize all the Wishlist command ended. Therefore, admirals from the main naval headquarters took and sent Rear Admiral Hiragi to Europe. So to speak, on "advanced training". And as soon as he left for a business trip, to his deputy, captain of the second rank Fujimoto, a delegation of staffs appeared and dumped a whole heap of desires in front of the cautorang.

It is clear that the captain of the second rank is not Rear Admiral. Fujimoto was more accommodating, because it can be said that the intrigue ended successfully. And in the end, two cruisers were born, which could be called anything you like, but not the Furutaka. It really was other ships. So I had to bring them to a separate class, which the Japanese naval command did. And only then began the pulling up of “Furutak” to the level of “Aoba”, as mentioned in the previous article.


Fujimoto did not want to spoil his career and went to meet the "requests" of admirals from the naval general staff. As a result, the cruiser began to weigh almost 10 tons (the Furutaka started as a 000), and the expected total displacement went beyond 10 thousand tons.

Increased displacement entailed a change in stability, cruising range and speed.

In addition, it was on Aoba-type cruisers that the transition to new, two-gun towers of the main caliber took place.

Warships. Cruisers. "Perefurutaki" in metal

Instead of 80-mm anti-aircraft guns, universal 120-mm guns were installed. But most importantly - these were the first cruisers on which catapults were installed to launch aircraft.


After the entry into operation of both cruisers, the Japanese had to upgrade the Furutaki in order to pull them up to the Aoba level. It was generally assumed that four cruisers of the same type with approximately the same characteristics would serve in the same compound.

If you study the performance characteristics of the ships, it becomes completely clear that this is not quite “Furutaki”. More precisely, not the Furutaki at all.

Displacement: 8 738 t (standard), 11 660 (full).
Length: 183,48 m (waterline).
Width: 17,56 m
Draft 5,66 m.

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

Both Aoba-class cruisers were converted from coal-fueled boilers to oil-fired boilers, just like their predecessors. Power plants (4 Kawasaki-Curtiss TZA) received energy from 10 Kampon Ro Go oil boilers, which allowed to increase the power plant capacity to 110 hp. The maximum speed was 000 knots. The practical range is 34 miles with an economical 8 knots.

The crew consisted of 657 people.

Armament.

The main caliber artillery consisted of six 203 mm / 50 Type 2 guns in three towers.


Anti-aircraft weapons were initially more than modest.
4 120 mm guns and two 7,7 mm machine guns.

As modernizations progressed over the course of the war, the Japanese squeezed anti-aircraft mounts wherever they could, in which they were masters. And by the end of the war, anti-aircraft weapons of the cruiser type "Aoba" consisted of:

4 universal guns 120 mm.
44 anti-aircraft guns 25 mm (3x3, 10x2, 15x1).

It is worth noting that at first glance the Aoba looked like such a floating air defense battery, the value of 44 barrels was more than doubtful, since the most important component of the ship’s protection was missing: a unified fire control system for anti-aircraft guns. Actually, the end of the battle path of the cruisers Aoba and Kunigas is the best confirmation of this.

Torpedo armament initially consisted of 6 two-tube fixed 610-mm torpedo tubes. Generally, initially torpedoes were not provided for on cruisers, this is just from the list of “hoteloks” of the naval general staff. And after modernization, instead of slotted fixed torpedo tubes, 2 rotatable four-tube TAs with shield protection were installed. Installed TA on the sides of the catapult. Ammunition consisted of 16 "Long Lance".

Aviation group - two seaplanes and one catapult.

Radar weapons. Cruisers of the Aoba type were among those who received radar weapons earlier than others. In 1943, cruisers received Type 21 radars, in 1944 they were replaced by Type 22 No. 4 radars.


Combat service.

The service of the cruisers was, let's say, full and very eventful. It was long for one ship, not very long for the second.


Both cruisers were part of the 6th division of heavy cruisers. After the outbreak of hostilities, they were engaged in covering up various landing operations of the Japanese fleetaimed at the capture of foreign territories in the Pacific Ocean.

With the participation of cruisers of the 6th division, landings were landed in Rabaul and Kavieng, on the east coast of New Guinea (in Lae and Salamua), the islands of Bougainville, Shortland and Manus.

The next operation for the cruisers was the operation to capture Port Moresby. All this led to the battle in the Coral Sea, resulting in an unpleasant disgrace for the Japanese fleet.

