German destroyer "Narvik": in the battle with common sense


В продолжение cycle about the most useless ships.


High performance of German technology allows you to close your eyes to many of its shortcomings. For many but one.

How were those “high performance” achieved? The answer is unlikely to please even the most staunch supporters of German engineering. The increase in the selected characteristics among the Germans was always achieved either at the cost of a critical deterioration of the remaining TTX, or contained some hidden “nuances”. Of course, these restrictions become known at the very last moment.

This was especially evident during the war years. Voluntarism of command and strange decisions of developers cost big problems to the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine.

How should one not respect his sailors in order to adopt Narvik-type destroyers?


“The power of fire is raging inside me!” Indeed, the “Tsershtorers” of the 1936A type surpassed all known destroyers in artillery power. But their overall fighting efficiency was in doubt. Why?

For destroyers built 1930-1940. optimal was considered a five-inch caliber. In practice, there was a scatter of ± 0,3 inches, and a variety of systems were hidden under similar values. For example, the British 120-mm (4,7 ”) sea guns, known for their mass, simplicity and compactness. The mass of a single-gun installation is within 9 tons, two-gun - 23 tons.

The Americans have short-bore 127 mm Mk.12 guns. Their relatively light projectile (25 kg) and mediocre ballistics were compensated by “nimble” guidance drives and unexpectedly high rate of fire. The mass of a single-gun installation on destroyers is 14 tons, a two-gun installation is from 34 to 43 tons. Large mass indicators are a consequence of the presence of powerful drives and the provision of automated recharging at elevation angles of more than 80 °.

The most powerful of the sea "five-inch" were considered Soviet guns of 130 mm caliber, whose shells (33 kg) stood out for their power. The Soviet Union did not have many ships, and there was no place to wait for help from the destroyers. A powerful gun with good ballistics was required. The mass of the single-gun installation B-13 is 12,8 tons.

German destroyer "Narvik": in the battle with common sense

The 130-mm two-gun turret B-2LM already weighed 49 tons, of which 42 tons were in the rotating part. Mass growth is a direct consequence of the automation of the recharge process. Such massive artillery systems were not used on destroyers of the war years; only the leader of Tashkent managed to get them.

When it came to the Germans, the Narvik destroyer with the cruising main caliber became their answer.

The very name of the 15 cm Torpedobootkannone C / 36 guns sounded enchanting. A six-inch gun for destroyers!

The mass and caliber of the projectile are connected by a cubic dependence


With an increase in caliber from 130 to 150 mm, the mass of the projectile increases by 1,5 times. However, it becomes harder and the artillery system itself. First of all, due to the automation of the loading process necessary with such a caliber. Manually moving 50 kg of ammunition even in the absence of pitching becomes problematic. The dimensions of elevators and conveyors are increasing. The mass of the turntable, all drives and mechanisms increases sharply.

The simplest in design tower with a pair of "six-inch" weighed 91 tons.

We are talking about the British Mark XXI with 6 ”/ 50 guns for light cruisers such as“ Linder ”and“ Aretyusa ”(early 30s). The cruiser towers had a symbolic anti-fragmentation armor (25 mm), and the bulk of their mass was on the platform with mounted guns and ammunition supply mechanisms on it.

The 1-inch 6-gun installations also had impressive weight. For example, the 150 mm MPL C / 28 installation of the Deutschland cruiser weighed 25 tons.

At this point, the introduction ends and criticism begins.

Dear Sirs, Even though you are not specialists at the Deutscher Schiff und Machinenbau enterprise, what is your opinion? What problems did the Nazis have to face when creating a destroyer armed five guns of cruising caliber?

First and obvious: it is technically impossible


With the indicated difference in the mass of 5- and 6-inch artillery systems, the destroyer will simply tip over from the prohibitive “upper weight”. Of course, when it comes to full-fledged 6 ".

But what if ...

The true caliber of the German “six-inch” was 149,1 mm, and their shells weighed 5 kg less than the British counterparts. The differences are small to make a difference in battle. On the other hand, they did not lead to a significant reduction in the mass of the artillery system.

The technique did not tolerate bullying. But it was possible to recoup on the sailors!

Manual supply of six-inch ammunition, even in the absence of pitching, icy winds and lashing streams of water, was not an easy task ... But not for real goofy!

Why massive conveyors and rammers with electric drive - let the Germans deliver shells with their hands. With your hands!


The mass of the two-gun turret with anti-fragmentation protection, in the absence of mechanization, was reduced to 60 tons.

The one-machine gun hit 16 tons. Of course, when placing the guns in a panel-mounted box-mounted installation open to all winds, the process of manually reloading 45 kg of shells took a little longer than what was calculated.

The firepower of the Narviks depended entirely on the weather and the endurance of the loaders.

It turned out to be insignificant in real combat conditions. Nobody expected this!


1943 year. The gray veil of the December storm was torn by two silhouettes: the light cruisers Glasgow and Enterprise. The task is to intercept the enemy’s discovered compound in the Bay of Biscay.

Unlike the modern Glasgow, armed with twelve 152 mm automated guns, the Enterprise was an outdated scout with only five 152 mm cannons, where shells were delivered manually. In this sense, it corresponded to the destroyer Narvik. Of which five appeared on the horizon at once, accompanied by six destroyers!

17 six-inch against 24 German. 22 torpedo tubes versus 76. Do not forget about support from destroyers such as the Elbing. The 1700-ton ships could not engage in artillery battle in stormy weather, but they actively maneuvered and put out smoke screens, "distracting" part of the Glasgow and Enterprise fires. At this time, a German long-range bomber attacked the cruisers ...

It would seem that it's over. One “Glasgow”, with the slurred support of his partner, did not extend this battle.

Over the next 3 hours, His Majesty's Glasgow ship killed everyone who was in the zone of destruction of his guns. German losses amounted to the flagship destroyer Z-27, two destroyers and 400 people. their crews. In response, the Narviks managed to achieve the only hit in Glasgow. The Germans were saved only by flight in different directions - their squadron was scattered along the entire coast of France.

A similar result ended the battle of Z-26 with the light cruiser "Trinidad", which was then continued by the destroyer "Eclipse", wedged at the end of the battle. The German super-destroyer drowned, also failing to inflict his weapons noticeable damage to the enemy.


