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

111

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.

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    29 January 2020 18: 19
    Thanks it was interesting to read
    1. +3
      29 January 2020 18: 21
      For a long time Oleg was not.
      1. +4
        29 January 2020 21: 02
        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. +2
          30 January 2020 10: 59
          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. +5
            30 January 2020 13: 35
            Thanks for the interesting article.
          2. 0
            2 February 2020 19: 36
            On destroyers of type 1936C, which were a modified version of the described Narvik, starting with the Z46, instead of 15 cm guns, 6 128 mm (5,04 in) KM41 guns were to be mounted in three LC.41 turrets. Likewise, the following types 1941, 1942C and "Zerstörer 1945"

            This is a 1941 type destroyer drawing:
  2. +3
    29 January 2020 18: 24
    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.


    In theory, this could include the Fire Project 130 and the rebuilt Sentry with the bow of the Organized destroyer (C-311).
  3. +2
    29 January 2020 18: 39
    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. +1
      29 January 2020 18: 48
      The Germans do not go everywhere everywhere gigantomania
    2. +1
      29 January 2020 18: 58
      In fact, the question arises - why? Since even the light cruisers Kriegsmarine after 1940 and Norway were idle almost until 1945.
      1. +3
        30 January 2020 11: 58
        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, "Narviks" were not the first attempt by the Germans to build an EM with 15-cm guns. They started back in WWII - EM S113, V116, G119 and B122.
        Here is S113:
  4. +5
    29 January 2020 18: 43
    And what is the lack of equipping of Tashkent. Was it necessary to put the fourth tower on it?
    1. +4
      29 January 2020 19: 12
      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. +2
        29 January 2020 19: 21
        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. +6
          29 January 2020 19: 35
          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. +3
            29 January 2020 19: 40
            Well, now we understand that the race was not needed, and then people thought differently.
            1. +5
              29 January 2020 19: 55
              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. 0
        29 January 2020 20: 04
        "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. +3
          29 January 2020 20: 16
          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. +2
            29 January 2020 20: 19
            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. +2
              29 January 2020 20: 41
              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. +4
        29 January 2020 22: 20
        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. +2
          30 January 2020 13: 02
          Dear, he compared Simakadze with Tashkent, closely monitor the progress of the discussion.))
          1. +2
            30 January 2020 13: 22
            The full displacement of the "Tashkent" is 4175, the Shimakaze is 3400, the difference is 775 tons. Again, not 1000.
      4. +2
        30 January 2020 13: 07
        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 steam boilers (75 kg / cm² at a temperature of 450 ° C) - take the "seven", nothing else will happen. But the decrease in the specific gravity of the power plant was also due to auxiliary mechanisms.
        Then it turned out that there would be no boilers of their own. And a once-through boiler with its much smaller volume of water in variable modes will have to be adjusted manually. In the end, the automatics were bought from the Germans, but, as the classics wrote, "it was very similar to a real engine, but it did not 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 the fleet received the EM "Experienced" - three barrels 130-mm in standard B-13, speed 40 knots and cruising range 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. +2
      29 January 2020 19: 52
      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. +3
        29 January 2020 20: 23
        Rather, a typical air defense weapon for a destroyer of those years (i.e. before the war). The 76mm tower was reportedly completely useless in the fight against aircraft - the "tower of peace".
      2. -1
        30 January 2020 15: 18
        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. +1
      29 January 2020 21: 04
      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. +4
        29 January 2020 21: 38
        Greetings, Vadim!