The formation of Japanese ships was attacked by American aircraft from aircraft carriers Lexington and Yorktown. The Japanese cruisers were not able to provide at least some resistance, having shot down only 3 aircraft out of almost a hundred participating in the raid. That is, the cruisers turned out to be spectators at a play in which American pilots drowned the Shokho aircraft carrier. And in the end they drowned.

The Japanese did not capture Port Moresby, and the Aoba went to Japan for planned repairs and re-equipment in terms of air defense.

The battle at Savo Island was perhaps the most successful in Aoba’s career. Returning to the division after repair, the cruiser immediately went into battle. Yes, in what!

On the night of August 9, the formation of Admiral Mikawa, which included the 6th division, attacked the Allied fleet located north of the Gudalkanal.

The cruiser’s seaplane crews had a great reconnaissance of the area, not only giving a picture of the number of American ships (6 heavy and 2 light cruisers and 15 destroyers), they timely discovered the separation of enemy forces.

At night, Japanese cruisers, lining up in a wake column, sequentially attacked two groups of allied ships.

During the battle, Aoba fired 182 203 mm shells and 13 torpedoes at the enemy. It is impossible to determine exactly which ships were hit by his shells and torpedoes, but judging by the nature of the battle, hits were in all of the enemy’s ships. The Japanese cruiser did not suffer losses, with the exception of the crew of the reconnaissance aircraft, which did not return from the next mission.

In response, only one 203-mm shell flew from the American cruisers, causing a fire on the deck just in the area of ​​the torpedo tubes. The cruiser’s crew was lucky that the vehicles were empty. And so the “Long Lances” did not forgive such liberties.

On the night of October 11, 1942, the Aoba took part in the battle at Cape Esperance, during which the attack group of Japanese cruisers was unexpectedly attacked by the formation of the American fleet (2 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers and 5 destroyers).

The Japanese did not expect Americans at all, so the latter took full advantage of this. Plus, the numerous mistakes of the Japanese command led to the fact that the Americans won the battle by sinking the cruiser and three destroyers against one of their destroyers.

"Aoba" received more than 40 hits of shells with a caliber of 203 mm and 152 mm. The main-caliber towers No. 2 and No. 3 were disabled, and the third tower completely burned out. It had to be completely changed, so before the repair in 1943, the Aoba walked with two main-caliber towers.

Almost all artillery fire control systems, several anti-aircraft guns and a catapult were destroyed. Other ship superstructures were damaged.


In February 1943, the cruiser returned to the duty station in Kavieng. And after the events of April 3, he was again forced to go for repairs to Japan. American B-25 bombers hit a 227-kg bomb on the starboard side, in the area of ​​the catapult. And what was next? That's right, torpedoes in the vehicles.

It exploded. Twice. Two torpedoes detonated, and the damage from a single bomb turned out to be much more than one could have imagined.

A three-meter hole in the board, a fire in the engine room No. 2, could not immediately cope with the water, even had to land the cruiser aground.

During the repair, seriously considered options for converting the cruiser into a hydro-carrier (at the stern instead of the GK tower equip a deck for 6 seaplanes) or (horror!) Turn the Aoba into a squadron tanker. But the cruiser was lucky, the tower number 3 was completed at the factory, because it was simply installed on the ship and, thank God, there were no cardinal changes. Just installed radar type 21 and some more anti-aircraft guns.

After the repair, the cruiser was engaged in all small things for a long time, and I must say that he did not take part in naval battles. But this did not save, on October 23, 1944, the American submarine SS-243 "Brim" launched 6 torpedoes towards the convoy of Japanese ships. Only one hit. In Aobu. The engine room was flooded (once again), the cruiser lost speed. Nevertheless, they dragged him to Manila, they patched him up and the last heroic campaign to Japan, “Aoba” made a 5-node move.

On the way to the metropolis, the cruiser was repeatedly tried to drown American submariners, but apparently, there was no fate. And “Aoba” came to Kura on December 12, 1944.

It was not possible to quickly repair the ship, but the Americans did not give it slowly. The fact that the submariners could not, was easily arranged by the pilots. During July 1945, they simply turned the cruiser into a pile of metal. The ship, having received almost two dozen hits of 227 kg of bombs, fell apart. The stern broke off, numerous holes in the sides caused the cruiser to sink to the ground. The commander ordered the crew to leave the ship ...



The sibling spike of Aoba, Kinugasa, lived an even shorter life.


