Why did the battleships really disappear?

Why did the battleships really disappear?
LC "Iowa". 32 cruise missiles for striking along the coast, 16 missile launchers “Harpoon”, UAV “Pioneer”, satellite communications and a terminal with an automated naval control system. And another 406 mm gun. These were battleships at the end of the XNUMXth century


The disappearance of the battleships as a class of warships is in some ways very instructive. However, this process is shrouded in myths that were created relatively recently and make it difficult to perceive the “battleship” history right. It is worth considering this issue in more detail. On the one hand, it has no practical value: battleships in their traditional form of armored artillery ships with artillery of extra-large caliber are dead, and this is final. On the other hand, the question is quite interesting, because it allows you to understand the patterns in the development of systems weapons and military thought, but that just matters.

Defined in terms


To discuss such a serious issue, you need to determine the terminology. In the English-speaking world, instead of the term “battleship” (battleship), the word “battleship” was used — a ship for battle or a ship for battle. This term automatically lets us know that we are talking about ships that can both fire at other ships and withstand their return fire. So, the squadron battleships of the Russian-Japanese war in the Western consciousness are also battleships, and, in fact, the fate of these ships is very consistent with their foreign name. In an entertaining way, once a battle ship was a line-of-battle ship, or a battle line ship. The analogy with the Russian word “battleship” is obvious, but the difference in the perception of the terms by an outside observer is obvious.

What is the difference between battleship and another artillery ship? The fact that the first one is at the top of power fleet. Ships that would be stronger than him in battle do not exist. It is the battleship-battleship that is the basis of the battle order of the fleet in the battle; all other classes of ships occupy a subordinate or dependent position in relation to it. At the same time, it inflicts the most important damage to the enemy (in this case, other forces can finally finish off the enemy’s ships).

We define the battleship as follows: a large armored artillery warship, capable, based on its firepower, security, survivability and speed, of conducting a long-term fire battle with enemy ships of all classes, firing on them from on-board weapons until they are completely destroyed, maintaining combat effectiveness when the ship is defeated the enemy’s ammunition, for which there is no class of ships armed with the same or more powerful weapons and at the same time having the same or better protection.

This definition, although not ideal, but describes in the most detailed way what battleships were and what they were not, and allows us to move on.

Today, no fleet has battleships in service. But how did these lords of the oceans go down in history?

First myth. It sounds like this: During the Second World War, it turned out that armored artillery ships were not able to withstand the deck aviation, which entailed the end of the "era" of battleships and the beginning of the "era of aircraft carriers."

There is another version of it, it was popular in our country during the years of the USSR - with the advent of nuclear missile weapons, large-caliber guns and armor became a rudiment, yielding nothing during the hostilities, which led to the refusal of the leading naval powers from battleships. Say right away, this myth in some places intersects with reality, it is closer to it, but still it is a myth. Let us prove it. Let's start with the aircraft carriers.

Carrier myth and the realities of World War II


During World War II, military operations were conducted in the seas washing Northern Europe (Norwegian, Barents, Northern, Baltic), in the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the Pacific Ocean. Occasional clashes took place in the Indian Ocean, South Atlantic, unlimited submarine war was fought mainly in the North Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean. Throughout this array of battles and battles, sometimes very large and accompanied by heavy losses, aircraft carriers were the main striking force only in the Pacific Ocean. Moreover, the main thing does not mean at all the only one. With a coordinated attack and air cover, the Japanese could theoretically use their large artillery ships against U.S. aircraft carriers. Moreover - albeit by accident, but once used, in the Leyte Gulf in 1944, near the island of Samar.


The death of the escort aircraft carrier "Gambier Bay" from the fire of the cruisers. Other ships were damaged, including the fire of battleships, some left due to the mistakes of the Japanese, who believed that the ships were destroyed. The price of salvation was the death of three escort destroyers, one aircraft carrier, another was completed kamikaze a little later

Then the connection of Taffy 3 - a group of six American escort aircraft carriers with escort ships came across a connection of the imperial fleet with battleships and cruisers. The small escort crews had to flee, one of them was sunk, the others were badly damaged, while the American commander Admiral Sprague had to literally deplete their cover ships, 7 destroyers, throwing them in a suicidal attack against superior Japanese ships. The planes themselves from aircraft carriers, despite the desperate attacks, were able to sink one cruiser and damage two, another was destroyed by the destroyers, and the Americans themselves lost one aircraft carrier, three destroyers, all the other aircraft carriers and four destroyers were badly damaged, with heavy losses of personnel.