Another feat of the Narviks was the battle with the funeral procession in the Norwegian Sea. Then the cruiser "Edinburgh" with torn stern, which was carried in tow by British destroyers, was attacked.

The day before the events described, the cruiser received two torpedoes hit by a U-456 submarine. "Edinburgh" lost control and almost could not move on its own. All that was left of the ship was its battle flag of the White Ensign, an artillery computing post and weapons.

The German destroyer Schöman, who took the risk of approaching, was destroyed by the second salvo in a row. The two remaining Narviks (Z-24 and Z-25) hastily left the battlefield, frightened by the shots of the uncontrollable and sinking Edinburgh and two of its towers, the British destroyers Forrester and Forsyth. Each of which was 1,5 times smaller than Narvik, and almost twice as large as the salvo.

The Germans did not succeed in any super destroyer capable of taking on the tasks of a light cruiser


According to military experts, such unsatisfactory results have a simple explanation.

With any excitement and other things being equal, the cruiser has always been a more stable artillery platform. He could shoot more accurately and further.

The cruiser was superior to the destroyer in the height of the freeboard, which was significant in the era when the combat posts were located on the upper deck.

The cruiser had superiority in fire controls.

Dimensions and displacement of light cruisers 30-40-ies. allowed to establish full-fledged closed towers on them, providing more or less comfortable working conditions for the calculations. The thickness of the walls of the tower provided minimal ballistic protection. And the technical level of the 30s made it possible to forget about the manual laying and sending of shells of this caliber.

The Germans knew about all the shortcomings associated with the deployment of heavy weapons on improperly sized ships even before the bookmark of Narvik. The first in the experimental order of the 15 cm TBK C / 36 gun was the Z8 destroyer Bruno Heinemann. The results were negative, seaworthiness and stability caused serious concern for sailors. The Bruno Heinemann hastily returned its original armament of five 128 mm guns.

Apparently, the unsuccessful experience with the Z8 was not enough, so the Germans laid down a whole series of 15 destroyers of the type 1936A and 1936A (Mob).

And the "Narviki" showed themselves in all their glory. So many failures led to a return to the traditional five-inch caliber (subsequent type 1936B). But the idea of ​​a “super destroyer” still did not leave the Kriegsmarine leadership. There, they considered the proposal for the construction of a “bicaliber” modification of 1936B with the replacement of two 128 mm bow guns with a single 150 mm caliber. However, common sense prevailed. The complexity of fire control of two different calibers made such a project unpromising.

It remains to add that the choice of a disproportionate caliber for the destroyer completely deprived the artillery of Narvik of universality. It was almost impossible to conduct barrage anti-aircraft fire from main-caliber guns with elevation angles of 30 °.

But this is only a small fly in the ointment.

Continuation of the weight disaster


Even making the artillery as light as possible, it was not possible to completely cope with the excess weight.

No intensive methods worked, so the extensive path remained. The increase in the size of the ship itself.


Speaking about the destroyer Narvik, you need to understand that by European standards it was not a destroyer at all. Its total displacement exceeded 3500 tons. For comparison: the total displacement of the "Stalin seven", destroyer Ave. 7 "Angry", amounted to 2000 tons. The total displacement of the modernized Watchtower 7-U is about 2300 tons. British destroyers, for example, HMS Zealous (the future Israeli Eilat), had approximately the same values ​​- 2500 tons.

American "Fletchers" built to fit the size of the Pacific Ocean, this is not an indicator. But even they were inferior in size to the German "overgrowth".

"Narvik" was unexpected large, complex and expensive for action in European waters. It was such a project that German industry lacked, experiencing an eternal lack of resources.

On average, 1000 tons more displacement than competitors.

Larger crew for 100 people.

A power plant with a capacity of up to 75 thousand hp, in size and cost, closely approaching the power plant of cruisers.

It is worth noting that due to the pinched nose and the specific sailing qualities associated with this, most Narviks could not even come close to the estimated values ​​of 36-37 knots. Normal in practice was considered an indicator of 33 nodes. Only destroyers with a reduced composition of weapons developed somewhat higher speed (instead of the bow turret - one single-gun installation with a box shield).

As for the quality of the power plant itself, then this is indicated by a simple fact. According to the Naval Warfare Manual (Oberkommando der Marine, OKM), during the war years, one in four German destroyers stood at the wall of a shipyard with dismantled boilers. More than this was not observed in any of the fleets.

The reason is high-pressure Wagner boilers with a working pressure of 70 atmospheres. For comparison: the working pressure in the boilers of destroyers of the “Angry” type was 26 atm.

A classic case for German engines and power plants. Crazy afterburner, high specific indicators at the cost of merciless accident rate.

In terms of fuel consumption and cruising range, German destroyers, despite their size, were also inferior to most of their rivals.

The only advantage of the Narvik power plant was its high automation: the staff of the shift consisted of 3 mechanics, whose work posts were equipped with electric cigarette lighters. Undoubtedly the most useful element on board a warship.

On the other hand, a malfunction in the automation led to a complete loss of stroke. The Germans did not wait for the appearance of electronics, relying on unreliable and vulnerable analog control and monitoring devices.

Despite the described convenience of combat posts, the conditions for the deployment of personnel were terrible. Crowded accommodation in cockpits, three-tiered hammocks, lack of living space. This was explained by the absence of the need for long exits to the sea. Most of the time, the crews of German destroyers lived in naval bases or in barracks on the shore.

Should there be at least something good in this hopeless gloom of reason?


Undoubtedly!

"Narviki" carried the largest number of 20- and 37-mm anti-aircraft guns, among all destroyers in European countries. However, it is not surprising at their size.

Another absolute success was the quality of the fire and drainage systems, which traditionally had high priority on German ships. Their emergency operation was provided by four standby diesel generators located in the hull and superstructure. And the six main water bilge pumps had a capacity of 540 tons of water per hour!

Even having received serious injuries and having lost its course and combat effectiveness, Narvik continued stubbornly to mark the enemy’s radars. I had to shoot more and more to “finish off” the wounded animal.

However, some of them were lucky. For example, the Z-34, which was seriously damaged by Soviet torpedo boats. Despite the complete destruction of the engine room, that “Narvik” lasted until the approach of connecting the “Schnellbots” and with their help got to Swinemuende.

In general, the experience of creating a destroyer with "cruising" artillery was recognized as negative by the Germans themselves, who were forced to return to the construction of destroyers with a traditional armament.