The cruiser during 1941 ensured the capture of the islands of Makin, Gilbert, Taraw and Guam. In 1942, he covered Malay convoys, landing operations on Kavieng, Rabaul, Lae, Salamaua, on the Buka, Bougainville, Shortlent and Manus islands.

He participated in an attempt to capture Port Moresby and in the battle near the island of Savo, during which, together with cruisers from the 6th DKR, he took an active part in the sinking of the Australian heavy cruiser HMAS Canberra and the American Astoria.

During the battle, fired 185 pieces of 203 mm shells and 8 torpedoes.

In the battle at Cape Esperance, the Kinugasa received four hits of 152-mm and 203-mm shells, but the crew escaped with a light fright and slightly crumpled superstructures. In response, the Japanese made a dozen hits in the main caliber in the cruiser "Boyce" and "Salt Lake City."


November 13, 1942 the cruiser as part of the formation of Vice Admiral Mikawa last time went to sea to shell the Henderson Field airfield. On the night of November 14, the cruiser arrived at its destination and participated in the shelling, during which the detachment destroyed 18 aircraft, but did not damage the runway.

On the same day, the ship was attacked by American base aircraft. The bomb hit the bow superstructure, pierced all decks and exploded below the waterline. A fire started on the ship, a roll to the port side arose. After 30 minutes, the ship was again attacked by aircraft. Several bombs fell very close to the side of the cruiser, and numerous leaks began. The feed compartments were filled with water, which the crew could not stop and pump.

As a result, the cruiser capsized to the port side and sank, taking 511 sailors with it. 146 crew members managed to escape.


What can be said in the end? One thing can be said: the experiment with the Aobes once again confirmed that the Washington Sea Treaty could only give rise to miscarriages of shipbuilding.

The cruisers turned out to be not quite heavy, rather, like the Exeter, light heavy. Still, 6 x 203 mm - this is not a god news that actually.


Plus, "Aoba" proved that saving on air defense is not going well. Well, what prevented the installation of a fire control system? Lack of opportunities? Not. There were opportunities. But in fact, 44 trunks, which were controlled by 20 crews, who were in no small part - even in the first half of World War II it was naive to say the least. And in the second ...

But these ships have become a stepping stone to creating true cruising masterpieces. But about them in the next part. Although many are already preparing arguments in order to prove the opposite, I’m sure. Well, let's see. Sometimes truth is born in disputes ... So, at least, they say.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Comrade 26 January 2020 06: 18 New
    • 22
    • 0
    +22
    The article is written smartly, but some passages hurt the eye.
    The cruisers turned out to be not quite heavy, rather, like the Exeter, light heavy. Still, 6 x 203 mm - this is not a god news that actually.
    If the cruiser built under the Washington Naval Agreement (1922) had 203 mm guns, such a cruiser was considered heavy cruiser (or just cruiser).
    If the cruiser had 152 mm guns, then such a cruiser was considered easy cruiser.
    Belonging to the Washington Cruiser heavy or light cruisers determined caliber guns, and not their of.
    Light heavy cruisers did not exist.
    1. Rurikovich 26 January 2020 07: 32 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Quote: Comrade
      Light heavy cruisers did not exist.

      Greetings, Valentine hi
      What about the Argentine "browns"? It seems that it’s lighter than the classics, and the smaller caliber is 190 mm, and the same number of trunks of the main guns characteristic of “underdevelopers” is 6, and are classified as heavy repeat
      Although Argentina did not sign the VD, like the USSR, which had non-classic light Kirovs with 180 mm guns drinks
      1. Looking for 26 January 2020 18: 54 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        both were geeks in terms of world classification.
      2. Comrade 26 January 2020 23: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Rurikovich
        What about the Argentine "browns"? It seems that it’s lighter than the classics, and the smaller caliber is 190 mm, and the same number of trunks of the main guns characteristic of “underdevelopers” is 6, and are classified as heavy

        My respect, Andrew!
        Let's try to figure it out.
        According to the 1940 Soviet naval reference book, for example, Argentinean cruisers of the Almirante Brown type are simply Cruisers (Cruisers).
        And cruisers built by countries that concluded the Washington Sea Agreement are categorized in the directory Cruisers or Heavy cruisers (Cruisers or heavy cruisers). As you can see, in the case of the Argentine cruisers, everything is unambiguous, and in the case of the “Washington” cruisers, experts admitted a double interpretation.
        But if the cruiser guns of the main caliber of 152 mm, then the ship belongs to the category Lung cruisers, no options (Light cruisers).
      3. Grafova Irina 28 January 2020 09: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Consider them "average" cruisers - and all will be happy
  2. avia12005 26 January 2020 07: 29 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    "Power plants (4 Kawasaki-Curtiss TZA) received energy from 10 Kampon Ro Go oil boilers, which increased the power plant capacity to 110 hp. The maximum speed was 000 knots. Practical range - 34 miles economical 8 knots. "

