Warships. Cruisers. A mixture of straight arms and Japanese cunning


Today's story is about such wonderful ships that it’s just hard to probably find the cruisers who made more noise. Even the Deutschlands cannot compare with the effect that these ships brought into the world.


History It began on April 22, 1930, when in the process of signing the London Treaty of Japan it was forbidden to build additional cruisers with 203 mm guns. This condition put the signing of the document on the brink of disruption, because the Japanese were seriously rested. And in the end, as a persuasion, or compensation for the bummer with heavy cruisers of class “A” according to the Japanese classification, the Japanese were allowed to build a number of ships until the end of 1936.

It was supposed to be a cruiser with artillery of the main caliber not higher than 155 mm and a displacement of not more than 10 tons. They were allowed to build instead of old ships, which were supposed to be decommissioned fleet in the years 1937-39. There were 50 tons of such ships.

And then began the titanic work of the Japanese naval staff to ensure that "we had everything and we had nothing for it." It turned out or not - see below.

Warships. Cruisers. A mixture of straight arms and Japanese cunning

Since the displacement was limited to the same Washington 10 tons, the Japanese decided that it would be profitable to build four cruisers of 000 tons, and then two of 8 tons.

As a result, it is clear that, on the one hand, it seems that they do not go beyond the limits, and on the other, it becomes clear that defamation will be something else.

The “improved Tacao” project was taken as a model, which was developed specifically to replace the old class “A” cruisers, but then, after signing the Washington Treaty, they abandoned it.

What was the project like:

- speed of 37 knots, cruising range of 8 miles at a speed of 000 knots;
- the main caliber - 15 x 155 mm guns in three-gun towers with an elevation angle of 75 degrees;
- 12 torpedo tubes 610 mm in three-pipe installations;
- protection of cellars from hits of 200 mm shells, mechanisms - from 155 mm shells.

But the main highlight of the new ships was to be the ability to quickly replace the main-caliber towers with towers with 203 mm guns. In which case, especially if this case suddenly denounces all the signed agreements.


I translate: if it turns out to spit on all restrictions with impunity (like starting a war), Japan promptly turns 6 light cruisers into heavy ones. Serious approach.

Of course, it was simply unrealistic to fit into the allotted 8 tons of standard displacement, and even the Marine General Staff (MGS) constantly made adjustments, requiring the installation of a variety of equipment.

In general, of course, all the signatory countries of Washington were miraculous with a displacement, but only the Japanese achieved fantastic successes in hiding the true data. But the fact that they did it all the first time, which caused a fair stir.

A cruiser of 8 tons with such weapons - this had the effect of an exploding bomb, and all naval powers rushed to develop something like that.

Six new ships with 15 155 mm guns each - this was considered a very serious matter. And if not a threat, then a reason to get excited for the construction.

The Americans laid down a series of Brooklyn-class cruisers with fifteen 152-mm guns in five towers.

The British began to build instead of cruisers with 6-8 guns in two-gun towers of the cruiser series "Town" with twelve 152-mm guns in four three-gun towers. The last Belfast-class cruisers even planned to install four four-gun towers, but did not grow together.

In general, the “improved Tacao” made a rustle of seriousness.

What were these new ships like?


In general, it looks like Takao, the same huge superstructure in which all the nodes of communication, fire control, and navigation are concentrated. The same aft superstructure: an identical catapult device, the location of seaplanes and a hangar immediately behind the main mast mast, equipment for controlling auxiliary fire, a radio room on the roof of the hangar.

Torpedo tubes (three-pipe instead of two-pipe) were located in the middle of the hull at the level of the upper deck.

Like the Tacao, the number of anti-aircraft guns was very small, since it was assumed that cruisers could use the main caliber to repel air attacks. So four 127 mm guns - that's all the air defense.

We thought for a long time to which class the ships belong. From May 30, 1934, they began to use the caliber of guns as a criterion: cruisers of the first class (class "A") carried guns over 155 mm, and of the second class (class "B") - 155 mm or less.


Therefore, after the completion of the cruiser, they were nevertheless assigned to class “B”, that is, to light cruisers. The fact that there once they can be converted into heavy ones - well this is not a reason, right?

Because as a cruiser of the second class, new ships were named after the rivers.

On August 1, 1931, cruiser No. 1 was called Mogami (a river in Yamagata Prefecture, in the north-west of Honshu Island), and cruiser No. 2 was called Mikuma (a river in Oita Prefecture, in the north-east of Kyushu Island).

On August 1, 1933, cruiser No. 3 was called the “Suzuya” (the river Suzuya or Susuya in the southern part of Karafuto Island - former Sakhalin).

On March 10, 1934, cruiser No. 4 was named “Kumano” (a river in Mie Prefecture, the southern part of Honshu Island).

Well, when, before replacing the towers with cruiser’s guns, they were nevertheless transferred to class “A”, no one began to change the names, of course.


Booking cruisers differed from the protection of class A cruisers and was designed to withstand both artillery fire (protection against 203 mm shells in the area of ​​ammunition cellars and 155 mm shells in the areas of engine and boiler rooms), and against torpedoes and diving shells .

Three-gun towers of 155 mm guns were protected on all sides by plates of 25 mm steel NT and steel lining from the inside with a gap of 10 cm for thermal insulation. The same 25,4 mm defense had the fighting compartments of the towers.

The thickness of the armored belt of the cruisers was 100 mm, thinner than 127 mm of the armored belt of cruisers of the Tacao type. The thickness of the armored deck is 35 mm. The bridge was protected by 100 mm thick armor.

Cruisers main power plant


To get a full speed of 37 knots, cruisers needed an installation with a capacity of more than 150 hp. The designers even got 000 hp. Despite the great power, the main power plant turned out to be lighter, the specific power reached 152 hp / t compared to 000 hp / t on cruisers of the Takao type.

In tests in 1935, the Mogami reached a maximum speed of 35,96 knots (with a displacement of 12 tons and a capacity of the main power plant of 669 hp), Mikuma - 154 knots (with a displacement of 266 tons, and the power of the main power plant 36,47 12 hp). In the course of these tests, it turned out that the hulls of the ships are too weak and even “lead” them with little excitement.


No news, the weakness of the corps of the Japanese cruisers was a long-standing problem that was still fought on the Furutaki.

According to the project, the maximum fuel reserve was assumed to be 2 tons, while the cruising range was expected to be 280 miles at a speed of 8 knots. After being staffed in 000, the fuel supply was 14 tons, and the cruising range at a speed of 1935 knots was 2 miles. You can almost say it happened.

During the second modernization, the fuel reserve on the Mogami and Mikuma was reduced to 2 tons, and on the Suzuya and Kumano to 215 tons, respectively, the cruising range was reduced to 2-302 miles. However, the decrease in cruising range was caused by quite objective reasons, from practical tests to rethinking the network of bases in the Pacific Ocean.

Reducing the fuel supply allowed to increase other items of equipment for the ship. For example, weapons.

At the time of completion of all ships by 1938, the armament of the Mogami-class cruisers consisted of:

- 15 155 mm guns in three-armed towers;
- 8 anti-aircraft guns 127 mm in two-gun installations;
- 8 anti-aircraft guns 25 mm in twin installations;
- 4 anti-aircraft machine guns 13 mm;
- 12 torpedo tubes 610 mm.

In 1939-1940, 155-mm artillery mounts of the main caliber were replaced with five two-gun turrets with 203-mm guns.