The dimensions of the "tsertorer" did not allow to realize all the benefits of switching to a larger caliber, and I had to pay a very expensive price for it


Fifteen of the 15 German destroyers that took part in the war were essentially combat-capable ships. And the superiority declared for them in offensive power went unnoticed by the enemy.

Touching upon the topic of “Narviks”, one cannot but mention their theoretical rivals.

If they were not the prototype and the primary goal of the German super destroyers, then, in any case, they contributed to the development of the idea of ​​a destroyer with powerful artillery.

We are talking about the French counter-carriers, in Russian terminology - the leaders of the destroyers Vokelen, Mogador, Le Fantask ...


The largest in size is the 4000-ton handsome Mogador, who was able to develop 39 knots in calm water. Armed with eight (!) Twin 138 mm caliber guns, whose shells exceeded 40 kg in weight. To the credit of the French, they managed to achieve combined loading, in which an automatic projectile rammer was used with trunk elevation angles of not more than 10 °. Then it was required to manually apply a relatively light sleeve with gunpowder. The mass of the open two-gun installation with a box shield was 35 tons.

If the Germans really saw “Mogador” as a threat and an object to follow, then this is evidence of the “competence” of the Kriegsmarine leadership. With its outward brilliance and splendor, the Mogador turned out to be a meaningless project, all of whose tasks were reduced to the tasks of ordinary destroyers with more traditional sizes and composition of weapons. With a disproportionate difference in the cost of their construction.

For its direct purpose (reconnaissance at the squadron of high-speed battleships), the Mogador was even more useless than for artillery combat. At that time, catapults with reconnaissance aircraft were already on board all the large ships. There was no need for a high-speed reconnaissance ship.

In the 1930-1940s. not one of the attempts to create a special class of warships with a displacement of 3,5-4 thousand tons was successful in practice. The destroyer remained the destroyer.

For a radical increase in combat capabilities, it was necessary to add several thousand tons of displacement, which automatically transferred the project to the class of light cruisers. No successful intermediate options were found.

About the French counter-carriers, it has already been said.

The American Girings and Sumners spent the entire stock of displacement on anti-aircraft guns and ensuring autonomy for operations on the vast ocean. They could not boast of either speed or a significant increase in artillery weapons (high-quality universal guns, but no more). Actually, they have nothing to do with it. These are the usual destroyers of the Pacific theater of operations.

“Tashkent”, with its “noble” origin and excellent speed qualities, remained unarmed for its size.

But it is better to be unarmed than the way the Germans did. All of the listed ships surpassed the Narvik in terms of combined performance and combat capabilities.

Author:
Articles from this series:
The most useless warships
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. polpot 29 January 2020 18: 19 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Thanks it was interesting to read
    1. igordok 29 January 2020 18: 21 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      For a long time Oleg was not.
      1. Vadivak 29 January 2020 21: 02 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Oleg Kaptsov
        even if you are not specialists at Deutsch Schiff-und-Maschinenbau, what is your opinion?

        I agree with the author. In addition to fire and drainage systems, no success.
        1. IL-18 30 January 2020 10: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Vadivak
          I agree with the author.

          The author is well done. Before this article, I didn’t even know that the Germans used 150mm guns on destroyers. Although, Kriegsmarine showed interest in childhood. Interestingly, they tried to replace it with 127mm? 150 mm in coastal defense the Germans would definitely not be in the way.
          1. Destiny 30 January 2020 13: 35 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Thanks for the interesting article.
          2. Constanty 2 February 2020 19: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            On destroyers of the 1936C type, which were a modified version of the described Narvik, starting with the Z46 instead of 15 cm of guns, 6 guns of 128 mm (5,04 inches) KM41 were to be mounted in three LC.41 towers. Similarly, the following types are 1941, 1942C and "Zerstörer 1945"

            This is a 1941 type destroyer drawing:
  2. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 18: 24 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The 130-mm two-gun turret B-2LM already weighed 49 tons, of which 42 tons were in the rotating part. Mass growth is a direct consequence of the automation of the recharge process. Such massive artillery systems were not used on destroyers of the war years; only the leader of Tashkent managed to get them.


    Theoretically, this could be included the Fire project 130 and the reconstructed Watchdog with the bow of the destroyer Organized (C-311).
  3. Thrifty 29 January 2020 18: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Common sense won gigantomagiya? Pragmatic Germans were banally captured by their own illusions, trying at the same time to make a destroyer in armament from the destroyer. ..
    1. smart ass 29 January 2020 18: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The Germans do not go everywhere everywhere gigantomania
    2. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 18: 58 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      In fact, the question arises - why? Since even the light cruisers Kriegsmarine after 1940 and Norway were idle almost until 1945.
      1. Alexey RA 30 January 2020 11: 58 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Andrzej K
        In fact, the question arises - why?

        Because to win by the same RN was almost impossible. So they decided to win by quality - to make an EM theoretically superior to all opponents.
        Actually, all of the Reich's wunderwaffles therefore appeared - in an attempt to defeat the German alliance with the number of Allies.

        By the way, the Narviki were not the first attempt by the Germans to build EMs with 15-cm guns. They started back in WWI - EM S113, V116, G119 and B122.
        Here is S113:
  4. Rakovor 29 January 2020 18: 43 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    And what is the lack of equipping of Tashkent. Was it necessary to put the fourth tower on it?
    1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 19: 12 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      French Mogador with a smaller displacement had four towers (2x4 caliber 138 mm)

      Japanese Simakadze with a smaller displacement of 1000 tons had six five-inch guns and Fifteen 610 mm TA for Long Lances
      1. Rakovor 29 January 2020 19: 21 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Well, they were almost equal in displacement with Mogador, but the power of power plants in Tashkent was almost 40k more, and that’s the answer.
        1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 19: 35 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Of course not 40

          March 11, 1938 the sea trials of the leader were carried out, on which with a capacity of 130 liters. from. and a displacement of 000 tons, the ship developed a speed of 3422 knots

          At an eight-hour run with a displacement of 3730 tons and boosting turbines to 108 liters. p., "Mogador" showed an average speed of 424 knots

          (Design values ​​for these ships are 110 and 92k)

          Another question is why this race was needed at all. Moreover, due to weapons and other qualities
          ----

          Twice the smaller destroyer 7 carried 2/3 of Tashkent’s armament (adjusted for AA quality indicators - half)

          But the composition of the armament and displacement, all other things being equal, are connected nonlinearly. For larger ships, it is usually much stronger (examples with Simakadze and Mogador)
          1. Rakovor 29 January 2020 19: 40 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Well, now we understand that the race was not needed, and then people thought differently.
            1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 19: 55 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Not all.