    Navy, tell me: is modern Russian industry really unable to at least copy such power plants for our frigates and destroyers ??? After all, it seems that they are suitable for all parameters? And the displacement of the ships is about the same?
    1. Narak-zempo 26 January 2020 17: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: avia12005
      "Power plants (4 Kawasaki-Curtiss TZA) received energy from 10 Kampon Ro Go oil boilers, which increased the power plant capacity to 110 hp. The maximum speed was 000 knots. Practical range - 34 miles economical 8 knots. "

      Navy, tell me: is modern Russian industry really unable to at least copy such power plants for our frigates and destroyers ??? After all, it seems that they are suitable for all parameters? And the displacement of the ships is about the same?

      But nothing that a steam-powered installation on a modern frigate / destroyer is like a sail during the Russo-Japanese war.
      1. avia12005 27 January 2020 07: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This is better than ships without any power plants.
        1. Potter 27 January 2020 09: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The Japanese, even from the position of the 1930s, the power plant was outdated. Since the late 1930s, light steam power plants with increased steam parameters have gone. In the USSR, the first post-war such serial TZA was at EMPR.41, Undaunted, power 2x36000 hp, it was also put on 56 and 57 projects. Well, in the late 1950s appeared TZA 2h45000l.s. on missile cruisers of the Varyag-Grozny type, which was then put on many ships, including increased power of 4x50000 hp. -stands on Kuznetsovo. But it is yesterday. The mass-dimensional characteristics of the TZA will lead to an increase in the displacement of the ship. For the first time, gas turbines on ships began to be installed in the USSR, but, alas, their production remained in Ukraine. Now Rybinsk already assembled serial ship gas turbines.
          1. avia12005 27 January 2020 12: 18 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Knowing the talent of Mr. Manturov to fill up everything, I deeply doubt that the Rybinsk turbines will go into series. Thank you for the information))) I think it is better to have ships with outdated power plants than ships on slipways without them)
            1. pacific 16 February 2020 23: 12 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I think that it is better to have ships with outdated power plants than ships on slipways without them)

              Your advice is late. A minimum of 35-40 years. In the 70s - 90s, a series of destroyers of project 956 was built with a steam-powered power plant 2x50000 hp. Speed ​​34 knots. (On the 6th building of EM “Combat”, a 7-hour transition at maximum speed was made during testing.) The estimated service life was expected until about 2025.
              Alas, out of 17 (I can be mistaken) built ships of the series, only 1 remained in service. Moreover, destroyers began to fail in 2005-2010. The reason for such a short life is the type of power plant. The peers of these destroyers - BOD pr.1155 with gas turbine power plant are still in operation.
              I hope you remember what the press wrote about the "fire" on Kuznetsov during his transition to the shores of Syria. And it’s just the boilers smoked.
              There are many advantages to a gas turbine installation: it is lighter, it starts faster, it is smaller in size and it does not provide a smoke trail to the unmasking ship.
              So why push obsolete equipment onto new ships? It’s better to let them stand for a couple of years in anticipation of new power plants, and then they will serve a couple of decades
              1. avia12005 17 February 2020 15: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Given the "outstanding" business and organizational skills of our managers, I think that it will take decades to wait. And the probable opponent does not want to wait, but builds.
    2. tima_ga 27 January 2020 21: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Our modern frigates are almost two times smaller and the usable volume is occupied by modern equipment and weapons. If you do not even take into account the moral obsolescence of power plants of 80 years ago and try to shove them into a modern frigate, then there is not enough space for that ... And to the comment on Rybinsk turbines I will add that modern Kolomenskie diesel engines are definitely more efficient than those Japanese boilers. It’s just that if you destroy an entire industry for 20 years, it is extremely unlikely to restore and catch up with the “partners” that have gone ahead. Give me time, I hope there is a desire.
  3. Vladimir_2U 26 January 2020 07: 43 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    the value of 44 barrels was more than doubtful, since the most important component of the ship’s defense was missing: a unified fire control system for anti-aircraft guns
    In fairness and for the Americans, machine guns were not controlled centrally, except perhaps by voice.
    1. novobranets 26 January 2020 08: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Americans were not controlled by machine guns centrally, except in a voice.