In general, this episode of the battle (the battle near Samar Island) leaves the impression that the Japanese simply broke psychologically, faced with desperate, stubborn resistance from the Americans, which included numerous examples of personal sacrifice of sailors and pilots who saved their aircraft carriers from death, including mass self-sacrifice . And the day before, the formation was subjected to air strikes for many hours in a row, losing one of its most powerful ships, the battleship Musashi. The Japanese could well “break”, and, apparently, it was.

Should the Japanese commander Smoke go to the end, ignoring the losses and fierce resistance, it is not known how it would end. The battle near Samar Island showed that armored artillery ships are quite capable of inflicting losses on aircraft carriers, while ensuring the surprise of the attack.

The battle in Leyte Gulf also showed the limits of aviation capabilities when striking large surface ships in general and battleships in particular. The day before the battle near the island of Samar, the Kurita compound underwent massive air strikes, in which air groups of five American aircraft carriers participated. During almost the entire daylight hours, 259 American aircraft continuously attacked Japanese ships completely devoid of air cover. The result of attracting such forces, however, was modest. Having sunk the Musashi, the Americans could only get into the Yamato twice, twice into the Nagato and damage several smaller ships. The unit retained combat effectiveness and continued to participate in battles the next day. Once again, all this without a single Japanese aircraft in the air.

Was it a real option for the Japanese to throw their artillery ships into battle against American aircraft carriers, using air cover, or, taking advantage of the employment of aviators to disassemble each other? Quite. Leyte showed that the life time of a surface formation under massive air strikes can be calculated over many days, after which it still maintains combat effectiveness.

Well, what happens when an artillery ship suddenly finds itself at a range of fire at an aircraft carrier, the destruction of Glories by German raiders in 1940 showed well.

Could all this lead to change during the war?

Not. Why? Because with a successful exit at a distance of artillery fire, Japanese battleships would collide with the American. In the first year of the war, the Americans had serious power imbalances caused by both the loss in Pearl Harbor and the initial lack of strength in the Pacific Ocean, but everything changed since 1943 and they formed very balanced formations from aircraft carrier and artillery ships.

And regardless of whether the American aviation would be busy or not, whether it could attack the Japanese or not, the weather would allow it to fly or not, and the Japanese would not succeed in attacking the American aircraft carriers, it would result in an artillery battle in which the Americans had overwhelming superiority and in the number of trunks, and as a fire control.

In fact, battleships were the "insurance" of aircraft carriers, providing them with air defense, guaranteeing the impossibility of their destruction by artillery ships and insuring against the event of bad weather or large losses in aircraft. And this really was a necessary element of their power, which by the very fact of its existence deprived the enemy of the opportunity to arrange a massacre, leaning on aircraft carriers with an armored mass.

In turn, Japanese aviation against American battleships proved even worse than American against Japanese, at times. In fact, the Japanese’s attempts to attack the American battleships from the air, when the latter could be "reached" by the aircraft, ended in the beating of the aircraft, not the ships. In fact, American battleships in the Pacific War often performed the tasks that are now being accomplished by URO ships with AEGIS systems - they reflected massive air strikes and the effectiveness of this defense was very high.


October 26, 1942, Japanese aviation is trying to smash his head once again, now on the defense of the South Dakota. With a known result

But all this pales against a comparison of the effectiveness of battleships and aircraft carriers in strikes along the coast. Contrary to popular belief, US carrier-based aircraft in strikes against ground targets showed themselves poorly - much worse than army aviation could have shown itself under the same conditions. Compared to the devastating effect of artillery bombardment with large-caliber guns, the strikes from the decks were simply “nothing.” The battleships and heavy cruisers of World War II and the first years after it, by the power of their fire along the shore, have remained unreachable to this day.

Yes, aircraft carriers pushed battleships out of first place in importance. But that they allegedly “survived from the light” was out of the question. Battleships remained valuable and needed warships. Now not being the main force in the war at sea, they continued to be a necessary element of a balanced fleet, and without them its combat power turned out to be much lower than with them, and the risks were much higher.

As one American officer rightly pointed out, the main force at sea in the war in the Pacific was not an aircraft carrier, but an aircraft carrier consisting of aircraft carriers and high-speed battleships, cruisers and destroyers.

And all this, we repeat, in the war in the Pacific Ocean. In the Atlantic, the main force turned out to be escort carriers with anti-submarine air groups and basic aviation, on the remaining theater of operations the role of aircraft carriers was auxiliary, artillery ships, destroyers and submarines were more important. Part of the matter was geography, often surface ships could rely on basic aviation, but only partly.