              The Americans immediately decided that speed at the expense of everything is not an option. Their destroyers in the first place always had weapons + SLA, survivability and autonomy

              The British and Germans looked at speed the same way, there are 35 knots - enough

              Only the fleets of Southern Europe were chasing speed, and we inherited from the Italian Maestrale (the prototype for the destroyer 7)
      2. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 20: 04 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        "Leader I" was originally supposed to have 4xII 130 mm

        , For balance, the Japanese Akizuki with a displacement of more than 2700 tons had only 8x100, but it was developed as an air defense
        1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 20: 16 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Akizuki)))

          20 rds in minutes, the elevation angle of the trunks 90 degrees. It is clear that such installations could not be easy, even despite the caliber, 35 tons. And there are four of them!

          Plus Long Lance and Pacific Autonomy
          1. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 20: 19 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            In my opinion, it was perhaps the best destroyer of World War II. For a Japanese ship, it is even well equipped with radar equipment.
            1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 20: 41 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Definitely not, due to the small power of the shells (4 '' half lighter than 5 '')

              All destroyers could not be built by air defense ships
      3. Undecim 29 January 2020 22: 20 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Japanese Simakadze with a smaller displacement of 1000 tons had six five-inch guns and fifteen 610 mm TA for Long Lance
        Kaptsov, why are you misinforming readers. The total displacement of the Japanese Shimakaze is 3400 tons.
        The total displacement of the German destroyer type 1936A (Mob) is 3600 tons.
        Well, about habitability, crew working conditions at the same time tell, for completeness of comparison, about military successes.
        1. Rakovor 30 January 2020 13: 02 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Dear, he compared Simakadze with Tashkent, closely monitor the progress of the discussion.))
          1. Undecim 30 January 2020 13: 22 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The total displacement of Tashkent is 4175, Shimakaze - 3400, the difference is 775 tons. Again not 1000.
      4. Alexey RA 30 January 2020 13: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        French Mogador with a smaller displacement had four towers (2x4 caliber 138 mm)

        So we had our own project of a super destroyer.
        On paper, everything looked great: six 130-mm shafts in three universal towers, two four-pipe 533-mm TAs, 42 knots - and all this in 1500 tons of standard displacement. The main highlight of the project were direct-flow boilers, which allowed to significantly reduce the specific gravity of the power plant.
        At first, the industry refused to make auxiliary mechanisms for the parameters of a pair of boilers (75 kg / cm² at a temperature of 450 ° C) - take the “seven” ones, there will be nothing else. But the decrease in the specific gravity of the GEM was also due to auxiliary mechanisms.
        Then it turned out that there would be no automation for boilers. And a once-through boiler with its much smaller volume of water in variable conditions will have to be adjusted manually. In the end, they bought the automation from the Germans, but, as the classics wrote, "it was very similar to a real engine, but it didn’t work."
        In the end, straightforwardness had to be abandoned altogether.
        The second blow was delivered by artillerymen - at first it turned out that there would be no universal GK tower on time, and then - that in general, a 130-mm tower would only be in 1941.
        And he received a fleet of EM "Experienced" - three 130-mm barrels in standard B-13s, a speed of 40 knots and a cruising range of 40% less than the specified one. And the Chief Designer of the ship, who had the imprudence to promise to make the ship strictly according to the initial performance characteristics, sat down.
    2. Borik 29 January 2020 19: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Rakovor (Mikhail) Today, 18:43 NEW

      And what is the lack of equipping of Tashkent. Was it necessary to put the fourth tower on it?


      Weak air defense. A total of 6 / 37mm guns and only in the 42nd placed a two-gun turret with 76mm guns in the stern.
      1. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 20: 23 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Rather, typical air defense weapons for the destroyer of those years (i.e. before the war). The 76-millimeter tower was reportedly completely useless for the fight against aviation - the Peace Tower.
      2. Looking for 30 January 2020 15: 18 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        not horseradish compare the destroyer 40 g and the destroyer 42-44 years. Take an interest in anti-aircraft weapons of destroyers 39-40 years.
    3. Vadivak 29 January 2020 21: 04 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Rakovor
      And what is the lack of equipping of Tashkent.

      Tashkent three single-barrel 130-mm / 50 artillery mounts B-13.
      Mogador eight twin 138 mm caliber guns,
      1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 21: 38 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Greetings, Vadim!

        This is its initial weaponry until two-gun installations were ready
  5. bubalik 29 January 2020 18: 52 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7

    Z-34, which was seriously damaged by Soviet torpedo boats.
  6. Kuroneko 29 January 2020 19: 06 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    For its direct purpose (reconnaissance at the squadron of high-speed battleships), the Mogador was even more useless than for artillery combat. At that time, catapults with reconnaissance aircraft were already on board all the large ships. There was no need for a high-speed reconnaissance ship.

    Well, of course! After all, 24/7 and 365 days a year in the seas-oksiyana is always beautiful, flying weather with excellent visibility!

    For a radical increase in combat capabilities, it was necessary to add several thousand tons of displacement, which automatically transferred the project to the class of light cruisers. No successful intermediate options were found.

    The de facto Japanese Tenryu type was this successful intermediate option:
    In general, the architectural cruisers were very similar to the larger destroyers of the Kawakaze type, outwardly differing only in a different stern superstructure design and larger gun shields
    1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 19: 20 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      De facto Japanese Tenryu

      1917 ship built

      With a displacement greater than that of “Tashkent” and “Mogador”, and only four guns of the main caliber (140 mm)
      1. Kuroneko 29 January 2020 19: 29 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Santa Fe
        With a displacement greater than that of “Tashkent” and “Mogador”, and only four guns of the main caliber (140 mm)

        Displacement there is a plus or minus comparable.
        Four 140-mm guns - somehow cooler than the 4 130-mm “sevens,” say. More than enough for a leader - all the more so since Tenryu did everything else with ease in terms of protection (it affected the semi-cruising origin).
        1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 19: 41 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Seven less than half

          The Tenryu project was cool only for the First World War.
          1. Rakovor 29 January 2020 19: 47 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Tenryu for his time (17-18gg) is quite a leader of destroyers with comparable speed and superior to that of modern cruisers (27-29 knots). But by the end of the 30s, of course, it was out of date.
          2. Kuroneko 29 January 2020 19: 56 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The Tenryu project was cool only for the First World War.