      In those days, this was centralized management. yes The officer who controlled the anti-aircraft fire transmitted orders through conventional wired communication, and the commander of the memory had headphones.
      1. Vladimir_2U 26 January 2020 09: 54 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Not at all, even if you do not take into account the remote synchronous guidance, the data was automatically transferred to the guidance devices, and the gunners only had to “combine arrows”.
        1. novobranets 26 January 2020 11: 04 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          This is for the main caliber. And for air defense, at least on American ships, the Air Defense Officer was sitting in a special turret or platform, with a circular view, and through the ship’s communications, gave the order to open fire, and the direction for firing, in the most dangerous, in his opinion, directions . I read about it in some article.
          1. God save the king 26 January 2020 12: 26 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            And for air defense, at least on American ships .... there were 40mm “bofors” with remote control via the mk51 POISO, and 5-inch artillery also had remote control via mk37.
            In the way you described, only 20mm Erlikons were used, but they were considered the “last line of defense of the ship” in the US Navy, but they were not at all the basis of air defense, unlike Japanese ships.
            1. novobranets 26 January 2020 12: 38 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What I wrote about was read by me in an article about American and English cruisers built in the 20-40s. I do not exclude that the last of them used remote guidance, although I strongly doubt it.
            2. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 10: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: God save the King
              And for air defense, at least on American ships .... there were 40mm “bofors” with remote control through the POISO mk51

              Nevertheless, the POISO Mark51 is not a single system, but an individual director for each quad and paired machine. True, with the radar.
              Here is his predecessor, Mark 49 (in New Jersey):
          2. Vladimir_2U 26 January 2020 13: 16 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Well, they already answered you, I didn’t know about bofors, for example.
        2. Octopus 26 January 2020 12: 14 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          then the data was automatically transferred to the guidance devices, and the gunners only had to “combine arrows”.

          This is the Bofors. Oerlikons were guided by hands through an ordinary iron sight.

          Yes, they were also completely useless. One of the common mistakes of that period.
          1. 27091965 26 January 2020 14: 21 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Octopus
            Yes, they were also completely useless. One of the common mistakes of that period.


            The Americans do not have much different opinion.

            " An analysis of anti-aircraft actions, compiled by the commander of the US Navy, showed that from December 7, 1941 to September 1944, the 20-mm gun was the most effective of all anti-aircraft guns. During this period, 32 percent of confirmed downed aircraft were attributed to this caliber.. "1953
            1. Octopus 26 January 2020 14: 55 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: 27091965i
              During this period, 32 percent of confirmed downed aircraft were attributed to this caliber.

              Firstly, this phrase is an indicator of how difficult it is to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular type of weapon.
              Secondly, would it make it difficult to give a link? The right button is not looking for this quote.
              1. 27091965 26 January 2020 15: 29 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Octopus
                Secondly, would it make it difficult to give a link?




                Page 245, not to be searched.
                1. Octopus 26 January 2020 15: 32 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: 27091965i
                  Page 245, not to be searched.

                  Thank you.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Octopus 26 January 2020 16: 51 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: 27091965i
                  from December 7, 1941 to September 1944, the 20-mm gun was the most effective of all anti-aircraft guns

                  Well, in the report everything is written quite adequately. At the end of the 42nd year, several hundred bofors and more than 50 thousand erlikons were released. It is surprising that the majority of applications for those shot down in the 43rd were given by Erlikons. I said that the Oerlikons were worse, but no worse than nothing.

                  On the air defense issue, as with most other issues, the fleet was ready for war in the 44th year.
                  1. 27091965 26 January 2020 17: 13 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    I said that the Oerlikons were worse, but no worse than nothing


                    The Americans still have interesting publications on anti-aircraft and naval artillery published by the Department of the Navy, but unfortunately they did not print them.
            2. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 10: 57 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: 27091965i
              The Americans do not have much different opinion.