Thus, the idea that the battleships disappeared due to the appearance of aircraft carriers, on closer examination, does not withstand any criticism. During World War II, nothing of the kind happened. Moreover, and this is the most important thing - nothing of the kind happened after the Second World War.

The place and role of battleships in the first post-war decade


The myth that the battleships were "eaten up" by aircraft carriers is shattered by the fact that their story did not end with the end of World War II. In this sense, the attitude to these ships in different fleets is indicative.

Great Britain and France put into operation one battleship mortgaged or built earlier. In France it was the Jean Bar returned to the French and returned to service in 1949, a battleship of the Richelieu type, in Britain the brand new Vengard in 1946. At the same time, old and worn ships designed in the late 30s massively wrote off all countries except the USSR, where there was a severe deficit of surface ships and literally everything was used, right down to the Finnish battleship. The United States, which had a colossal excess of warships of all classes, massively put unwanted and obsolete ships in reserve, but two of the four newest Iowa battleships remained in service. At the same time, it must be understood that the Americans were able to withdraw from the reserve and reactivate old ships after decades of sludge and the fact that their South Dakota were in storage until the early sixties was somewhat indicative.




"Jean Bar". It went into operation in 1949, decommissioned in 1957. France then had aircraft carriers. Strange, huh?

Indicative are the years when the cancellation of battleships went on a massive scale. This is the mid-fifties. Before this, the picture looked like this.

Battleships in service for 1953 (we don’t count the reserve, only active ships, different Argentinean and Chilean scrap do not count either):

USA - 4 (all Iowa).
USSR - 3 ("Sevastopol" / "Giulio Cesare", "October Revolution", "Novorossiysk").
France - 1 (“Jean Bar”, the same type “Richelieu” was also in service, but was reclassified to “training artillery ship”, Lorraine of 1910 was also used as a training ship).
Italy - 2.
Great Britain - 1.

It should be understood that the American South Dakota and the English King George could well be quickly reactivated and thrown into battle. Thus, the battleships didn’t disappear even after the Second World War.


“Wangard” and someone from “King George” in the parking lot reserve, the second half of the 50s

After 1953, there was a landslide write-off, and in 1960 only the USA had the opportunity to use battleships in battle. Thus, we have to admit that until at least the beginning, and rather even until the mid-50s, the battleships were quite a valuable combat weapon. As subsequent experience will show, this also remained in later years. A little later, we will return to the reasons for the collapse of battleships, this is also a very interesting question.

Consider the views on the use of battleships of that era.

Some theory


No matter how powerful aviation was in the mid-fifties, but its use had (and still has in many respects) some limitations.

Firstly, the weather. Unlike a ship, weather restrictions are much stricter for airplanes, a banal strong lateral wind above the runway makes flying impossible. For an aircraft carrier, this is simpler, it unfolds in the wind, but pitching and visibility limit the use of carrier-based aviation no worse than fog and wind limit the use of base aircraft. Today, for a warship and a large aircraft carrier, the restrictions on the use of weapons and flights, depending on the unrest, are approximately the same, but then it was different, aircraft carriers with 90 tons of displacement did not exist.

Secondly, geography: if there are no airbases nearby, from which enemy aircraft can attack a ship, and the enemy has no aircraft carriers (in general or nearby), then surface ships operate relatively freely. A special case - there is an air base, but it was destroyed by an air strike, for example, by bomber aircraft. In such circumstances, no one prevents a powerful warship from destroying ships weaker, ensuring the combat use of destroyers and mine-layers, and by the fact of its striking power, to ensure the blockade and interruption of enemy naval communications. And, most importantly, nothing to do with it. The battleship’s speed is such that no nuclear-powered submarine of those years would have kept up with it, and torpedo boats, as combat experience has shown (including during Leyte), did not pose any threat to a high-speed and maneuverable ship with a large number of universal fast-firing guns.

To cope with the battleship, you actually needed either a heavy aircraft carrier covered by artillery ships and destroyers or ... yes, your own battleships. So it was during the Second World War, it remained so after it.

Adding aviation covering the battleship here, we get a real problem for the enemy - the battleship can behave like a fox in a chicken coop, and attempts to hit it from the air first require air supremacy.

Of course, the enemy will gather and strike sooner or later. The bombed-off runways will be restored, additional aviation strike forces and fighters will be deployed, the battleship will be monitored by forces of faster warships than it, the weather will improve and the planes from the coast will be able to repeat what the Japanese showed in 1941 Kuantan battle time, sinking the English battleship and battlecruiser.