            He turned out to be more than normal for the Second.
            Both Tatsuta (sistership) and Tenryu were used actively and successfully. If the Japanese were not so disgusted with the anti-submarine warfare, you see, they would have survived the whole war.
            1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 20: 25 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Success at Savo is the fault of the Americans, not Tenryu’s dignity

              And after the First World War, the Japanese did not build such ships, it became unprofitable
        2. Catfish 29 January 2020 21: 12 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Tenryu did all the rest with ease (semi-cruising origin affected).

          Tenryu did not give anyone and could not do by definition. Turtle speed plus the lack of serious weapons for a box of such a displacement and size. You can argue as much as you like, but it is impossible to prove the unprovable. request
          By the way, his origin is not “semi-cruising,” but under-cruising.
          1. Kuroneko 29 January 2020 21: 15 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Do not juggle - about the "giving up" I spoke strictly about the security that you in my quote easily and naturally went extinct.
            And about the “turtle speed” - somehow somehow no worse than the Giring.
            1. Catfish 29 January 2020 21: 21 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Specially re-read, you do not have a word about security there. And here we are talking about the destroyers of the second world war, and not about the cruisers of the first. You still compare the security of “Tashkent” with the armor “Worspayta”.
              1. Kuroneko 29 January 2020 21: 23 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Quote: Sea Cat
                Specially re-read, you do not have a word about security there.

                Damn, I don’t even know what to say. = _ = I hope this is not a vision problem.
                the more so because of security Tenryu did the rest with ease
                1. Catfish 29 January 2020 21: 29 New
                  • 6
                  • 0
                  +6
                  Guilty, overlooked and apologize. Special thanks for the downsides. smile
                  1. Kuroneko 30 January 2020 09: 37 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    It happens, not in a claim. ^ _ ^
                    Quote: Sea Cat
                    Special thanks for the downsides.

                    I didn’t put them to you (and in general, if I’m minus anyone, then in the rarest cases - mainly for rudeness or provocation).
                    1. Catfish 31 January 2020 00: 18 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      I didn’t put them to you (and generally, if I’m minus anyone, then in rare cases - mainly for rudeness or provocation).

                      I have the same approach. hi
                      By the way, since childhood I liked Japanese cruisers, outwardly. The first time I saw "Kako" in the Military Encyclopedia and fell in love with the silhouette, there is something unusual-aesthetic to the European look in these ships. drinks
                2. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 21: 49 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  all the more so because Tenryu did everything with ease for security



                  There is protection, but as practice has shown, this level of protection is useless from any threats encountered
                  1. Kuroneko 30 January 2020 09: 49 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    but as practice has shown, this level of protection is useless against any threats encountered

                    That's just for the shootings with the destroyers Tenryu’s defense was quite a topic - it’s very difficult to quickly drown or immobilize him from five inches. And its powerful 140-mm artillery systems (5,5 inches), in turn, are capable of causing a lot of problems to the destroyer with a couple of hits.
    2. unknown 30 January 2020 21: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It was not necessary to add several thousand tons, it was enough to add one.
      Perhaps that intermediate option was the Tromp. Actually. he grew out of a destroyer leader project. With a standard displacement of just over 3700 tons, he carried six guns with a caliber of 150 mm; his speed made it possible to work together with destroyers.
      1. Santa Fe 31 January 2020 02: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Speed ​​did not allow. Also, in addition to speed, there is the concept of dynamics - speed of speed gain

        Tromp had nothing to do in the destroyer formation

        Guns, most likely with manual reloading. However, Tromp’s armament doesn’t look like an example worthy of Narvik: closed towers, a barrel elevation angle of 60 degrees, a 6-meter range finder of the FCS, and the ship’s great stability due to its size

        Plus bulletproof booking and a seaplane reconnaissance. However, only in theory. No images found of Tromp with a seaplane on board
        1. unknown 31 January 2020 20: 16 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          The speed allowed. On excitement, the speed of the Tromp was reduced less than the speed of smaller destroyers. By the way, the dimensions of the Tromp, which grew out of a destroyer, and very successful one, did not differ in length and width from the size of the destroyers of the 1936A project. Draft is more per meter.
          PS According to the successful project from which the Tromp grew, the destroyers Thunder and Lightning were built. With a standard displacement of 1975 tons, they carried 7 * 120 mm and two three-pipe torpedo tubes, a speed of 37 knots.
          PPS A successful destroyer, with weapons 4 * 140mm, a speed of 37 knots, a cruising range of 7000 miles, a standard displacement of 1880 tons, the British created for Yugoslavia. It was called Dubrovnik.
  7. cat Rusich 29 January 2020 19: 31 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Maybe the German designers were counting on the "first accurate shot", one hit - one dead man. Maybe they wanted to "cajole" the German leader - the German destroyers were the most "heavy" (the "severity" of German tanks was determined by the caliber of tank guns - T-4 75 mm medium, T-5 Tiger 88 mm heavy). Maybe croup bully "brought a lamb" - heavy guns - more metal ...
  8. Potter 29 January 2020 19: 36 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Here you even have to praise domestic designers, who, after the leaders of Leningrad of their own design, sevens based on Italian motives and thirty - essentially modernized sevens, came to project 35. This would be our Soviet Goering with 6 universal 130s in paired units, TZA on American model and range to accompany the squadron of battleships. But the war did not allow them to build.
    But one of these Germans, Z-33, called Agile from 1946 to 1955 served on the Baltic Sea.
  9. Undecim 29 January 2020 20: 49 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    I have never understood "writers" like Kaptsov, who with such aplomb demonstrate their "common sense" in relation to models of technology created more than 80 years ago. Moreover, it is not at all difficult to do this, since there are a lot of literature on German destroyers, all their advantages and disadvantages are repeatedly disassembled. Therefore, apart from the author’s pathetics, the article is nothing new.
    1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 21: 29 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Because we can compare with peers