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

    Z-34, which was seriously damaged by Soviet torpedo boats.
  6. +8
    29 January 2020 19: 06
    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 type "Tenryu" was this successful intermediate variant:
    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. +4
      29 January 2020 19: 20
      De facto Japanese type "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. +4
        29 January 2020 19: 29
        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 more abruptly 4-x 130-mm for "sevens", for example. For the leader, more than enough is enough - all the more so because of his security, Tenryu beat everyone else with ease (half-cruising origin affected).
        1. +2
          29 January 2020 19: 41
          Seven less than half

          The Tenryu project was cool only for the First World War.
          1. +3
            29 January 2020 19: 47
            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. +3
            29 January 2020 19: 56
            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. +3
              29 January 2020 20: 25
              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. +5
          29 January 2020 21: 12
          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 "half-cruising", but under-cruising.
          1. +4
            29 January 2020 21: 15
            Don't juggle - about "beating" I spoke strictly about security, which in my quote you easily and naturally blotted out.
            And about the "snail speed" - somehow no worse than the Girings.
            1. +1
              29 January 2020 21: 21
              I read it specially, you don't have a word about security there. Yes, and here we are talking about destroyers of the Second World War, and not about the cruisers of the first. You can also compare the security of "Tashkent" with the armor of "Worspite".
              1. +4
                29 January 2020 21: 23
                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. +6
                  29 January 2020 21: 29
                  Guilty, overlooked and apologize. Special thanks for the downsides. smile
                  1. +1
                    30 January 2020 09: 37
                    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. +1
                      31 January 2020 00: 18
                      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
                      Incidentally, I liked Japanese cruisers since childhood, purely outwardly. The first time I saw "Kako" in the Military Encyclopedia and fell in love with the silhouette, there is something in these ships that is unusually aesthetic to the European look. drinks
                2. +3
                  29 January 2020 21: 49
                  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. +1
                    30 January 2020 09: 49
                    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. 0
      30 January 2020 21: 50
      It was not necessary to add several thousand tons, it was enough to add one.
      Perhaps that intermediate option was Tromp. Actually. it grew out of a destroyer leader's project. With a standard displacement of just over 3700 tons, it carried six 150 mm guns, and its speed made it possible to operate in conjunction with destroyers.
      1. 0
        31 January 2020 02: 49
        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. +2
          31 January 2020 20: 16
          The speed allowed. On waves, the speed of the "Tromp" decreased less than the speed of the smaller destroyers in displacement. By the way, the dimensions of the "Tromp", which grew out of a destroyer, and, moreover, a very successful one, in terms of the length and width of the hull did not differ from the dimensions of the destroyers of the 1936A project. Draft is more by a meter.
          PS The destroyers Thunder and Molniya were built according to the successful project from which Tromp grew. With a standard displacement of 1975 tons, they carried 7 * 120mm and two three-tube torpedo tubes, the speed of 37 knots.
          PPS A successful destroyer, with an armament of 4 * 140mm, a speed of 37 knots, a cruising range of 7000 miles, a standard displacement of 1880 tons, was created by the British for Yugoslavia. It was called "Dubrovnik".
  7. +4
    29 January 2020 19: 31
    Maybe the German designers were counting on the "first accurate shot", one hit - one dead. Maybe they wanted to "butter up" the German leader - the German destroyers were the most "heavy" (the "severity" of the German tanks was determined by the caliber of tank guns - T-4 75 mm medium, T-5 Tiger 88mm heavy). Can Croup bully "brought in a lamb" - heavy weapons - more metal ...
  8. +2
    29 January 2020 19: 36
    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. +6
    29 January 2020 20: 49
    I have never understood “writers” like Kaptsov, who with such aplomb demonstrate their “common sense” in relation to samples of technology created more than 80 years ago. Moreover, it is not at all difficult to do this, since there is a mass of literature on German destroyers, all their advantages and disadvantages have been repeatedly analyzed. Therefore, apart from the author's pathos, there is nothing new in the article.
    1. 0
      29 January 2020 21: 29
      Because we can compare with peers

      American technical genius and Japanese masterpieces
      1. +5
        29 January 2020 22: 25
        And where is the comparison with peers in the article?
        1. +4
          29 January 2020 22: 32
          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. +5
            29 January 2020 22: 41
            You, excuse me, do not confuse the mention of systems and mechanisms with the comparison of ships of the same class. From your contemporaries, you mention only French ships that can be attributed to the destroyer leader. By the way, do you remember the Japanese "masterpiece" Shimakaze mentioned in your commentary on what kind of power plant you had?
            1. +2
              29 January 2020 22: 57
              Campon
              Operating pressure 35 atmospheres