But only by that time there is much that can be done, for example, you can manage to land an airborne landing, capture the coastal airfield with the forces of this landing, then, when the weather improves, transfer your aircraft there, set up minefields, conduct a couple of light-force raids at naval bases . With impunity.

In some ways, an example of similar actions during the Second World War was the Battle of Guadalcanal, where the Japanese planned to land under the cover of artillery ships and lost in battle with American artillery ships - one particular aircraft could not stop them. Ten or twelve years later, nothing has changed.

It is significant how the battleship issue was seen in the Navy of the USSR. Seeing the danger in the attack of superior naval forces of the enemy, the USSR understood that it would have to be decided mainly by aviation and light forces. At the same time, combat experience clearly stated that it would be extremely difficult, if at all possible, but there were no options for the post-war devastation.

At the same time, there was a problem. To understand it, we quote a document called "The need to build linear ships for the Navy of the USSR" Authorship of Vice Admiral S.P. Stavitsky, Vice Admiral L.G. Goncharov and Rear Admiral V.F. Chernysheva.

As the experience of the First and Second World Wars shows, solving strategic and operational tasks at sea only by means of submarines and aircraft, without the participation of sufficiently strong groups of surface ships, is problematic.

The immediate strategic and operational tasks facing our Navy are:
- Prevention of enemy invasion of our territory from the sea;
- assistance to offensive and defensive operations of the Soviet Army.

The following tasks may be:
- ensuring the invasion of our troops on enemy territory;
- interruption of enemy ocean communications.

The immediate and subsequent strategic and operational tasks of the USSR Navy require for their solution the presence of strong and full-fledged squadrons in our fleets at the main naval theaters.

To ensure the proper combat power of these squadrons and their sufficient combat stability in battle against large groups of enemy surface ships, these squadrons should include battleships.

The situation at any of our main theaters does not exclude the possibility of an adversary entering their battleships onto them. In this case, in the absence of battleships in our naval theater’s main naval theaters, their solution to operational and combat missions in the open sea off the coast of the enemy is greatly complicated.

The tasks of combating large groups of enemy surface ships, which include his battleships, only by aviation, submarines, cruisers and light forces require a number of favorable conditions for their successful solution, which may not exist at the right time.

Strengthening cruisers and light forces interacting with aviation and submarines, battleships, immediately gives this entire group of diverse forces the character of universality, expanding the combination of its combat use.

Finally, one cannot but take into account the fact that only surface forces are able to keep the occupied water area, and to increase their combat stability in the struggle for its strong hold, battleships are again needed.

Thus, battleships are needed by our Navy at each of the main maritime theaters to ensure the proper strike power of our squadrons and their sufficient combat stability in battle against large groups of enemy surface ships, and for reliable support of the combat stability of other formations in solving the latter problems, associated with the retention of occupied water areas. At the same time, it should be noted that the issue of building ships of the line immediately puts the question of building aircraft carriers on the line.


This applies, apparently, to 1948. In any case, the commission for determining the shape of the future Navy of the USSR, created by Admiral N.G. Kuznetsov, made all her conclusions precisely then and V.F. Chernyshev was a part of it precisely. In addition, 1948 is a year in which both King Naval Forces, the United States Navy, and the French and Italian Navy are still in operation, and King George with Wangard and South Dakota with Iowa, and Richelieu ”(on the approach of“ Jean Bar ”) and“ Andrea Doria ”. Before the "sunset battleships" is not far away, but it has not yet come. What is important here?

These quotes are important:

The tasks of combating large groups of enemy surface ships, which include his battleships, only by aviation, submarines, cruisers and light forces require for their successful solution a number of favorable conditions, which may not exist at the right time.

Namely, the weather, the availability of their own aviation in the right amount - enormous from the experience of the Second World War (remember how many planes it took to drown the Musashi and the fact that the Yamato needed even more later), the fundamental ability of this aviation to break through the air defense to the enemy fleet (not guaranteed), the possibility of low-speed submarines to unfold in advance in the curtains in a given area, the fundamental possibility of using light ships (destroyers and torpedo boats).

The battleship in this case was insurance, a guarantee that if these actions fail - all together or separately, then the enemy will be something to delay. And then, in 1948, these considerations were completely true.

Finally, one cannot but take into account the fact that only surface forces are able to keep the occupied water area, and to increase their combat stability in the struggle for its strong hold, battleships are again needed.