      American technical genius and Japanese masterpieces
      1. Undecim 29 January 2020 22: 25 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        And where is the comparison with peers in the article?
        1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 22: 32 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          In almost every paragraph, mention is made of systems and mechanisms of a similar purpose on ships of other countries

          With features and differences
          1. Undecim 29 January 2020 22: 41 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Sorry, do not confuse the mention of systems and mechanisms with comparing ships of the same class. Of contemporaries, you mention only French ships, which can be attributed to the destroyer leader. By the way, the Japanese "masterpiece" Shimakaze mentioned in your commentary, don’t you remember which power plant you had?
            1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 22: 57 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Campon
              Operating pressure 35 atmospheres

              The Japanese have excellent power plants and motors in general
              1. Undecim 29 January 2020 23: 18 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                In this case, brevity is not a sister of talent. Compare with the power plants that the Japanese used on their destroyers.
                1. Santa Fe 30 January 2020 00: 08 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Great Japanese power plants
                  Moderately powerful and technologically advanced, without unnecessary complexity and unverified solutions. Even the Yankees in their report, no matter how hard they tried, didn’t note any serious schools of Campons

                  1. Undecim 30 January 2020 00: 15 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    I am familiar with this report. You brought a page where exactly about Shimakaze boilers. However, the Shimakaze power plant was just experimental, with higher parameters in temperature and pressure, otherwise it is impossible to obtain such power in such dimensions. The Germans followed the same path, perhaps they took too broad a step, but to assess this as a lack of common sense is precisely the absence of common sense.
                    1. Santa Fe 30 January 2020 00: 19 New
                      • 2
                      • 3
                      -1
                      40 and 70 atmospheres

                      The Germans usually make rubbish, passing it off as high technology and the flight of technical thought
                      1. Undecim 30 January 2020 00: 21 New
                        • 6
                        • 0
                        +6
                        The Germans usually make rubbish, passing it off as high technology and the flight of technical thought
                        Have you thought about this masterpiece stupidity for a long time, or is it an impromptu?
                      2. Santa Fe 30 January 2020 01: 20 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        This is practice
                      3. Undecim 30 January 2020 02: 31 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        Practice what? In the generation of such "masterpieces of thought" as your comment?
                      4. Santa Fe 30 January 2020 11: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 3
                        -3
                        Is the destroyer Narvik a good example?

                        I have never seen Narvik in person, but I am dealing with German cars. This is a bastard. In this sense, the continuity of traditions is felt))))
                      5. Undecim 30 January 2020 12: 19 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        Kaptsov, I propose to draw a line under the discussion, for you are producing complete nonsense, projecting your personal insignificant experience on global issues.
                        Even if you take the shipbuilding you love so much, in the history of this shipbuilding of any country you can find examples of serious failures. No one is safe from mistakes, including the Japanese and the Americans. But this is no reason to paint about the "fight against common sense." No need to replace technical content with journalistic noise.
                        All the best and creative success.
                      6. Sergey S. 31 January 2020 13: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        With all due respect to the erudition of the author of the article, I agree with
                        No need to replace technical content with journalistic noise.

                        The ship can be of different sizes and with different weapons.
                        The task of the commanders is to organize the right concentration and the correct use of technical means in the developing conditions.
                        Ship designs do not fight each other.
                        People win and die.
                    2. Engineer 30 January 2020 12: 47 New
                      • 6
                      • 1
                      +5
                      This is a pinhole

                      I suggest you start the next article somehow like “an hour in joy, a sweet chef in sweetness, tramps.” The target audience should be identified immediately.
                    3. Santa Fe 31 January 2020 02: 43 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Note that you started to write comments on the criminal hair dryer. And then attribute your nonsense to me


                      Regarding the dispute, I see here many who want to kiss a German boot. Immediately perked up, + and began to put cons)))))

                      For example, you can’t even think that German technology can be bad and flawed
                    4. Engineer 31 January 2020 08: 52 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Note that you started to write comments on the criminal hair dryer. And then attribute your nonsense to me

                      You're wrong
                      Regarding the dispute, I see here a lot of people who want to kiss the German boot.

                      You're wrong
                      For example, you can’t even think that German technology can be bad and flawed

                      You're wrong
                    5. Undecim 31 January 2020 13: 51 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Regarding the dispute, I see here a lot of people who want to kiss the German boot.
                      Kaptsov, I had a much better opinion about your mental abilities. I was very mistaken.
  • TermNachTer 29 January 2020 20: 58 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The author was a little mistaken. The Enterprise had 7 152 mm guns. 5 in deck installations, and on the forecastle a two-gun tower. Installed for trial operation, subsequently, such towers stood on the “Linder” and “aretyuz”. So that the Englishman significantly exceeded the German destroyer in firepower, 7 barrels versus 5. The presence of a radar and cruising SUAO, finally a displacement of 7 thousand tons, which makes it a much more stable artillery platform.
    1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 21: 54 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      You are absolutely right, I wrote as it was in the monograph, 17 trunks, sounded like 12 + 5, this is wrong

      5 of the 7 guns still had manual reloading

      However, the result of the battle speaks for itself
      1. TermNachTer 30 January 2020 00: 45 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The main role in the battle was played by Glasgow, as a faster, better armed and armored. The Enterprise was only "in the wings." In general, it is absolutely incomprehensible what Captain tsursee Erdmenger had hoped for, getting involved in the battle. After all, he, not a cabinet “theorist”, served the whole destroyer war. He could not help but realize that his advantage in barrels and torpedo tubes was only "on paper". In reality, all the advantages are on the side of the British.
        1. Santa Fe 30 January 2020 01: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          From the chronicle of the battle