              "An analysis of anti-aircraft actions, compiled by the commander of the US Navy, showed that from December 7, 1941 to September 1944, the 20-mm gun was the most effective of all anti-aircraft guns. During this period, 32 percent of confirmed downed aircraft were attributed to this caliber." 1953

              And here there is one subtle point - when these planes were shot down.
              Here is an excerpt from the action report AB "Big E" on the battle of the Solomon Islands:
              The 20-mm guns, although perhaps the most effective anti-aircraft guns against diving bombers, do not have sufficient range to prevent decisive crews from reaching the point of bomb drop. However, well-trained calculations of 20 mm batteries can prevent low-altitude bomb drops and can cause heavy damage to dive bombers when exiting dives at low altitudes. A 20 mm gun is generally considered an excellent and effective weapon, and it is recommended that these guns be installed in every accessible place on all ships.
              Original:
              The 20mm guns, while probably the most effective anti-aircraft guns against dive bombers, have not sufficient range to prevent determined attacking planes from reaching an effective release point. Well trained 20mm batteries can, however, prevent low releases and can take a heavy toll in attacking dive bombers which pull out at low altitudes. The 20mm gun is considered to be a generally excellent and effective weapon, and it is recommended that these guns be installed in every available space on all ships.

              The next battle near the island of Santa Cruz - the same conclusions:
              20 millimeters, despite their short range, were extremely effective, and they accounted for most of the enemy aircraft shot down by this ship. They can’t always get diving bombers before they drop bombs, but they can keep them at a height and collect a terrible tribute from those who come out of the attack.
              Original:
              The 20mm, in spite of its short range, was extremely effective and accounted for most of the enemy planes shot down by this ship. It can not always get the dive bombers before they release, but it can keep them high and reap fearful toll of those that press home their attacks.

              That is, the Oerlikons proved to be effective in shooting down aircraft, but absolutely ineffective in preventing attacks on ships - the point of the bomb drop for dive bombers was outside the effective range of 20 mm machine guns.
              However, in comparison with the previous standard non-volatile short-range air defense ship system - a product of John Mozesovich - Oerlikon was a step forward.
              1. 27091965 27 January 2020 16: 53 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                That is, the Oerlikons proved to be effective in shooting down aircraft, but absolutely ineffective in preventing attacks on ships - the point of the bomb drop for dive bombers was outside the effective range of 20 mm machine guns.


                They occupied their specific niche in the air defense system, and it is impossible to demand more from them.
                1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 18: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: 27091965i
                  They occupied their specific niche in the air defense system, and it is impossible to demand more from them.

                  In the report you quoted, Oerlikon was named the most effective of all anti-aircraft guns.
                  Quote: 27091965i
                  "An analysis of anti-aircraft actions, compiled by the commander of the US Navy, showed that from December 7, 1941 to September 1944, the 20-mm gun was the most effective of all anti-aircraft guns. During this period, 32 percent of confirmed downed aircraft were attributed to this caliber." 1953

                  I just wanted to show that the estimation of efficiency by the number of crashes is not always correct - since the "empty" cars were already crashed.
                  1. 27091965 27 January 2020 19: 40 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    that the assessment of efficiency by the number of crashes is not always true - since the "empty" cars were already crashed.


                    The Erlikons were originally intended to replace heavy machine guns, and the replacement was quite effective for fighting low-flying and diving aircraft. The death of the crew also matters. In addition, bombs did not always hit the ship.
      2. Graz 26 January 2020 13: 16 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Well, I don’t know, it seems to me highly doubtful the effectiveness of voice-activated air defense for 25 mm anti-aircraft guns, from the central air defense post, this is close defense, and if there are 20 airplanes on a ship there is no sense in centralized control, here or each calculation fires determining the priority, or by several calculations, the officer commanded directly in their location at the anti-aircraft guns, so to speak, by sectors
    2. 27091965 26 January 2020 09: 59 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3


      For a group of machine guns one spotter firing.
  4. demiurg 26 January 2020 07: 54 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: avia12005
    "Power plants (4 Kawasaki-Curtiss TZA) received energy from 10 Kampon Ro Go oil boilers, which increased the power plant capacity to 110 hp. The maximum speed was 000 knots. Practical range - 34 miles economical 8 knots. "

    Navy, tell me: is modern Russian industry really unable to at least copy such power plants for our frigates and destroyers ??? After all, it seems that they are suitable for all parameters? And the displacement of the ships is about the same?