In this case, in fact, we are talking about gaining time - surface forces deployed in the designated area can be there for weeks, or even months. No aviation can do that. And when the enemy appears, these surface forces can immediately engage in battle, gaining time to lift attack aircraft from the coast and providing them with accurate target designation. The latter, by the way, is still relevant today, according to the instructions adopted by the Navy, surface ships should provide guidance for naval assault aircraft and until now the Russian Navy has an order in which control of planes that flew to strike at the moment of their passage of the coastline is transferred to KPUNSHA (ship control and guidance point for attack aircraft).

And how to join the battle against three or four King George? Even in 1948? Or against two and one Wangard in 1950?

Actually, such considerations determined the presence of battleships in the arsenal of many countries in large numbers after the Second World War. It was just that some had a question of how to meet the enemy linear forces, when they would go ahead to clear the way for aircraft carriers, and others - how to clear the way for aircraft carriers. But everyone gave the same answer to it.


The last year of battleships of domestic construction. It all ends once

At the same time, you need to clearly understand that in the second half of the forties, the presence of several battleships in the fleet could even be affordable for Argentina, but only Americans could overpower full-fledged and numerous deck aircraft, and the British were also able to overpower them. The rest had to be content with symbolic carrier forces, hardly capable of independently carrying out important operational tasks, or even doing without them. And, importantly, outside of the potential conflict with the United States and England, the battleship was still a superweapon in a naval war.

Thus, the idea that battleships were supplanted by aircraft carriers during World War II is untenable. They did not disappear, but remained in the ranks, for a long time there existed and developed a theory of their combat employment, they even modernized. Crash battleships began to be withdrawn from service in 1949-1954, while some ships were forced to leave their fleets - the British obviously did not spend military expenses, and the USSR lost Novorossiysk in a famous explosion. If not for this, then at least one Soviet battleship would have been in service for some time. World War II is clearly not connected with the disappearance of battleships. The reason is different.

American way. Big guns in battles after the Second World War.


Speaking about battleships and why they disappeared, we must remember that finally the last battleship in the world ceased to be at least formally a combat unit already in 2011 - it was then that the Iowa LC was finally decommissioned and also sent to the Navy reserve museumification. If we take the date of the final disappearance of the battleships when they were put out of service, it’s 1990-1992, when all Iowas left the system, as we now know, forever. Then, by the way, this "forever" was not at all obvious.

What was the last battleship war? It was a war in the Persian Gulf in 1991. It is worth remembering that the battleships were reactivated for the Last War with the USSR in the 80s. Reagan conceived the “Crusade” against the Soviet Union, a campaign that was supposed to kill the USSR, it could well end in a “hot” war, and the United States was actively preparing for such a development of events. They would not back down. And the “600 Ships” program to create a mega-fleet capable of cracking down on the USSR and its allies everywhere outside the Warsaw Bloc was a very important part of this training, and the return to service of battleships in a new quality was an important part of the program. But first, these ships had to fight in other wars.

In 1950, the war in Korea began. The American command, considering it necessary to provide powerful fire support to the UN forces, attracted battleships to operations against the DPRK troops and Chinese people's volunteers (DPRK, the Chinese military contingent in the DPRK). Hurriedly, two of the four Iowas that were available were reactivated (two battleships were in active service at that moment) and consistently began to head towards the shores of the Korean Peninsula. Thanks to powerful communications, the battleships were well suited as a command center, and the power of their fire along the coast could be simply unparalleled.


"Missouri" firing at the facilities of the DPRK troops, 1950.

From September 15, 1950 to March 19, 1951 in Missouri fought in Korea. From December 2, 1951 to April 1, 1952 - Wisconsin. From May 17, 1951 to November 14, 1951, the New Jersey FC. From April 8 to October 16, 1952, the Iowa launcher withdrawn from the reserve took part in the hostilities. Subsequently, huge ships periodically returned to the Korean shores, delivering blows from their monstrous guns along the coast. Missouri and New Jersey have been to Korea twice.

An important point in understanding the fate of battleships - after Korea, they were not sent to the reserve, but continued active service. The reason was simple - the Soviet Union clearly demonstrated foreign policy ambitions, actively arming China, showing its real military capabilities in the Korean sky, and creating nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles — moreover, successfully. However, the USSR could not boast of something serious at sea. In conditions when it was not clear whether the Russians would build a fleet or not, the presence of an armored fist in the hands of the US Navy was more than useful and the battleships remained to serve.