          The Germans could not escape, the cruisers were faster
          1. TermNachTer 30 January 2020 18: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The Germans could leave, Erdmenger "climbed into trouble" in a situation where it was necessary to flee. Unfortunately, he died along with his flagship destroyers. There is nobody to receive answers from.
  • dgonni 29 January 2020 21: 04 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Well, they set the 150 mm worthy due to hopelessness, realizing that the LCs in the right quantities would not shine for them in the future. With regard to displacement, it must be borne in mind that they were designed specifically for use in the North Sea and ice! Therefore, the thickness of the skin is 25 mm. Which, however, favorably affected the overall strength of the case. Unlike the same Soviet sevens that in the Barents Sea suffered damage on the wave and even broke in half.
    With regards to boilers and turbines. That machine in the total weight load were the lightest in comparison with competitors. The high parameters of the couple of course played a cruel joke with nitsitsy. They were the first to encounter the concept of internal cavitation in boilers and turbines. But in principle, due to the failure of the machines, the corbles were not lost. Automation was at its best.
    The same Nuremberg, once in the union, forced to keep five times the staff of the machine team on watch at the boilers. And this is having all the documentation and specialists who designed and maintained all this.
    With regard to the battle of Edinburgh, the author incorrectly described the situation. The Germans, however, torpedoes completely disabled the cruiser and artillery fire both escort destroyers. The need to save the flagship crew gave the British an opportunity and a chance to evacuate the cruiser’s crew and give escort destroyers a move to retreat.
    Our sevens did not take part in the battle. And if they would have taken it, the grandmother in two wondered how it would turn. Hit by a 150mi shell in the case of the seven is still a lottery given its general weakness.
    1. Santa Fe 29 January 2020 21: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      With regard to displacement, it must be borne in mind that they were designed specifically for use in the North Sea and ice!
      -
      How did the British successfully fight? We drove the convoys throughout the war

      Therefore, the thickness of the skin is 25 mm.

      False
  • Catfish 29 January 2020 21: 17 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The day before the events described, the cruiser received two torpedoes hit by a U-456 submarine. "Edinburgh" lost control and almost could not move on its own. All that was left of the ship was its battle flag of the White Ensign, an artillery computing post and weapons.

    The cruiser still sank, in vain the British refused the help of our destroyers. Gold ... if it wasn’t a ship that could be saved, but they didn’t want to share the "prize" money and lost everything.
    1. Engineer 29 January 2020 21: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      in vain the British refused the help of our destroyers. Gold ... if it wasn’t a ship that could be saved, but they didn’t want to share the "prize" money and lost everything.

      I have never heard of this. Do not share the source?
      1. Catfish 29 January 2020 23: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Greetings Denis hi One of the books of A. Patients about the war at sea, I don’t remember the name, was read somewhere in the nineties. And there was also a lot of all kinds of information in the press, when they started to raise gold from the cruiser. Probably the network can be found. I regret that I can not give more accurate information. request
        1. Engineer 30 January 2020 10: 12 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          OK. Thank you
        2. Rakovor 30 January 2020 13: 08 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Well, everything that Patients wrote must be related, as it were, to put it mildly, with great care.)
          1. Catfish 31 January 2020 00: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            In any case, this is not Valentin Pikul. hi
            1. Rakovor 3 February 2020 11: 47 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Well, Pikul has never been positioned as a documentary historian, he is primarily a creator of works of art. And to read the Patients, so everything around him is stupid, incompetent, people who do not think in military affairs, he’s only d'Artagnan. laughing As they say, everyone imagines himself a strategist seeing the battle from the side, and in his case also using "after-knowledge".
              1. Catfish 3 February 2020 11: 55 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Well, everyone is free to evaluate the author in his own way. I didn’t notice “Artanyanism” among the Patients, the malicious male — yes, but he doesn’t give any advice on what and who needed to be done. He simply notes mistakes and shortcomings, but who didn’t have them? So he’s in his books no one strokes the wool, neither “their own” nor “strangers.” And without, as you say, the “aftertaste” of not a single sensible history book, it is impossible to write. hi
                1. Rakovor 3 February 2020 12: 31 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Well, it is precisely that, on the basis of the afterthought, a serious historian must draw some conclusions, analyze certain actions, but not "brand a shame" on the direct participants in the events. This is especially pronounced in the book "Clash of Giants" about the fighting in the North Sea in WWI, did not read?
                  1. Catfish 3 February 2020 12: 41 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    "Giants Clash" about the fighting in the North Sea in WWI, did not read?

                    I read it, and with great pleasure. I don’t see any “stigmatization” there, if some admiral didn’t have the mind to correctly assess the situation, why not write about it directly? The sick there does not take sides, but pays "to all the sisters by earrings." smile
                  2. Engineer 3 February 2020 16: 58 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Patients acted as a popularizer of marine subjects as before Bunich. There are a lot of claims to both, but the fact that thousands of people got hooked on the marine theme is precisely because of them it is a fact. Someone went further, began to study reports, orders, compare courses, studied English, including to find out what is written in foreign monographs. Even write your own materials. Someone was content to read. In any case, specifically for this work, these comrades / gentlemen are a big plus. Personally from me a bag of pluses
                    1. Rakovor 4 February 2020 07: 04 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      No, well, it’s okay with the Patients, but Bunich then wrote frank nonsense.
                      1. Engineer 4 February 2020 09: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The Tallinn transition to the pre-Internet era is an excellent book, albeit with an anti-Soviet flair. Tribute to fashion. The historical canvas is quite reliable. The fates of people and ships are conveyed perfectly.
                  3. Rakovor 4 February 2020 07: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Damn, I wanted to enter into a discussion with you about this, but remembered one detail and realized that the Patients were not so wrong, calling the top English naval leadership of the WWI times hangers for uniforms. And this detail is the Falklands.))
  • Engineer 29 January 2020 22: 19 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    No one likes narviki and neither do I.
    But.
    Let's compare with Soviet destroyers? Who is more useful / useless?
    If you take the battle from Wessan, namely the episode with the Z-32 confrontation against the most powerful English tribal destroyers - Tartarus and Ashanti. At first, the German broke away from both Britons demonstrating the best speed in a combat situation. The British were able to catch up with the German due to the fact that he turned away avoiding contact with the second half of the division. New shootout. The German gets 3 shells, Tartar -1. But the result is that the tribal completely loses its course. The German retains combat readiness. Fire contact was interrupted by the advent of the ZH-1. Drive and finish off the Z-32 could only with the third attempt - Hyde and Huron.
    As for me, Narvik has good combat stability. In total, the Z-32 lasted 2.5 hours. At every moment, the British had at least a 2-fold advantage in ships. A 1x1 fight with Tartarus would end with the removal of a shave.
    Z-24, the second narvik at Wessan, despite the damage in the first phase of the battle, had earlier safely left Hyde and Huron. Again a plus to the heroes of the loser article.
    1. Usher 31 January 2020 16: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      No one likes narviki and neither do I.
      But.
      Let's compare with Soviet destroyers? Who is more useful / useless?
      If you take the battle from Wessan, namely the episode with the Z-32 confrontation against the most powerful English tribal destroyers - Tartarus and Ashanti. At first, the German broke away from both Britons demonstrating the best speed in a combat situation. The British were able to catch up with the German due to the fact that he turned away avoiding contact with the second half of the division. New shootout. The German gets 3 shells, Tartar -1. But the result is that the tribal completely loses its course. The German retains combat readiness. Fire contact was interrupted by the advent of the ZH-1. Drive and finish off the Z-32 could only with the third attempt - Hyde and Huron.
      As for me, Narvik has good combat stability. In total, the Z-32 lasted 2.5 hours. At every moment, the British had at least a 2-fold advantage in ships. A 1x1 fight with Tartarus would end with the removal of a shave.
      Z-24, the second narvik at Wessan, despite the damage in the first phase of the battle, had earlier safely left Hyde and Huron. Again a plus to the heroes of the loser article.