              The Japanese have excellent power plants and motors in general
              1. +4
                29 January 2020 23: 18
                In this case, brevity is not a sister of talent. Compare with the power plants that the Japanese used on their destroyers.
                1. +3
                  30 January 2020 00: 08
                  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. +5
                    30 January 2020 00: 15
                    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. -1
                      30 January 2020 00: 19
                      40 and 70 atmospheres

                      The Germans usually make rubbish, passing it off as high technology and the flight of technical thought
                      1. +6
                        30 January 2020 00: 21
                        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. 0
                        30 January 2020 01: 20
                        This is practice
                      3. +4
                        30 January 2020 02: 31
                        Practice in what? In the generation of such "masterpieces of thought" as your comment?
                      4. -3
                        30 January 2020 11: 56
                        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. +4
                        30 January 2020 12: 19
                        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 so beloved by you, then in the history of this very shipbuilding of any country you can find examples of serious failures. Nobody is immune from mistakes, including the Japanese and the Americans. But this is not a reason to paint about "the fight against common sense." There is no need to replace the technical content with publicistic noise.
                        All the best and creative success.
                      6. +1
                        31 January 2020 13: 47
                        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.
                      7. +5
                        30 January 2020 12: 47
                        This is a pinhole

                        I suggest you start the next article somehow like “an hour for joy, chifir for sweetness, vagabonds.” The target audience must be identified immediately.
                      8. 0
                        31 January 2020 02: 43
                        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
                      9. +2
                        31 January 2020 08: 52
                        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
                      10. +2
                        31 January 2020 13: 51
                        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.
  10. +2
    29 January 2020 20: 58
    The author was slightly mistaken. The Enterprise had 7 152-mm guns. 5 in deck installations, and a two-gun turret on the forecastle. Installed for trial operation, later such towers stood on "linders" and "aretyuses". So, the Englishman significantly surpassed the German destroyer in firepower, 7 barrels against 5. The presence of a radar and a cruising SUAO, finally a displacement of 7 thousand tons, which makes it a much more stable artillery platform.
    1. 0
      29 January 2020 21: 54
      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. +2
        30 January 2020 00: 45
        The main role in the battle was played by "Glasgow", as a faster, better armed and armored. The Enterprise was just "in the wings." In general, it is absolutely incomprehensible what the captain tsur zee Erdmenger was counting on when he got involved in the battle. After all, he, not an armchair "theorist", served on destroyers throughout the war. He could not help but understand that his advantage in barrels and torpedo tubes, only "on paper". In reality, all the advantages are on the side of the British.
        1. 0
          30 January 2020 01: 19
          From the chronicle of the battle

          The Germans could not escape, the cruisers were faster
          1. 0
            30 January 2020 18: 46
            The Germans could leave, Erdmenger "got on the rampage" in a situation when it was necessary to get away. Unfortunately, he died along with his flagship destroyers. There is no one to get answers.
  11. +4
    29 January 2020 21: 04
    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. +2
      29 January 2020 21: 25
      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
  12. +3
    29 January 2020 21: 17
    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 to help our destroyers. Gold ... if not the ship could have been saved, otherwise they didn’t want to share the "prize" money and lost everything.
    1. +1
      29 January 2020 21: 45
      in vain did the British refuse to help our destroyers. Gold ... if not the ship could have been saved, otherwise they didn’t want to share the "prize" money and lost everything.