Then, at the beginning of the fifties, it was completely justified - the USSR could not have opposed anything other than a nuclear bombardment to these ships, if they were covered by destroyers.

Again, they began to be put into reserve only in 1955, when the beginning of the missile era, the mass appearance of jet attack aircraft, and the much more massive proliferation of nuclear weapons than in the past had already become facts. We can mark the years 1955-1959 as a certain stage in the fate of battleships - somewhere around this time, and not earlier, in their original form, they ceased to be considered as a real means of waging war for supremacy at sea.

It was then that the Americans took the Iowa to the reserve, now for a long time, at the same time the British made the final decision to write off the battleships in the reserve, including Wangard, and it was in 1957 that Jean Bar left the active service in the French Navy.

By the way, he almost had to fight during the Suez crisis, in 1956. The Jean Bar was supposed to bombard Port Said before landing, but the bombardment was canceled immediately after it began. "Jean Bar" managed to make four rounds in Egypt and became strictly formally the sixth battleship in the world, which participated in hostilities after the Second World War, after four "Iowa" and the French "Richelieu", noted in Indochina. The following year, "Jean Bar" was already retrained in the floating ship.

So the ideologists of the installation that “battleships were supplanted by aircraft carriers” should pay close attention to these years.

The next time the battleship entered the battle only in 1968. From September 25, 1968 to March 31, 1969, New Jersey was sent to the South China Sea, where it was involved for delivering fire strikes on the territory of South Vietnam.

South Vietnam is a narrow strip of land along the sea and the bulk of its population lives in coastal areas. Vietnamese rebels also acted there. There, American troops fought against them. The attacks of the New Jersey began with attacks on the demilitarized zone, or rather, on the North Vietnamese troops present in it. In the future, the battleship, as a “fire brigade,” darted along the coast either south or north, urgently destroying the Vietnamese units surrounding Americans, destroying bunkers and fortifications in caves, whose arches could not protect against 16 inch shells, field fortifications, warehouses, shore batteries, trucks, and other rebel infrastructure.


The red bar is the range of the actual fire of 406 mm guns, the blue is 203 mm guns. Green - proposed in the 90s hypersonic active-reactive 406-mm projectile with ramjet engine

More than once or twice, his fire unlocked the American units, literally burning the Vietnamese surrounding them from the face of the earth. Once the battleship sank a whole caravan of small cargo ships with supplies for the rebels. In general, it was the most successful artillery bombardment in recent history, the number of rebel objects, their positions, units of heavy weapons and equipment that died under the shells of “New Jersey” was estimated at many hundreds, the number of killed - at thousands, more than a dozen small vessels were destroyed with cargo. Repeatedly battleship with its fire ensured the success of American attacks on a scale up to and including the division. During the operation, the battleship spent 5688 rounds of the main caliber and 14891 127-mm round. This was incomparably more than any battleship expended during World War II.

Nevertheless, such a combat example, with all the effectiveness of the battleship fire, turned out to be the only one. Moreover, as is known today, precisely because of extreme success, Nixon planned to use the threat to use the battleship again as an incentive for the Vietnamese to return to negotiations, and his recall as encouragement for fulfilling American requirements.

In 1969, the battleship was again withdrawn from service, although at first they wanted to use it to pressure North Korea, which shot down an American reconnaissance aircraft in neutral airspace, but then changed their minds and the ship again went to reserve.

The combat use of the battleship in Vietnam, as it were, somehow drew a line in its existence as an artillery warship. If until the end of the fifties it was a means of warfare both against the fleet and against the coast, in Vietnam a purely artillery ship was used as a means against the coast. He did not have an adversary at sea, but assuming that the battleship would have to fight against the same Navy of the USSR, we have to admit that in its pure form it was of dubious value.

On the other hand, supported by missile ships capable of “taking on” the entire missile salvo of the USSR Navy, the battleship still had serious combat value in the early seventies. In any case, if the volley of Soviet ships had not reached the target, and if the missiles had already been used up, then the only option for our ships would have been flight. Moreover, this flight would be a problem - the modernized Iowas could reach 34 knots and it was still impossible to counter anything with their guns and armor in the 70s. But, with the caveat, if other ships would repulse the missile strike of the Navy completely, before the missiles are exhausted.

Thus, the classic purely artillery battleship was no longer in second place after the aircraft carrier, but followed the modern ships, both aircraft carriers and missile ones. Now its combat value was limited to the narrow scope of the situation of finishing off the enemy, who shot all his missiles and no more. Again, in conditions when the number of anti-ship missiles aboard any Soviet ship was calculated in a few units, battleships protected by URO ships could play a role in the battle. Let it be secondary. So by the end of the sixties - the beginning of the seventies, it could already be said that the classic battleship with artillery as the only weapon was almost in the past.