      How did you read it? It is written that good survivability and wax boilers give good boost. Why are you tearing meaning out of context?
  • sevryuk 30 January 2020 02: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Guiding the War at Sea (Oberkommando der Marine) - IMF High Command?
    1. Santa Fe 30 January 2020 09: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So it was in the monograph
  • K-50 30 January 2020 06: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why massive conveyors and rammers with electric drive - let the Germans deliver shells with their hands. With your hands!

    Even the "fragile" Japanese coped with this at the beginning of the century. And nothing. request
    1. unknown 30 January 2020 22: 12 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      A 6 "caliber projectile for the Japanese, inferior to the Europeans, on average, by 10-20 kilograms, was heavy.
      They understood this even in the RJV, but, since they were guided by what the British could offer, they had no other option, a 120 mm caliber for an average caliber was considered insufficient. The French already had a caliber of 138,6 mm, but the French had it ... But when the British got a caliber of 140 mm, the guns of this caliber were created according to the "Greek" order, the Japanese switched to this caliber. Later, the British planned to switch to this caliber. According to the results of the First World War, they came to the conclusion that a 6-caliber projectile is also difficult for Europeans to manually load. Guns of this caliber appeared on the Hood. But, on the Nelson and Rodney, they installed 6 guns. In the towers. Similar towers appeared on the first series of British light cruisers. According to the results of World War II, they came to the conclusion that the optimal caliber for manual loading is 5 ". More precisely, a shell weighing up to 28 kg. During the war, the British switched to a 114 mm caliber, a shell weighing 25 kg. First, the guns of this caliber had a unitary shot , which was difficult with manual loading even for Europeans, I had to split the shot.
      1. Usher 31 January 2020 16: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        A 6 "caliber projectile for the Japanese, inferior to the Europeans, on average, by 10-20 kilograms, was heavy.
        which was difficult with manual loading, even for Europeans, I had to split the shot.

        If it turned out to be difficult, then this did not prevent the fight. Strange huh? Saying something is interfering, but performing the task. Conclusion: it means nothing is in the way.
        And what Europeans stand out by some kind of force? Something is imperceptible. For me, even seeing at the construction site ordinary people (not athletes) Chinese (the same Japanese, Koreans) and Europeans, the Chinese are much more enduring and stronger. This is some kind of stereotype. It seems to me that switching to intermediate gauges is an attempt to find the optimal rate of fire / salvo weight / gun weight.
        1. unknown 31 January 2020 19: 48 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Therefore, it hindered, and switched to a smaller caliber, respectively, and a lighter shell. We switched on the basis of conclusions made on the basis of the experience of war. We didn’t switch earlier, because the supplier did not have another caliber. As soon as he appeared, they crossed over. There is no stereotype. The mass of Europeans, on average, is greater than the mass of Asians. It is possible that you are not familiar with such disciplines as military engineering psychology and military ergonomics.
          1. The comment was deleted.
  • Pilat2009 30 January 2020 07: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Andrzej K
    In fact, the question arises - why? Since even the light cruisers Kriegsmarine after 1940 and Norway were idle almost until 1945.

    And who knew?
    but they completed the most important task-captured Norway
  • Cyrus 30 January 2020 07: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is an analogy with Russian frigates and corvettes.
    1. Usher 31 January 2020 16: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Cyrus
      There is an analogy with Russian frigates and corvettes.

      I do not see. Since there is a different technical base. Domestic ships from 50-60. Always have been, a bunch of weapons. For me, our modern frigates and corvettes are weakly armed at all. Well, what is it? 8 or 16 cells. 1 cannon 2 air defense systems and 2 airplanes for 3000+ thousand displacement.
  • Looking for 30 January 2020 15: 23 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Undecim
    Therefore, apart from the author’s pathetics, the article is nothing new.
    Reply
    Quote
    A complaint

    How is it not. A GONORAR ?!
  • Usher 31 January 2020 16: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Excellent to become, I agree with the author.
  • Sasha_rulevoy 31 January 2020 19: 12 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The increase in the selected characteristics among the Germans was always achieved either at the cost of a critical deterioration of the remaining TTX, or contained some hidden "nuances"


    They also had a submarine with an underwater speed of 28 knots, like a nuclear-powered ship. Also quite a parody of the ship (I had the mind for a single copy).
    1. unknown 31 January 2020 19: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Any language is a linguistic operating system. I don’t remember which of the great said that in order to learn English, you need thirty HOURS, French, thirty DAYS, and German, thirty YEARS.
      German is an order of magnitude more intelligent than English, but sometimes you don’t need to know higher mathematics to go to the store for bread.
      1. Santa Fe 2 February 2020 10: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        German is an order of magnitude more intelligent than English

        Lack of spaces and versts long words? laughing

        “I speak Italian with women, French with men, and German with my horse.”
        Karl 5 Habsburg (1500-1558)
        laughing good
  • Ham
    Ham 7 March 2020 15: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The increase in the selected characteristics among the Germans was always achieved either at the cost of a critical deterioration of the remaining TTX, or contained some hidden "nuances"

    it’s not only among the Germans, everyone has it ...
  • phair April 26 2020 02: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Cap 2 Ivan Georgievich was with us as the headquarters. He commanded the seven (m or I don’t know) the Pacific Fleet did not complain about art, they were instructed after us (in Vladivostok) on the hills. Until now, the arsenal on Sputnik is working, and the metalworkers sawed the guns.