    Yeah. Maybe a triple expansion steam engine?
    Russia has invested enough money in the construction of the plant and the restoration of competencies for the construction of gas turbines. Well yes, it's not as fast as you want. And yet, either in this or in the next, we will have the first set.
  5. Sergei Novozhilov 26 January 2020 08: 22 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    Please write about the battle of 6.10.1943/87/87 of three KChF ships on the Black Sea against hundreds of the best Luftwaffe pilots on the Yu. This was a secret topic in the USSR. The heroes of the crews of the leader of Kharkov, the destroyers Ruthless and Capable were forgotten. This battle distracted almost all of the Yus at a time when our ground forces stormed the Blue Line in the Kuban and saved tens of thousands of soldiers' lives.
    1. andrewkor 26 January 2020 11: 09 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      N.G. Kuznetsov "Course to the Victory." Military Publishing, 1987.p. 293._Nothing secret, everything is painted in detail. It is a pity for ships and sailors.
    2. Looking for 26 January 2020 19: 05 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The attempts of the Soviet troops to overcome the Gotenkopf in the spring of 1943 were unsuccessful. The boundary was broken during the Novorossiysk-Taman operation in the fall, October 9, 1943. What does the indicated battle have to do with this?
  6. unknown 26 January 2020 08: 32 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    If about “Bolzano” we can say that he is “a perfectly executed mistake,” then about this couple ....
    The error is unequivocal.
    Somehow they forget that the first couple has nothing to do with the Washington agreement.
    The project began to be developed in 1916. And, horror, the project of the reconnaissance cruiser largely grew out of a positive assessment by the Japanese of the actions of our cruisers with a displacement of 6000 tons. Which, in terms of domestic historiography, are evaluated negatively. But in vain. These Japanese armored cruisers should be evaluated negatively. Their weapons and armor did not allow fighting on equal terms even with outdated armadillos, and the real speed was so low that they did not allow them to get away from modern armadillos. Japanese small cruisers were distinguished by poor seaworthiness, weak weapons, and quickly lost combat stability. The British believed that the minimum displacement for an ocean-going ship was 6000 tons. Armored cruisers became a dead end, and evolution went through large armored cruisers: first they received a belt along the waterline, then weapons in the towers. Heavy cruisers grew from light, and those from armored.
    The first Japanese pair of heavy cruisers was blatantly unsuccessful. But the Japanese managed to worsen it even more. Tower artillery was placed on the hull of a virtually light cruiser. As a result. Overload reached 1000 tons. Draft increased by one meter. When they “cry” about an overload of Borodino-type battleships of 638 tons, they forget to mention that Mikasa also had an overload of 900 tons. But what is an overload of 900 tons with a displacement of 15000 tons, and an overload of 1000 tons with a displacement in 8500 tons. They forget to mention that most of the construction overload of Russian battleships was possible, and it was necessary to get rid of it before the battle, since the main overload was on watercraft and thermal insulation of residential premises. But it was impossible to get rid of the overload of Japanese ships.
    I recall only one more case when a light cruiser, in the process of rebuilding, received tower artillery. And the result was also unsatisfactory. This is the "Red Caucasus".
    Instead of building another pair of completely unsuccessful ships to form a homogeneous division, a division of unsuccessful ships, the Japanese should begin construction on a new project.
    And the next project they had was the project of the future "Mioko." The project, as well as its implementation, is also not without drawbacks, but there are advantages as well.
  7. Rurikovich 26 January 2020 08: 40 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    By the way, the author would have made more sense to write about the stage of design and construction. Because in times of limitation, designers and builders are incredibly perverted in order to try to shove the “non-shoved” into the proposed displacement. Technical approaches are there during the construction of the hull, ways of securing the armor (it is included in the power kit of the hull or is attached differently), possible changes in the volume of the hull to save weight, etc. are such nuances. For they are almost central to shaping the look of the Japanese heavy cruiser. In balance of the ship for a given displacement, any trifle worth its weight in gold smile hi
  8. The leader of the Redskins 26 January 2020 11: 41 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Thank. As a person far from the fleet and maritime stories, it was interesting to read.
  9. Undecim 26 January 2020 12: 27 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: Rurikovich
    By the way, it would make sense for the author to write in more detail about the stage of design and construction