Of the five towers, as on other class “A” cruisers, three were located in the bow and two in the stern. But the placement of the bow towers was different. Instead of the “pyramid” scheme, a scheme was used in which the first two towers were at the same level, and the third - on the deck higher (on the shelterdeck), having greater firing angles than with the “pyramid” scheme.

Each tower weighed about 175 tons, but towers No. 3 and No. 4 were slightly heavier and taller, since they also carried 8-meter range finders of type 13.


At first, the 155-mm guns were also intended to be used for firing at air targets, so the technical task indicated an elevation angle of 75 °, an initial projectile speed of 980 m / s and a firing range of 18 m. But it soon became clear that the vertical aiming speed and the number of received aboard shells are clearly insufficient for firing with the required rate of fire on rapidly moving air targets. Moreover, a large elevation angle required the use of precise and very sensitive vertical aiming mechanisms and more complex mechanisms of recoil devices. Therefore, the idea to get a powerful universal tool had to be abandoned.

According to estimates, when firing at surface targets, a ship with fifteen 155-mm guns would be quite inferior to a ship with ten 203-mm guns, since the smaller projectile weight was compensated by the large number of guns and their best rate of fire.

With a projectile weight of 55,87 kg and a theoretical rate of fire of 7 rounds per minute, 105 rounds with a total weight of 5 tons were obtained in a full salvo. A cruiser with ten 775 mm guns with a projectile weight of 203 kg and a theoretical rate of fire of 125,85 rounds / min, in a minute fired ten full salvos (5 shells) with a total weight of 50 kg. In practice, the comparison was even in favor of the class “B” cruiser, since the real rate of fire was 6 and 250 rounds / min, respectively, which gave a one-minute volley of seventy-five 5 mm shells weighing 3 kg against thirty 155 mm shells weighing 4 200 kg.

The ammunition of the 155-mm guns consisted of two types of shells: "diving" and training. The total supply of 2 pieces or 250 per gun.

The crew of the tower consisted of 24 people in the fighting compartment (of which one horizontal gunner and three vertical, three loading projectiles, three loading charges, six lift operators, three gun loading operators, closing the shutter and blowing), seven people in the shell cellar and ten in charger.

An interesting point: the trunks of 203 mm guns were longer than 155 mm. 10,15 m versus 9,3 m. Therefore, in the photographs during the campaigns it can be seen that the trunks of tower No. 2 are slightly bulged up. The space between towers 1 and 2 was not enough, so the trunks had to be raised to 12 degrees.


Anti-aircraft weapons on ships did not differ much from the Takao type and consisted of eight 127-mm type 89 anti-aircraft guns in twin units with Model A shields. Normal ammunition consisted of 200 shells per gun, maximum - 210.

In general, as mentioned above, initially the project believed that four 127-mm anti-aircraft guns would be enough, if anything, the main caliber would help. But when it turned out that the GK wasn’t so much an assistant, then according to the invention of paired installations, the 127-mm single-barreled anti-aircraft guns were gradually replaced by the twin. And from the main caliber they decided to shoot only at surface targets.


The cellars for 127-mm shells were located under the storage deck, between the bulkhead of the boiler compartment and the charging cellars of the main caliber tower No. 3. Unitary shells were fed by lifts through the storage deck, lower and middle decks. On the middle deck, the shells were transferred to the middle part of the ship and loaded into four other lifts, which supplied shells already to the upper deck - to the ammunition preparation facilities located near the installations. Shells were removed manually and also manually fed to the guns. In the ammunition preparation rooms there were several shells ready for firing. In general - the system is so-so in terms of speed.

In addition to 127-mm universal guns, four twin units of 25-mm Type 96 assault rifles and two twin units of 13-mm Type 93 machine guns were installed on cruisers. Normal ammunition consisted of 2 rounds per barrel for anti-aircraft machine guns and 000 rounds for machine guns.

The project also included 40-mm machine guns from the Vickers, 2 pieces per ship. But they did not have time to put them on the ships, immediately replacing them with 13-mm machine guns.

Ammunition storage also caused mixed feelings. The cellar of 25-mm shells was located under the armor of the lower deck, between the towers of the Civil Code No. 1 and No. 2. Clips of 15 shells were delivered by a lift to the middle deck on the starboard side, from where they were manually transported to the middle part of the ship (the same for 13-mm installations on the superstructure). There they were again loaded into the lifts, which fed clips onto the platforms of 25-mm machine guns, where they could be stored in numerous fenders of the first shots around the installations.

In general, the ammunition system for air defense systems was very unstable, and the uninterrupted supply of shells and ammunition depended on many factors.

Naturally, in the course of the war, air defense was modernized, machine guns were installed on any free piece of space. As a result (plus or minus 2-4 barrels), each cruiser received 24 barrels in 25 mm coaxial mounts, four 13 mm coaxial machine gun mounts, and 25 just 13 mm machine guns.

Each cruiser was able to carry three seaplanes on board, but during the war only two seaplanes were usually based. However, we will return to the hydroplanes, at least in relation to the Mogami.

In general, for its displacement, the cruisers turned out to be fast and with very good weapons. However, the armor protection was still weaker than that of its predecessors.

Of course, it would be impossible to put such projects into Washington 10 tons, and we don’t even stutter about the allocated 000 tons. It is clear that they didn’t even smell of them here.


Mogami-class cruisers had a hull length of 200,5 m, a midship-beam width of 19,2 m. Cruisers had a draft of 6,1 m, a displacement at Mogami with 2/3 of stocks - 14, full displacement - 112 15 tons. So it turned out not the “Washington”, and especially not the “improved Tacao” in terms of displacement. It turned out completely different ships.


According to the initial project, the crew of cruisers consisted of 830 people, but after its changes it increased to 930: 70 officers and 860 foremen and sailors. Such a number of teams was at the Mogami and Mikum after entering service. In 1937, after strengthening anti-aircraft artillery, it amounted to 951 people: 58 officers and 893 sailors.

Work was underway to improve the living conditions of the crew. There were multi-seat cabins for midshipmen and foremen, sailors' kubriks began to equip with metal three-tier bunks (instead of the usual hanging) and lockers for things.

On the ships there were pantries for rice in the bow and pickled products, a plant for the production of lemonade in the stern and a freezer, the volume of which increased to 96 cubic meters (for Myoko and Takao the chamber was 67 cubic meters). On the middle deck in the stern there was a ship infirmary, and in the central part of the hull there were separate (for officers and sailors) galleys (on the upper deck) and baths (on the middle).


The living spaces of the Mogami-class cruisers have been significantly improved compared to their predecessors. They were better adapted for swimming in the southern seas. In particular, the ships were equipped with a developed system of forced air circulation, and tanks with cold drinking water were installed in the corridors of the crew’s cubicles.

Combat application


All four Mogami-class cruisers were laid between October 27, 1931 and April 5, 1934, launched - from March 14, 1934 to October 15, 1936. The ships entered service on October 20, 1939. All four cruisers were assigned to the Kure naval base until they were removed from the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Cruisers became part of the 7th division of the 2nd fleet. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, ships took part in ordinary parades, parades, campaigns and exercises.

The ships of the division began fighting in December 1941. The 7th division covered the landing of Japanese troops in Malaya, Burma, Java and the Andaman Islands.


On February 28, 1942, the Mogami and Mikuma cruisers participated in the battle in the Sunda Strait, when the American cruiser Houston and the Australian cruiser Perth were sunk by torpedoes and shells of the cruisers. Japanese ships did not receive even minimal damage.