Almost, but not quite. And at least the Vietnamese could tell a lot about this.

In reality, “almost in the past” soon turned into its exact opposite. On the approach was a new and very unexpected turn in the evolution of battleships. And before their real departure into the past, there were still many more years. Dozens.

The most shock and missile ships in the world


The brightest page in the history of the battleship as a weapon system is the last decade of the Cold War. The Reagan Crusade against our country, which America won. Including won at sea, albeit without real battles. In the rout.

A team from Reagan himself, his Minister of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Minister of the Navy John Lehman was able to ensure a sharp change in the balance of power in the oceans, so fast and large-scale that the Soviet Union could not answer. Together with the unbridled pressure that the Americans launched against the USSR in Europe and the enormous support for the militants in Afghanistan, along with other measures to sabotage and pressure exerted on the Soviet state, the growth of American power at sea directly contributed to Gorbachev's surrender.

The Americans were preparing for war. And they prepared in such a way that they were able to literally hypnotize the Soviet leadership with their power - quite real, I must say.

The U.S. Navy was decisive in this crusade. This concerned all and first of all, new means of warfare, such as the Tomahawk cruise missiles and the AEGIS system, new, almost untraceable Soviet submarine submarines, and qualitatively modernized old ones, the anti-submarine defense efficiency jumped, the carrier fleet and numerical superiority in ships all classes convincingly showed the Soviet leadership the complete futility of attempts to resist.

Battleships were given a significant role in these plans. Since the 70s, Americans knew about the progress made in the USSR in anti-ship missiles and knew about new shipbuilding programs, such as Project 1164 missile cruisers, Project 1144 heavy nuclear missile cruisers, and the latest multi-mode supersonic Tu-22M missile carriers. They knew that the USSR was planning to create a new supersonic aircraft for vertical take-off and landing for aircraft-carrying cruisers, and understood that this would sharply increase their combat potential, and they were also aware of the work being started on future aircraft carriers for aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing. All this required, firstly, numerical superiority, and secondly, superiority in firepower.

In the early 80s, the services of American sailors had a symmetrical response to Soviet anti-ship missiles - the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk missile. And there was Harpoon, mastered by industry and the Navy, a very difficult target for the then Soviet naval air defense systems. Conceptually, the Americans were going to fight with aircraft carrier groups (ship connection with one aircraft carrier) and aircraft carrier formations (more than one aircraft carrier with the corresponding number of escort ships). In the early eighties, when the program for increasing the number of naval forces was launched, the idea was born to strengthen the aircraft carrier groups, which it was intended to have 15, and 4 surface combat groups (Surface action group-SAG), created not "around" the aircraft carriers, but with battleships in as the main combat force, which would have to operate in areas of the oceans that are either outside the combat radius of Soviet aviation (meaning the combat radius without refueling in the air) or close to the limiting radius, or in other cases when the threat is from Soviet aviation Iation would be low.

Such a region, for example, could be the Mediterranean Sea, if it were possible to ensure the presence of NATO aviation in the airspace of Turkey and Greece, the Persian Gulf and the entire Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, where the USSR had a reliable ally in the person of Cuba and in other similar places. The main objective of surface combat groups was to become Soviet surface forces.

This is a very important point - the battleships, which in the sixties could no longer be full-fledged instruments for gaining dominance at sea, returned to service in such a capacity as an instrument of struggle against the enemy fleet.

The evolution of views on the combat use of the battleship in the 80s was not easy, but in principle it fits into the following chain. Beginning of the 80s - the battleship will support the landings with artillery fire and hit Soviet ships with missiles and, in the mid-80s, everything is the same, but the tasks are changing, now the fight with the Soviet fleet is priority, and support for the landing is secondary, the second half of the 80s now the support of the landing has been removed from the agenda altogether, but the Tomahawks with a nuclear warhead have been added to strike along the coast, which meant that the USSR now has one more headache - besides SSBNs with SLBMs, besides aircraft carriers with nuclear bombs, now Soviet Ugric territories zhayut and more ships with "Tomahawk" of which at the beginning of the 80 most armed planned to make "Iowa".

Naturally, for this they needed to be modernized, and they were modernized. By the time of modernization, the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk was removed from the agenda and these missiles hit the battleships only in the option for coastal strikes, and the Harpoon anti-ship missile and, if possible, artillery were assigned the tasks of hitting surface targets.