    For this, it is necessary, firstly, to have information about these stages, which is sometimes difficult to find, and secondly, an understanding of the essence of these stages should be present. The author, on the other hand, has many mistakes without these stages. One example.
    Power plants (4 TZ "Kawasaki-Curtiss")
    In Japan, the main manufacturers of steam turbines were Mitsubishi and Kawasaki. At the same time, Mitsubishi, on which the Aoba cruiser was built, produced Parsons turbines, and Kawasaki, the shipyard of which the Kinugasa cruiser was built, produced Curtis turbines. These are two different types of turbines with fundamental differences. Accordingly, the cruisers had different TZA. On Aoba installed - like Mitsubishi-Parsons, and on Kinugasa - TZA like Kawasaki-Curtis.
    Source - M. Matsumoto's book, Technology Gatekeepers for War and Peace: The British Ship Revolution and Japanese Industrialization.
  10. God save the king 26 January 2020 12: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    So-so article, Kaptsov’s more interesting result.
    And the author’s conclusions are very strange.
  11. Andrzej k 26 January 2020 16: 00 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The sixth photograph (with a bow superstructure) does not show a ship of the Aoba type. This cruiser "Ashigara" - a 99% photograph was taken on May 20, 1937 in Spithead during the coronation revolt of the fleet



    1. Undecim 26 January 2020 17: 39 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      99 percent is Asigara during his 1937 European visit. As for the place - there are doubts. For Portsmouth, where the cruiser visited George VI, there are virtually no colorization flags. Immediately after Portsmouth, the cruiser left for Kiel, where he arrived on May 24. Some sources are just Kiel and call the place where this photo was taken.
      1. Andrzej k 26 January 2020 18: 03 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Yes it is possible
  12. sevtrash 26 January 2020 18: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ... Sometimes truth is born in disputes ... So, at least, they say ...

    Good point, vital.
  13. mmaxx 26 January 2020 18: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    For me it’s quite normal and successful ships. The only drawback is the lack of anti-aircraft fire control. He was not corrected. Otherwise, everything is quite balanced. From the point of view of the weakness of artillery in comparison with others, there is no evidence that this weakness has somehow affected. In the conditions in which the Aoba were used, everything was successful. And it makes no sense to compare the numbers.
  14. Petrol cutter 26 January 2020 18: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The read plunged me into longing. And the Martian depression.
    I concluded from what happened. Each ship must be either an aircraft carrier or a floating air defense battery. Better, all bother.
    Otherwise there is no chance.
    This is the end.
    Then the cost of ships other than submarines - I see no reason at all.
    1. Saxahorse 26 January 2020 22: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Benzorez
      Then the cost of ships other than submarines - I see no reason at all.

      There are doubts that the submarine can be considered a ship. Somehow they swim suspiciously. laughing
  15. Potter 27 January 2020 09: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And after modernization, instead of slotted fixed torpedo tubes, 2 rotatable four-tube TAs were installed

    Again pearl copy-paste.
    What is a slotted torpedo tube? Sexual gap or what?
    Torpedo tubes are rotatable, not rotatable.
    It’s good that the translation is not from Polish, otherwise a gooseberry could appear instead of the cruiser.
  16. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 12: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Instead of 80-mm anti-aircraft guns, universal 120-mm guns were installed.

    What guns?
    There are either underpants or a cross - either an “8 cm Type 98 gun” or a 76,2 mm Type 98 gun. smile
    Plus, "Aoba" proved that saving on air defense is not going well. Well, what prevented the installation of a fire control system? Lack of opportunities? Not. There were opportunities. But in fact, 44 trunks, which were controlled by 20 crews, who were in no small part - even in the first half of World War II it was naive to say the least. And in the second ...

    And will three-barrel automatic machines with power drives fit into the limited displacement of the SRT? And to the fleet budget? wink
  17. Dmitry V. 27 January 2020 16: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, what prevented the installation of a fire control system? Lack of opportunities? No. There were opportunities. But in fact, 44 trunks, which were controlled by 20 crews who were in no small part - even in the first half of World War II it was naive to say the least. And in the second


    The 25 mm Type 96 anti-aircraft gun was inferior to 20 mm Oerlikon in rate of fire, and 40 mm to Bofors in the weight of the projectile - universalism is not good.

    The fire control system could help in repelling the attacks of torpedo bombers or topmaster, but to repel the attacks of dive bombers, it was ineffective - Hiryu, Soryu had fire control systems:
    To control the fire of 25-mm machine guns, five anti-aircraft fire control posts equipped with type 95 sighting columns were used.

    Which in no way reduced the effectiveness of attacks on these aircraft carriers.
    MZA fire control systems could not effectively distribute targets - only by sectors, with a massive attack in one sector, it is very difficult to effectively distribute targets.
    In addition to indicating the range - there is no particular benefit, given the fact that the shell was not programmed in range, they could only put barrage fire or rely on an accidental hit.
  18. Grafova Irina 28 January 2020 09: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Funny set out
  19. The comment was deleted.