But the results of the battle were very spoiled. The Mogami sent a full salvo of torpedoes to the Hauston. Torpedoes did not enter the American cruiser, but on the other side of the strait a Japanese minesweeper from guarding the convoy and three ships of the convoy that delivered the landing were drowned.

Torpedoes "Type 93", as practice has shown, were very serious weapons.

Further, the cruisers "worked" in the Indian Ocean, disrupting the supply of British and French troops in Burma and Indochina. On the account of the cruisers in April 1942, there were 8 destroyed allied transports. The sheepskin, however, wasn’t worth the trick, because the expenditure of shells was simply monstrous: armor-piercing shells simply flashed transport vessels through and through, without exploding.


Troubles began in June 1942, when the cruisers went to the Midway Island area in order to shell the island's infrastructure. The shelling was canceled, but what we started next, we will consider in detail.

On the way back to the main forces of the fleet from the cruisers, an enemy submarine was discovered. Performing the evasion maneuver, Mikuma rammed the Mogami. Both cruisers suffered serious damage.


“Suzuya” and “Kumano” left the scene in full swing. "Mogami" could give only 14 knots. But the main trouble was that oil was flowing out of the damaged tanks of the Mikum cruiser, leaving a clearly visible mark on the surface of the ocean. In this trail, the cruiser was found diving SBD bombers.

Both cruisers damaged in a collision with each other were hit by two waves of American dive bombers, which made several direct bombs hit the ships.

And here is the result of not the most successful air defense and limited maneuver: one bomb hit the middle of the Mogami cruiser, in the region aviation decks. The explosion caused a further fire in the area of ​​torpedo tubes, but the Japanese crew was lucky, the torpedoes damaged in the collision of ships did not explode.

In total, five bombs hit the Mogami, which inflicted severe damage to the cruiser, in addition to those already existing from the collision. Surprisingly, the cruiser not only stayed afloat, but also continued on its way to the base on its own and under its own power!


The Mogami cruiser and the Fuso battleship under the bombs

True, the destruction was so significant that they did not begin to rebuild the ship, but converted the Mogami into an aircraft-carrying cruiser.

Mikuma was much less fortunate. The American crews planted two bombs in the cruiser that fell into the engine room. The bombs caused a severe fire, which also reached the torpedo tubes. But torpedoes exploded on the Mikum ...


So "Mikuma" became the first Japanese heavy cruiser to die in World War II. And here we must still think hard about to whom he owes this more: American bombs or Japanese torpedoes.

So in the 7th cruiser division there were only two ships left: Suzuya and Kumano. The cruisers were supported by fleet operations near Burma, and then, together with aircraft carriers, they came to Guadalcanal. There, the cruisers took part in the battle in the Solomon Sea. In general - without any particular results.

It is worth noting that after the battles in the Solomon Islands, the Suzuya and Kumano received radars. The anti-aircraft artillery of the ships was strengthened. There were plans to restructure both cruisers into air defense ships by partially or completely replacing towers with 203 mm guns with towers with universal 127 mm guns. These plans were not implemented.


But the Mogami got great. In fact, the cruiser was rebuilt from a conventional artillery cruiser into a carrier for reconnaissance seaplanes.

Both damaged main-caliber aft towers were dismantled, and a deck with guides for four three-seater reconnaissance seaplanes and three two-seater smaller hydroplanes was mounted in their place.


I must say, not the best solution, and here's why. Three bow towers of the main caliber remained in place, due to which the mass balance in the longitudinal plane of the ship was disturbed - the cruiser now buried its nose in the water.

As such, the Mogami re-entered service on April 30, 1943. The cruiser returned to the 7th division, where by then only Suzuya remained.

Kumano caught a 900-kg bomb from an American bomber and spent a long time on repairs at the dock. The Mogami followed after him, since during his stay in Rabaul he also received a bomb between towers No. 1 and 2.

The ships reunited only in 1944, just before the battle of the Mariana Islands, which the Americans called the "Great Marianne Beating." True, the cruiser did not receive any damage, but the re-equipment of air defense ships was immediately started. The number of anti-aircraft barrels was increased: up to 60 25-mm anti-aircraft guns on the Mogami, 56 on the Kumano and 50 on the Suzuya. Eight newest high-speed seaplanes Aichi E16A were now based on the Mogami.

Further cruisers engaged in boring transport operations between Singapore and the Philippines. And they dealt with them for quite some time, until the command sent them to Leyte Gulf ...


The Mogami was in Admiral Nishimura’s group along with the old battleships Yamagiro and Fuso, while Suzuya and Kumano acted as part of Admiral Kurita’s compound.

The Mogami were out of luck.

A squad of ships ran into an American squad comparable in strength. But the stars were clearly on the side of the Americans. Old Japanese battleships were sunk by old American battleships, but the Mogami killed for a long time and painfully.

At first, during the artillery firefight, the Mogami received two 203-mm shells, which disabled tower No. 2.

The Japanese fired four torpedoes towards the enemy, turned around and began to withdraw at all possible speed.

Literally right there, several 203-mm shells from the Portland cruiser hit the bridge. A cruiser commander and several officers on the bridge were killed. The command took the senior gunner, and the cruiser continued to try to break away from the enemy.

It seems to have begun to turn out, but the stars ... In general, the Mogami again collides with another cruiser. This time with "Get Started."

Not only was there a fire on the Mogami, the clash added. And the fire started ... right! To torpedo tubes!

Taught by bitter experience, the crew began to throw torpedoes overboard. But before that, five torpedoes detonated. Explosions of torpedoes damaged the shaft of one propeller and caused destruction in the engine room.

The cruiser slowed down and then the American cruisers “Louisville”, “Portland” and “Denver” caught up with it. This trio made more than 20 hits in the Mogami with 203 mm and 152 mm shells. Basically 152 mm, which played into the hands of the Japanese.

“Mogami” snapped as it could with the remaining two towers and tried to break away from the Americans. Happened. Both Mogami and Nachi began to leave for Colon. But, alas, it wasn’t the Mogami day for sure, because the car finally got up and the cruiser lost speed.

Naturally, in the continuation of troubles, TVM-1 bombers appeared. Two 225-kg bombs hit the bridge and a fire started again, which began to approach the artillery cellars.

The team tried to fight. In order to avoid detonation, a command was given to flood the nasal cellars of the ammunition, but damaged pumps barely pumped water. As a result, the senior artillery officer who took over the command decided to leave the ship with the crew.

The rest of the team was taken aboard the destroyer Akebono, after which it was finished off by torpedoes by the Mogami.

Suzuya outlived a colleague for a short while. All the same TVM-1 bombers, who made the cruiser not at the best time for him, became an evil genius. The Suzuya crew fought back as best they could, but one bomb exploded on the side of the cruiser, bending the shaft of one of the propellers. After that, the ship could no longer keep speed above 20 knots.

Problems with speed and maneuver immediately affected very fatally. During the raids that followed on October 25, 1944, the cruiser received several bombings at once, which ... correctly, caused a fire followed by detonation of the torpedoes. Torpedoes (as was usually the case on Japanese ships) smashed everything around and caused an even stronger fire. When torpedoes began to burst on the other side and the ammunition for the 127-mm guns, the commander ordered the team to leave the ship.

"Suzuya" sank on the same day, October 25, 1944.


The Kumano cruiser survived it for exactly a month. At the battle of Leyte, at the exit of the San Bernardino Strait, the ship got hit by a torpedo in the bow of the hull.