      I have never heard of this. Do not share the source?
      1. +2
        29 January 2020 23: 15
        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. +1
          30 January 2020 10: 12
          OK. Thank you
        2. +2
          30 January 2020 13: 08
          Well, everything that Patients wrote must be related, as it were, to put it mildly, with great care.)
          1. +1
            31 January 2020 00: 20
            In any case, this is not Valentin Pikul. hi
            1. +1
              3 February 2020 11: 47
              Well, Pikul was never positioned as a documentary historian, he is primarily a creator of fiction. And to read the Sick, because everyone around him is stupid, incompetent, not thinking in military affairs, he alone is d'Artagnan. laughing As the saying goes, everyone imagines himself to be a strategist seeing the battle from the side, and in his case also with the use of "after-knowledge".
              1. +2
                3 February 2020 11: 55
                Well, everyone is free to evaluate the author in their own way. I didn’t notice the "d" artanyanism "of the Patients, a malicious man - yes, but he doesn’t give advice there on what and who needed to be done. He just notes mistakes and shortcomings, and who didn’t have them? So he is in his books He does not stroke anyone's wool, neither “ours,” nor “strangers.” And without, as you say, “after-messages,” it is impossible to write a single sensible book on history. hi
                1. +1
                  3 February 2020 12: 31
                  Well, that's it, that on the basis of the post-knowledge a serious historian should draw some conclusions, analyze certain actions, but not in any way "stigmatize" the direct participants in the events. This is especially pronounced in the book "Clash of the Giants" about the fighting in the North Sea in WWI, have you read it?
                  1. +1
                    3 February 2020 12: 41
                    "Clash of the Giants" about the fighting in the North Sea in WWI, have you read it?

                    I read it, and with great pleasure. I do not see there any "stigma", if some admiral did not have enough sense to correctly assess the situation, why not write about it directly? There he does not take the side of the sick, but gives "earrings to all the sisters." smile
                  2. +1
                    3 February 2020 16: 58
                    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. 0
                      4 February 2020 07: 04
                      No, well, it’s okay with the Patients, but Bunich then wrote frank nonsense.
                      1. 0
                        4 February 2020 09: 32
                        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. 0
                    4 February 2020 07: 08
                    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.))
  13. +9
    29 January 2020 22: 19
    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. 0
      31 January 2020 16: 42
      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?
  14. 0
    30 January 2020 02: 40
    "Leadership of the War at Sea (Oberkommando der Marine) - IMF High Command?"
    1. 0
      30 January 2020 09: 20
      So it was in the monograph
  15. 0
    30 January 2020 06: 44
    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. 0
      30 January 2020 22: 12
      The 6 "caliber shell for the Japanese, who were inferior to the Europeans, by an average of 10-20 kilograms, turned out to be heavy.
      They realized this back in the RYaV, but since they were guided by what the British could offer, they had no other option, the 120 mm caliber for a medium caliber was considered insufficient. The French already had a caliber of 138,6 mm, but it was the French ... But when the British had a caliber of 140 mm, guns of this caliber were created by the "Greek" order, the Japanese switched to this caliber. Later, the British also planned to switch to this caliber. According to the results of the First World War, they came to the conclusion that the 6 "caliber shell is also heavy for Europeans when manually loaded. Guns of this caliber have already 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 the Second World War, they came to the conclusion that the optimal caliber for manual loading is 5 ". Or rather, a projectile weighing up to 28 kg. During the war, the British switched to a caliber of 114 mm, a projectile weighing 25 kg. At first, the guns of this caliber had a unitary shot. , which was difficult with manual loading even for Europeans, had to split the shot.
      1. 0
        31 January 2020 16: 38
        Quote: ignoto
        The 6 "caliber shell for the Japanese, who were inferior to the Europeans, by an average of 10-20 kilograms, turned out to be 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. -1
          31 January 2020 19: 48
          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.
  16. +1
    30 January 2020 07: 31
    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
  17. 0
    30 January 2020 07: 50
    There is an analogy with Russian frigates and corvettes.
    1. 0
      31 January 2020 16: 34
      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.
  18. -1
    30 January 2020 15: 23
    Quote: Undecim
    Therefore, apart from the author’s pathetics, the article is nothing new.
    Reply
    Quote
    A complaint

    How is it not. A GONORAR ?!
  19. 0
    31 January 2020 16: 31
    Excellent to become, I agree with the author.
  20. -1
    31 January 2020 19: 12
    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. 0
      31 January 2020 19: 55
      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. 0
        2 February 2020 10: 28
        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
  21. Ham
    0
    7 March 2020 15: 33
    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 ...
  22. 0
    April 26 2020 02: 23
    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.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"