The American destroyer Johnston launched the torpedo from a distance of 7500 m. The ship received a dangerous roll, it was necessary to flood the compartments for straightening, after which the cruiser speed dropped to 12 knots. The Kumano went back to the Strait of San Bernardino.


In the strait, the damaged cruiser was attacked by American bombers and hit bombs in the engine room. The speed has fallen. The next day, October 26, the cruiser was attacked by carrier-based aircraft from the Hancock aircraft carrier. Three 225-kg bombs that landed on the ship disabled all cruiser boilers, with the exception of one.

"Kumano" on the stubbornness of the crew, at a speed of 8 knots, but crawled to Manila, where he was quickly repaired so that he could give a speed of 15 knots.

An order was given that obviously did not promise the cruiser a long life, namely, along with the cruiser Aoba, to accompany the convoy of transports to the shores of Japan.


At the crossing, a convoy near the island of Luzon intercepted the American submarines Guittara, Brim, Raton and Ray.

We agree that it was difficult to come up with a target better than a slowly crawling cruiser. It is clear that a good repair of the Kumano could only be ensured in Japan, but ... The submarines fired a salvo and two torpedoes fired by the supposedly submarine Ray, of course, caught up with the Kumano.

Explosions of torpedoes at the cruiser tore off the bow, but the ship itself remained afloat again! The course was completely lost, and the Kumano was again towed to Manila, where it was repaired again to the speed of 15 knots.

The final point in the history of "Kumano" put the American aircraft. November 25, 1944 "Kumano" was attacked by aircraft from the aircraft carrier "Ticonderoga". Four bombs and at least five torpedoes hit the cruiser ...


The cruiser rolled over and sank.

What can be said as a result? It was a good job — heavy Mogami-class cruisers. Good weapons, speed, maneuverability and especially survivability. It was bad after all with armor and air defense, especially at the end of the war it was not enough.

And the main drawback nevertheless became torpedoes. On the one hand, torpedoes are very powerful, fast and far-reaching. On the other hand, the Japanese fleet due to these torpedoes lost in a row not one or two ships.

But in general, the Mogami were very thoughtful and successful ships. It’s just that American aviation was predictably stronger.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 1959ain 9 February 2020 05: 28 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It is interesting how they work now, these production facilities, after the war, Japan built large tankers.
    1. Brylevsky 9 February 2020 06: 03 New
      • 19
      • 0
      +19
      I am from 2011 to 2018. worked on container ships built in Japan. Shipyard “Mitsubishi Heavy Industries”. The length is 304 and, the width is 42 m, the draft is up to 11 m. As you can see, the steamers are quite large ... Well, the quality of the building is excellent, there are no "childhood diseases" and post-construction finishings.
  2. Vladimir_2U 9 February 2020 05: 34 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    In general, of course, all the signatory countries of Washington were miraculous with a displacement, but only the Japanese achieved fantastic success in hiding the true data
    In the case of “Yamato”, these “fantastic successes” seemed to be sour sideways to the Japanese, because 460 mm would be a very serious scarecrow. But he was gone.
    1. Lamata 9 February 2020 07: 37 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Neither Moussashi nor Yamato seemed to even get hit)))) as the Japanese themselves called them, a somewhat ironic fleet of something there.
      1. lucul 9 February 2020 08: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        hits did not achieve))))

        So about these 4 cruisers too - not a single warship was sunk by their artillery of the Civil Code, I do not consider transports for the enemy as a cruiser.
        1. Lamata 9 February 2020 13: 01 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          though giants have typed it, it's like sweet water for sufferers of sexual impotence.
      2. Brylevsky 9 February 2020 08: 40 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        “There are three absolutely useless things in the world: the Great Wall of China; Egyptian pyramids and the Japanese battleship "Yamato", in my opinion, they joked with themselves ...
        1. Octopus 9 February 2020 13: 40 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Quote: Brylevsky
          There are three absolutely useless things in the world: the Great Wall of China; Egyptian pyramids and Japanese battleship "Yamato"

          It is very funny to compare two LCs, Yamato and Tirpitz. Both practically did not participate in the hostilities, but one carried the entire fleet of the metropolis, and the second sailed (it sailed, but did not go) as a piece of what is clear somewhere in the middle of nowhere, they learned about it after the war.
          1. God save the king 9 February 2020 19: 30 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            but one carried the entire fleet of the metropolis
            Who was the "fleet of the mother country"? "Rat" in a hole in the fjords, which could not be smoked? Some really wonderful fantasies.
            1. Rakovor 10 February 2020 07: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Sailors with PQ-17 could tell you a lot about this “rat” if they survived.
              1. God save the king 10 February 2020 12: 03 New
                • 1
                • 5
                -4
                And what would the dry cargo sailors say that they didn’t see this Tirpitz and were sunk by submarines and aircraft?
                1. Rakovor 11 February 2020 07: 08 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Well, if you don’t know the history of the PQ-17 caravan and why the military guard was removed there, then there’s nothing to talk about with you.
          2. Alexey RA 10 February 2020 11: 06 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Octopus
            Both practically did not participate in the hostilities, but one carried the entire fleet of the metropolis

            By the standards of the Pacific Ocean, under the high-profile title “Fleet of the Metropolis” lies a weakened tactical subgroup: a pair of LCs and one or two AB (british AB). smile
            Quote: Octopus
            and the second sailed (it sailed, but did not go) as a piece of which it’s clear that somewhere in the middle of nowhere, they learned about it after the war.

            Duc ... this couple, "I" and "M", was distinguished by an enviable appetite. At combinedfleet, it was somehow calculated that the regular use of Yamato (with the appropriate escort) at Guadalcanal would immediately make the fuel balance of IJN negative.
            1. Octopus 10 February 2020 11: 14 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              What is rich - so happy.

              I am inclined to agree with the opinion that it was Tirpitz who was the most useful ship of the war. He pulled upon himself the resources of the Allies on a strategic scale. That is, as a scarecrow, he did a lot more work than as a battleship.
              1. Alexey RA 10 February 2020 16: 45 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Octopus
                I am inclined to agree with the opinion that it was Tirpitz who was the most useful ship of the war. He pulled upon himself the resources of the Allies on a strategic scale. That is, as a scarecrow, he did a lot more work than as a battleship.

                well, like this fleet in being in its purest form. smile
                True, one should not forget that the linear forces of the Germans in the North were comparable with the British - besides the “Bismarck” in Norway there was a “Charles” and two or three panzerschiffe with KRT.
                Moreover, “Charles” BFL to the end - before he met in the dark night with the “Duke” and scumbags from cruising and light forces. No, the real scumbags were: in 1942 a pair of KRL drove the Panzerschiffe and KRT, in 1943 one “Washington” KRT and a pair of KRL twice drove the LC away from KOH - so much so that he decided to stop the operation and leave ... to meet with the “Duke” "
        2. Lamata 9 February 2020 17: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          and so, too, and Yamato ka who called the fleet base by name .... I don’t remember
      3. NF68 9 February 2020 15: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Lamata
        Neither Moussashi nor Yamato seemed to even get hit)))) as the Japanese themselves called them, a somewhat ironic fleet of something there.


        8th wonder of the world.
    2. Constanty 9 February 2020 08: 42 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      In the case of the Yamato, it seems that the side of the Japanese got only 155 mm towers from the Mogami-type cruisers !!! They were placed on battleships as medium artillery. And, according to some historians, it was the explosion of one of these towers that caused the final explosion of the Yamato.
      1. Brylevsky 9 February 2020 14: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Constanty
        the explosion of one of these towers

        Unfortunately, the same thing happened in the Russian fleet ... The cruiser Admiral Senyavin, June 13, 1978 And, MSS, a fire and an explosion did not occur as a result of combat damage, but because of illiterate operations of the military personnel.
      2. Alexey RA 10 February 2020 11: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Constanty
        In the case of the Yamato, it seems that the 155-mm towers from the Mogami-type cruisers went sideways to the Japanese !!! They were placed on battleships as medium artillery.

        On this couple not quite original towers with KRL were established.
        The towers of the 15.5 cm guns of the Yamato type battleships are not the ones that were removed from the Mogami type cruisers. The towers on these ships differ in size and shape, the rangefinders are mounted differently, the horizontal drive motors are removed from the barbets, the towers located in the AP have much longer ammunition supply paths. J. Skulsky writes that the Mogami towers were installed on the Yamato "after modernization and adaptation." This is closer to the truth. The towers of the Mogami-type cruisers were removed in 1939–40, when the construction of the Yamato and Musashi had already advanced far. Most likely, forced to always save, the Japanese used on the battleships the guns themselves with machine tools, combat tables, optics, elements of the supply system, and small internal equipment (fans, etc.), but the bodies of the rotating and fixed parts of the gun mounts were made anew, given the specifics of placement on battleships

        So what has changed as a result of this?
        And the radius of overcasting on the cover of the rangefinder has changed. ... made it the smallest possible.
        Why have you done this? As I understand it - for the convenience of placement on the battleship. If the Mogamian towers were superimposed on the Yamato deck plan, on the corresponding seats (at the centers of rotation of the towers), then it would be clear that the original towers would have difficulty - they would simply cling to the superstructure (especially the side ones, and the axial ones, at least , would go to her "tightly"). It is clear that this was considered unacceptable, that’s the alteration.

        © V. Sidorenko
        1. Constanty 10 February 2020 11: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Yes - these towers undoubtedly underwent modernization and adaptation as J. Skulski writes - this is confirmed by the thickness of the shell - this can be seen by comparing 50 mm armor compared to 25 mm on cruisers, but this was still a weak point, and it was a mistake to use medium artillery generally.
  3. Lamata 9 February 2020 07: 36 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Thank you so much.
  4. unknown 9 February 2020 08: 01 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    On cruisers of this series, the "amateurish" approach to design continued.
    The cruiser had a standard displacement of 9500 tons.
    The hull turned out to be so weak and the stability so disgusting that it required a very serious modernization, as a result of which the first displacement became 12400 tons for the first pair and 12000 tons for the second.
    Not frail such an overload turned out.
    Immediately recall the battleships of the type "Relight". Fortunately, they are close in standard displacement.
    Overload "Peresvet" amounted to 1136 tons. As you know, Admiral Makarov, forbidden to take a full supply of fuel for a battleship of this type, a maximum of two-thirds.
    Overload "Oslyaby" declare in 1734 t. So, in Tsushima he had no chance: either the main belt in the water, or the range is not enough. And this, without operational overload.
    Modernization of the Mogami-class cruisers, of course, helped, but it didn’t save it from congenital defects.
    The hull still remained weak, stability and seaworthiness disgusting.
    And in the 15 * 155mm version, he, due to a not very high rate of fire, was inferior to Brooklyn and did not surpass the British Taunas.
    PS In the matter of concealment of the real displacement of cruisers, the Germans were ahead of all. Their heavy cruisers, instead of the Washington standard of 10000 tons, actually went beyond 14000 tons.
    1. Brylevsky 9 February 2020 08: 48 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      I don’t understand how you can hide the real displacement of the ship? There are its sizes; there is sediment; there is the density of the water in which he sits. What prevents to multiply these quantities and get a volumetric displacement? Even if the sizes are not known, they can be obtained using a primitive scale on the basis of an object with known sizes, and the precipitation numbers are generally welded to the body at the ends in the form of deepening marks ... Do not tell me?
      1. Constanty 9 February 2020 09: 10 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        "housing fullness factor" wink
        1. Brylevsky 9 February 2020 13: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ... are not a secret and are known to shipbuilders and sailors. From 0,5 to 1. Do not tell me the draft of the cruiser? I want to calculate the displacement myself, playing with the fullness coefficients and understand where it was possible to “dunk” the tonnage so that no one would notice.
          1. Constanty 9 February 2020 13: 23 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The fact is that this is not 4000 tons at all.

            The standard displacement for Mogami was fixed at 8500 ts (although the final C-37 Kikon Keikaku Bango project had a displacement of 9500 ts), while in real terms after construction it was 11 ts.

            Although in fact, after the construction (and the so-called "First Improvement Program"), Mogami was overloaded by 1800 tons (12962tm on samples against 11162tm project)
          2. Constanty 9 February 2020 13: 36 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            ... are not a secret and are known to shipbuilders and sailors. 0,5 to 1.


            It can always be argued that the coefficient is lower than in reality, and the displacement, despite the size, is within the declared value
          3. Constanty 9 February 2020 17: 37 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            You were right about the dive. According to Jane's, Mogami had a standard displacement of 8500ts and dimensions of 190.5 pp. x 18,4 x 4,5 metersimmersion. Actually 11200ts and dimensions 189,0 pp, x 18,0 x 6,15 meters dive

            1. Brylevsky 10 February 2020 16: 49 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Thanks for the information about the draft of the cruisers, yesterday I calculated the displacement completeness coefficients, that's what happened:
              1) With a displacement of 8500 tons, the coefficient = 0
              2) With a displacement of 11200 tons, the coefficient = 0, 522,
              which, in fact, fits into acceptable values. But it does not change anything. I am pretty sure that Japan was "allowed" to exceed the permissible displacement. Below i answered Dmitry Vladimirovichwhy.
              1. Constanty 10 February 2020 17: 10 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                But that changes everything because if the coefficient fits into acceptable values, the Japanese could claim that their cruisers had a declared displacementeven if it was somewhat real, and it was like a scam from afar.
                1. Brylevsky 10 February 2020 17: 19 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  it was like a scam from afar.

                  I share your point of view. Because it is impossible to explain the hidden superiority of more than 2000 tons with something else. Spies could have spotted the real draft of the cruiser even at the construction stage at the shipyard, and even during planned dock repairs this is not difficult - counterintelligence is not able to verify all shipyard workers. And in order to look at the draft of the ship in the dock, a lot is not necessary. It is enough just to see him. Although, of course, the space between the sections of the dock is covered with a tarpaulin in full width ... but ... there would be a desire, but there is a way.
                  1. Constanty 10 February 2020 17: 21 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    However, to use such evidence later is difficult - this is a recognition of espionage.
                    1. Brylevsky 10 February 2020 17: 23 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Just know enough.
    2. Constanty 9 February 2020 09: 16 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Do not forget that in the case of Mogami, buoyancy has increased significantly, and the dimensions of the hull have changed, and the “bubbles” are not only torpedo protection and better stability, but also additional buoyancy.

      The Mogami hulls were significantly strengthened after several upgrades and no longer caused complaints, and stability and seaworthiness were not disgusting.

      I agree, however, that the correct exchange of artillery is indeed questionable.
      1. Brylevsky 9 February 2020 13: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        11200 - 8500 = 2700 tons. This is a lot ... to stay unnoticed. I work on a dry cargo ship DWT = 13000 tons, the weight is empty about 3500 tons. We have the number of tons per centimeter of draft with a deadweight of 8800 tons = 20. That is, in order to “sink” the steamer by 1 cm, you need to throw 20 tons on it. And these figures and dependencies were obtained by shipbuilding science, which has an ancient history. It turns out that at the beginning of the 20th century, sailors considered the characteristics of their ship according to the same algorithms as now. I repeat, there is no difficulty in calculating the actual displacement of the ship, focusing only on its size. Apparently someone “closed their eyes” to these preponderance of cruisers, I think so. To “miss” 2700 tons for a specialist is ... well, you know, it’s impossible.
        1. Constanty 9 February 2020 14: 21 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          it will simply provide only slightly lower than the actual size (no one will measure using a caliper), and cases when a foreign cruiser is standing in our dock (as is the case with the Gorizia cruiser in Gibraltar in 1936) are very rare.

          I'll see how much they provided in Jane Fighting Ships 1937 wink
        2. Dmitry V. 10 February 2020 10: 37 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: Brylevsky
          I repeat, there is no difficulty in calculating the actual displacement of the ship, focusing only on its size. Apparently someone “closed their eyes” to these preponderance of cruisers, I think so. To “blink” 2700 tons for a specialist, this ... you know, it’s impossible


          In order to calculate the displacement - you must at least know the geometry of the hull, how to calculate the underwater geometry of spies? No way, the waterline does not provide information on the full draft of the hull.
          1. Brylevsky 10 February 2020 12: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            In order to calculate the displacement - you must at least know the geometry of the hull, how to calculate the underwater geometry of spies? No way, the waterline does not provide information on the full draft of the hull.


            Volumetric displacement = length of the ship according to design waterline x width on design waterline x draft and draft x fullness coefficient of displacement x density of sea water;

            1) Precipitation marks are welded onto the body at the extremities;
            2) I am far from the idea that there are no agents of interested intelligence in the design bureau and construction site;
            3) If there is no information on the first two points, then the actual displacement can be determined by analogy, comparing the approximate "classmates".
            I am pretty sure that the cruisers of such a tonnage of Japan were "allowed" to build.
            1. Constanty 10 February 2020 17: 16 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Ad.1) As can be seen from the above data, the dive values ​​were greatly underestimated
              Ad. 3)
              then the actual displacement can be determined by analogy, comparing the approximate "classmates"
              this is not possible due to the displacement factor. You yourself wrote that for the 8500ts it will be 0,526 with these sizes and therefore it is quite possible and real, on other cruisers with similar or even identical external dimensions its value may be different, which can lead to different displacements even up to 3-4 thousand tons.
              1. Brylevsky 10 February 2020 17: 27 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                this is not possible due to the displacement coefficient

                Yes, I have nothing to object to. You can’t argue against mathematics ...
    3. Rurikovich 9 February 2020 20: 15 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: ignoto
      Their heavy cruisers, instead of the Washington standard of 10000 tons, actually went beyond 14000 tons.

      The Germans did not sign the VD; their Blucher was simply a tribute to fashion, adjusted for German flavor. They built the contractual “Deutschlands” and their 6000-ton light cruisers, and then just started to clog restrictions with the tacit consent of their backstage Anglo-Saxon masters, and eventually the “Scharnhorsts” with the “Bismarck” and the “Blucher” were born hi
    4. Usher 12 February 2020 06: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      On cruisers of this series, the "amateurish" approach to design continued.
      The cruiser had a standard displacement of 9500 tons.
      The hull turned out to be so weak and the stability so disgusting that it required a very serious modernization, as a result of which the first displacement became 12400 tons for the first pair and 12000 tons for the second.
      Not frail such an overload turned out.
      Immediately recall the battleships of the type "Relight". Fortunately, they are close in standard displacement.
      Overload "Peresvet" amounted to 1136 tons. As you know, Admiral Makarov, forbidden to take a full supply of fuel for a battleship of this type, a maximum of two-thirds.
      Overload "Oslyaby" declare in 1734 t. So, in Tsushima he had no chance: either the main belt in the water, or the range is not enough. And this, without operational overload.
      Modernization of the Mogami-class cruisers, of course, helped, but it didn’t save it from congenital defects.
      The hull still remained weak, stability and seaworthiness disgusting.
      And in the 15 * 155mm version, he, due to a not very high rate of fire, was inferior to Brooklyn and did not surpass the British Taunas.
      PS In the matter of concealment of the real displacement of cruisers, the Germans were ahead of all. Their heavy cruisers, instead of the Washington standard of 10000 tons, actually went beyond 14000 tons.

      Are you with your competent Englishmen again? The last time I wrote to you, what was their "competence". The same American "Cleveland" were also unstable "and after construction added ballast in excess of the planned.
  5. Constanty 9 February 2020 08: 37 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The “improved Tacao” project was taken as a model, which was developed specifically to replace the old class “A” cruisers, but then, after signing the Washington Treaty, they abandoned it.


    I have trouble understanding this sentence.

    The Tacao cruiser was built in 1928-1930, which suggests that the “improved Tacao” project, at least, refers to the period after this date. 1922 Washington Treaty So it’s difficult either to propose an illogical because of the chronology of events, or we are talking about the London Treaty.

    Traditionally, problems with displacement have already appeared. Values ​​of 14, total displacement of 112 tons relate to ships during the war after several modernizations, while the same sentence shows the original dimensions, referring to the second pair of ships, and not to the Mogami!

    Meanwhile, after the so-called “Tomozuru incident”, the Japanese were forced to control and rebuild many of their ships, including cruisers of the Mogami type, especially those ships !!!

    Therefore, in order to minimize the weight of these cruisers, large-scale welding was used in their design. Due to the imperfection of the welding methods of that time and little experience, cracks in the joints appeared at this Japanese shipyard, and under the influence of the deformation of the hull, problems arose when servicing the main artillery turrets!
    In 1935-1938 the first two ships of the Mogami and Mikum type were rebuilt. Among other things, the front superstructure and mast were slightly reduced, the hangar was abandoned and ballast tanks were used. At Suzuya and Kumano, the freeboard height was slightly reduced from 5,5 m to 5,15 m) and the width (from 20,6 m to 19,2 m) as well. Subsequently, all ships were modified by replacing the welded parts of the hull plates with rivets, thickening the parts of the plates and adding so-called “bubbles” against torpedoes on the outside of the original hull to improve stability. The displacement of the vessel increased by about 1000 tons, and the width of the hull with "bubbles" up to 20,51 m (Mogami and Mikuma) or up to 20,2 m (Suzuya, Kumano).
    1. Undecim 9 February 2020 12: 27 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The Tacao cruiser was built in 1928-1930, which suggests that the “improved Tacao” project, at least, refers to the period after this date. 1922 Washington Treaty So it’s difficult either to propose an illogical because of the chronology of events, or we are talking about the London Treaty.
      Absolutely, true, we are talking about the London Treaty.
  6. The leader of the Redskins 9 February 2020 08: 40 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I have never heard or seen the data of a cruiser. Japanese names are hard to remember, but I would remember such an unusual arrangement of towers.
    1. Constanty 9 February 2020 09: 18 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Wait for the article about Tone cruisers laughing
    2. beeper 9 February 2020 13: 49 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      hi "Marine collection" in the magazine "Modelist-Constructor" of the late 70s and early 80s!
      It is precisely because of such an unusual (direct Linkor-like, like the British “Nelson” and “Rodney”) arrangement of bow artillery towers and elegant “clipper” stem that these beautiful Japanese cruisers struck me forever, from the first glance at the magazine picture! yes
      1. The leader of the Redskins 9 February 2020 14: 14 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I did not read MK then. The technique of youth was discharged at home. And the Modeler began to look from the aircraft carrier marine collection.
      2. Constanty 9 February 2020 19: 38 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        In Poland, in those years it was necessary to run to buy "Modelist-Constructor", but I had several sets of full years MK. "Marine Collection" It was a really good cycle.
        1. beeper 9 February 2020 20: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          hi Konstanti, shipbuilding engineers Smirnov’s brothers, authors of that Soviet “Marine Collection”, based on their articles, published the book “Ships and Battles” (in some “MK” of the late 80s, on the penultimate page there was even an announcement of this books) - in electronic form it is on the web, downloaded to myself six years ago.
          I read the Model Designer’s binder in the library, I received several numbers from relatives and acquaintances, or bought them on occasion. I wrote it out for only a few years (and I didn’t receive part of the prepaid numbers).
          In the Internet era, I downloaded a lot of the annual binder files of the early MKs, but by pure inertia .... and the move never reached them. No longer downloading, it happens that I’m looking through new numbers online.
          In the late, post-Soviet, Sea Collection, I liked Koffman's articles (author's conceptual thinking and impartial assessments of the idea and design of a ship).
          1. Constanty 9 February 2020 20: 34 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Thanks for the tip. I didn’t know. I would read with pleasure - now years later smile
            1. beeper 9 February 2020 20: 36 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              hi It is that worth-the history of the fleet and shipbuilding interesting! good
              1. Constanty 9 February 2020 20: 49 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2

                bully

                You are right.
                20 years ago I was a grown man, but I enjoyed myself as a child when I bought in Poznan the “History of Russian Shipbuilding”
                1. beeper 9 February 2020 21: 14 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  hi Polish literature on ship modeling and in our Union was a success! yes
                  I see that "Ships and battles" you have already found.
                  On the Web, in addition to the periodicals of the Monographs of the Maritime Collection by MK, there are books by Sergey Balakin similar to the Jane directory, with diagrams and large-scale general views of the described Soviet and Russian ships. As well as individual monographs on the leaders - “Tashkent” and “Moscow”, battleships “Soviet Union”, modern cruisers of Russia and their Soviet history of creation (I don’t remember the name of the book from one of their designers, a shipbuilding engineer), the same about BOD is not counting the series of monographs "Arsenal Collection" on warships of different countries, surface and submarine, as well as civilian vessels, converted into raiders, publishing house "EXMO".
                  1. Constanty 9 February 2020 21: 20 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    I have most of these monographs, I love Russian ships and buy and read a lot, from Naval, Gangut, Typhoon ... Balakina, Shirokorada, Berezhnoya, Arsenal Collection, EKSMO, ...

                    In turn, I now happily buy for my son
                    "Paper Modeling" smile
                    1. beeper 9 February 2020 21: 36 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I also liked, written and published for ship modellers, a book by Ukrainian author Igor Perestyuk, Kiev 2001, "Titanic and Inshin liner with a legend", on the creation and history of legendary passenger liners, ranging from Great Eastern, Deutschland, Mauritania, Bremen, Normandy, Queen Elizabeth 2, United States, France, .. ... and to modern yachts of billionaires, with drawings, detailed descriptions and numerous diagrams of individual elements, it is in Ukrainian (but if I somehow read and understand Polish, then you, if you are interested, will understand in Ukrainian, more according to the drawings and diagrams)!
                      1. Constanty 9 February 2020 21: 42 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        As far as I read fluently (without a translation in my head - I just read) in Russian with Ukrainian is much worse. In any case, my pony is a Russian-Japanese war. And this did not begin with Surf-Novikov a Sorokin Port Arthur Defense. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. Valuable book then for me
                      2. beeper 9 February 2020 21: 44 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        hi We all, many of us, began our fascination with maritime history with Port Arthur and Tsushima! yes
                        In Ukrainian there are many words from the Polish language and German, too.
  • K-50 9 February 2020 08: 57 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    armor-piercing shells simply flashed transport ships through, without exploding.

    They did not take into account the experience of the Russo-Japanese war.
    1. Constanty 9 February 2020 09: 22 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Rather incomprehensible stupidity when choosing the ammunition used. After all, these cruisers in the ammunition store had not only armor-piercing shells.
      1. mmaxx 9 February 2020 10: 45 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Most likely there were no high-explosive shells at this moment. For the battleships "Yamato" they were not even made. This is to the question that our wrong shells were chosen in Russian-Japanese. Apparently, the Japanese compared the damage from high-explosive and armor-piercing and decided that there was little sense from high-explosive.
        1. Constanty 9 February 2020 11: 17 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          The following types of shells were used for the 3 Nendo Shiki 20 cm / 50 type E weapons mounted on the Mogami type

          AP Type 91: 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg) armor-piercing
          Common Type 91 HE: 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg) HE
          Common Type 0 HE: 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg) HE
          Common Type 3 IS: 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg) anti-aircraft, incendiary
          Illum Shell B: 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg) lighting
          1. mmaxx 10 February 2020 06: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Who will understand now. Maybe at the time of the battle there were no high explosives. Maybe in order to get to the high-explosive in the cellar it was necessary to shoot a certain amount of armor-piercing ones. May be something else.
            But the fact that the Japanese focused on armor-piercing is a fact.
      2. DMB 75 9 February 2020 10: 45 New
        • 10
        • 2
        +8
        By the way, today is the day of remembrance of the feat of "Varyag" and "Korean"!
        “... At 11 hours and 45 minutes, the first shot from an 8-inch gun was fired from the Asama cruiser, after which the entire squadron opened fire.
        Subsequently, the Japanese claimed that the admiral had signaled an offer of surrender, to which the commander of the Russian vessel responded with neglect, without raising any signal. Indeed, I could see the signal, but I did not find it necessary to answer it, since I had already decided to go into battle.
        Then, having made a sighting, they fired at Asama from a distance of 45 cables. One of the first shells of the Japanese, hitting the cruiser, destroyed the upper bridge, making a fire in the navigational cabin, and interrupted the focus guys, and the long-range officer Midshipman Count Nirod and all rangefinders of station No. 1 were killed (at the end of the battle one hand of Count Nirod was found, holding a rangefinder) ...
        ... After making sure, after inspecting the cruiser, that it was completely impossible to enter the battle and not wanting to give the enemy the opportunity to defeat the dilapidated cruiser, the general meeting of officers decided to sink the cruiser, bringing the wounded and the rest of the crew to foreign ships, to which the latter fully agreed as a result of my request ...

        ... I present a special request for the rewarding of officers and teams for their wholehearted courage and valiant performance of duty. According to information received in Shanghai, the Japanese suffered heavy losses in people and had accidents on ships, the cruiser Asama, who went to the dock, was especially injured. The Takachiho cruiser, which received a hole, also suffered; the cruiser took 200 wounded and went to Sasebo, but the patch burst the road and could not stand the bulkhead, so the cruiser Takachiho sank at sea. The destroyer sank during the battle.
        Reporting on the foregoing, I consider it a duty to report that the ships of the detachment entrusted to me with dignity supported the honor of the Russian flag, exhausted all means of a breakthrough, did not allow the Japanese to win, inflicted many losses on the enemy and saved the rest of the team.
        Signed: commander of a cruiser of the 1st rank "Varangian" captain of the 1st rank Rudnev "
        1. Lamata 9 February 2020 20: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why is this in the picture Korean burning ?? !! japas did not shoot at him and the Korean did not get any damage.
    2. Senior seaman 9 February 2020 10: 53 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quite the contrary :)) It was from the experience of that war that Dzhpi switched to armor-fighting, and in the same hypertrophied form as RI had. (except for weight)
  • Observer2014 9 February 2020 09: 02 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    goodHere is the article !!!. And the conclusion good
  • demiurg 9 February 2020 09: 13 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    If you leave three towers, and make them three-armed, throw out the torpedo tubes, then a gorgeous stock of displacement will appear, probably 300-400 tons. Replace 25mm picks with 40mm bofors, 13.5 machine guns with 20mm erlikons.
    Dreaming is not harmful hi
  • Thrifty 9 February 2020 09: 20 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Are the ships too narrow? With a length of 200 meters, the maximum width is only 19 meters! The chance to roll into a storm on a high wave was very, very high.
    1. Constanty 9 February 2020 11: 33 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Therefore "bubbles" were added
      Mogami 1934 vs. 1938


      Suzuya 1935 vs. 1937:
    2. Brylevsky 9 February 2020 13: 50 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      This cannot be stated with certainty; the positions of the center of gravity and the center of magnitude must be considered. Then, based on these values, calculate the transverse metacentric height; then fix it by adjusting for a "free surface"; The resulting corrected metacentric height may already serve as one of the Stability Criteria (there are five in total). From my own experience I can say that a vessel with a length of 200 m and a width of 24 m (this is a Japanese car carrier for 6500 cars), when fully loaded, has a fixed metacentric height of about 1 m, which is quite an acceptable value. The width, as you see, is not much different from the cruiser, but equal in length.
  • Hog
    Hog 9 February 2020 11: 52 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The thickness of the armored belt of the cruisers was 100 mm, thinner than 127 mm of the armored belt of cruisers of the Tacao type.

    What's again?
    On Takao, 127mm was only in the cellars (in Mogami there is generally 140mm), and the main belt was 100mm (like in Mogami).
    - protection of cellars from hits of 200 mm shells, mechanisms - from 155 mm shells.
    1. Rurikovich 9 February 2020 20: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      By the way, I also wanted to point out these things from the author, but I decided to read the comments first yes
  • denplot 9 February 2020 12: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The survivability of these cruisers is amazing, as dozens of shells, bombs, torpedoes hit and still keep moving, crawling to the base. Impressive.
  • Earthshaker 9 February 2020 13: 05 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Thanks for the series of articles. I hope you will not ignore the most active representatives of the linear forces - battle cruisers of the Congo type.
  • Engineer 9 February 2020 13: 05 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    The Japanese outwitted themselves. They installed 155-mm cardboard installations with 25-mm armor thickness. Clearly, palliative. Even outstanding Englishmen will laugh in a decent society. Well, it’s kind of like a replacement was originally planned.
    After the replacement, the GCs received the Takao successor with improved habitability, but with even greater overload. Evolutionary development did not happen.
    On the other hand, even such a “difficult child” was stronger than any European or American except Hippers and Baltimore. Which are even more water displaced and built later.
    These are the "amateurs."
    1. Alexey RA 10 February 2020 11: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      Installed cardboard 155 mm installation with an armor thickness of 25 mm. Clearly, palliative. Even outstanding Englishmen will laugh in a decent society.

      The British with their first series of "Cities" just keep silent - at the towers of the GC "Southampton" the same 25 mm "armor". smile
  • Looking for 9 February 2020 16: 42 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    all articles from this series at the opus level of the junior for "YOUNG MODELIST-DESIGNER"
    1. Romey 9 February 2020 17: 46 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Hmm ... The MK Marine Collection was generally written by highly respected shipbuilding historians, edited by no less respected people in admiral's ranks. Therefore, do not confuse amateurism with an accessible exposition.
      P.S. Japanese cruisers are the pinnacle of naval architecture and naval aesthetics. Therefore, they are so attractively captivating all lovers of the navy and naval history.
  • God save the king 9 February 2020 19: 36 New
    • 2
    • 10
    -8
    And here are the next miracle cruisers, who during the whole war practically did nothing with their main caliber.
    The authors of local articles have some insurmountable craving in the exaltation of ships, the real effectiveness of which left much to be desired. .
    1. Romey 9 February 2020 19: 41 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      As often happens, it so happened that all the fleets of the world were preparing for one war, and another one turned out. Actually, Japanese cruisers brought a lot of benefits in escorting transports in the Java Sea, and they did a good job in the Guadalcanal campaign.
      1. Rurikovich 9 February 2020 20: 28 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: romey
        As often happens, it so happened that all the fleets of the world were preparing for one war, and another one turned out.

        All questions are in politics and restrictions, and not in what war the admirals were preparing for. Give them free rein. it’s not known what would have been born at the beginning of WWII (and after all no one knew in the 20s that such a war would happen), therefore they introduced restrictions for different classes of ships.
        And so each country would sculpt its own steel "ideals" for fighting based on its vision of the strategy and tactics of war at sea, as well as looking at its pockets with voiced coins and the possibility of shipyards. And there were no such perversions when the victim is pushed to the maximum displacement to the maximum. For one for the other smile
    2. Dmitry V. 10 February 2020 13: 43 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: God save the King
      The authors of local articles have some insurmountable craving in the exaltation of ships, the real effectiveness of which left much to be desired. .


      Do not forget about the potential threat of any weapon that restrains and is usually taken into account in the plans of the enemy.

      Nuclear weapons created in the USSR in a combat situation were not used, but the effect of their appearance can hardly be overestimated - a deterrent.

      It was the same with the heavy cruisers of the Japanese - they existed and their presence had to be taken into account when planning the operations of the American Navy.
    3. Alexey Z 12 February 2020 18: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So in this war practically nothing was decided by the main calibration.
  • Petrol cutter 9 February 2020 20: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Thank. It was interesting.
  • Saxahorse 9 February 2020 21: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Cruisers are just handsome! Thanks to the author for the article!

    Although a bunch of claims to Japanese torpedoes seems extremely strained.
    Taught by bitter experience, the crew began to throw torpedoes overboard. But before that, five torpedoes detonated. Explosions of torpedoes damaged the shaft of one propeller and caused destruction in the engine room.

    Well, tell me how !? Well, how could a torpedo explosion on the upper deck damage cars and a propeller ?? Or did the Japanese drown throwing torpedoes, and they just fell under a propeller for example?

    You can recall the episode of the REV, a hit in Iwat and an explosion of ammunition in the casemate on the upper deck. Yes, this led to large losses in the crew and knocked out three guns at once, but not for a second did it slow down and, moreover, did not lead to the risk of flooding the ship. The location of torpedo tubes on the upper deck was not chosen by the Japanese by chance. The explosion of even all warhead torpedoes in this place does not threaten the survivability of the ship as a whole.

    Reasoning about the dangers of Japanese oxygen torpedoes is just an old, unfounded bike from the "Tsushima" forums.
  • Grossvater April 8 2020 22: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    1. What kind of bridge was already booked with 100 mm of armor? Maybe still the conning tower?
    2. What is a "storage deck"?
    3. Actually, “diving” are called special-designed shells designed to destroy submarines. The Japanese ships still had armor-piercing shells, albeit a somewhat marvelous concept and, accordingly, construction. If it is absolutely unbearable, they can be called "diving".
  • TatarinSSSR 4 May 2020 16: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Most of this article by Skomarokhov is a copy-post in his own words by the article by the author of the book Ivanov S. V. "Heavy cruisers of Japan."
    [media = https: //litlife.club/books/223587/read? page = 16]