The upgraded ships received completely new radars, upgraded radio-electronic weapons to modern standards, systems for the mutual exchange of information, which included ships in automated naval control systems, and satellite communications systems. It was possible to use the instruments of hydroacoustic resistance to torpedoes "Niksi". Battleships later received everything necessary for the use of the Pioneer UAV. Then such a UAV in real military operations was used by Wisconsin. Aft were equipped landing sites for helicopters. But the main thing was the update of weapons. Instead of a portion of the Iowa’s 127-mm universal cannons, they received 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed in lifting launchers with armored protection ABL (Armored Box Launcher). Now this amount is not impressive, but then there was nothing like that anymore.


UAV landing on the Iowa, 1986. We look at the equipment of the sailors, then for a year, we think

The Mk.41 launchers were just around the corner, and the battleships turned out to be the rocket salvo champions. Each battleship had 16 Harpoon anti-ship missiles against surface ships, which was also a lot. A larger number could only be loaded into launchers of the mk.13 or mk.26 type, but these launchers made it possible to launch Harpoons with an interval of at least one rocket in 20 seconds for mk.13 and two rockets in 20 seconds for mk.26.

But mk.141 for the “Harpoons” on the battleships made it possible to carry out a very dense volley with a small scope, which was critical for the “breakdown” of air defense of the latest Soviet missile ships, such as the cruiser 1144, for example.


View of the launcher "Harpoon" and Zak "Falanks". From the other side the same thing.

In their final version, the battleships each carried 32 Tomahawks, 16 Harpoons, 3 HA towers with three 406 mm guns each, 12 127 mm universal artillery mounts and 4 20 mm six-barrel Falanks. Launchers for Stinger MANPADS were equipped. Their armor, as before, provided impenetrability with light (250 kg) bombs and unguided missiles, as well as light guided ones.

The attack of the ship’s assault aviation regiment on the Yak-38, delivered without nuclear weapons, the battleship was almost guaranteed to survive.


Start KR "Tomahawk" on board the battleship.

Were the ideas to use these ships against the Soviet Navy realistic? More than.

The composition of the surface combat group was supposed to be a battleship, one missile cruiser of the Ticonderoga type and three destroyers Arly Burke. Actually, battle groups began to form before the United States turned on the Burke production line and their composition turned out to be different. But missile ships with highly effective air defense were part of them from the very beginning. And the situation when the Soviet KUG and the American NBG came closer, exchanging first salvos of anti-ship missiles, then firing at each other with anti-aircraft missiles (which after repulsing multiple attacks of anti-ship missiles would be few), and as a result, would leave the remaining forces of artillery battle distance, it was quite real one.


Surface combat group with the call sign "Romeo". The collision of the Soviet Kug from, for example, RKR pr. 58, KRL pr 68bis, a couple of three of any TFR or destroyers (except for the 956th project) with such an NBC would become fatal for our

And then 406-mm guns would say a very weighty word, no less than the 16 "Harpoons" before. Naturally, this would be true if the missile ships could protect the battleship from Soviet missiles, albeit at the cost of their death.


American and Australian ships in a joint battle group. The destruction of such a compound without nuclear weapons would require the efforts of a whole fleet and would have a great price

The joint use of battleships and aircraft carriers was also planned. Unfortunately, the Americans, who have declassified their strategic and operational documents regarding the revival of battleships, still keep their tactics secret, and we can only speculate on some issues. But the fact that battleships regularly practiced the destruction of surface targets with artillery fire during the SINKEX surface ship destruction exercises is a fact.


SINKEX'89 ship destruction exercises, fired by Missouri


One way or another, but in the first half of the 80s, the battleships again got into operation. In its original quality - instruments of the struggle for supremacy at sea. Now, however, they were more likely an element of a single Navy system, an element that was responsible for specific tasks, and did not occupy the first or second place in importance. But the fact that the power of surface combat groups without aircraft carriers with battleships was much higher than without them is a fact that simply cannot be denied.

Further known. Ships went into operation in the amount of four units. The first, in 1982 - LK “New Jersey”, the second, in 1984 “Iowa”, in 1986 “Missouri”, and in 1988 “Wisconsin”. From 1988 to 1990 in the world there were four battleships in the ranks. As many as the USSR had aircraft-carrying cruisers and more than there were aircraft carriers in the UK.

Not bad for a class of ships that were replaced by aircraft carriers in World War II!

Battleships were actively used by the US Navy as an instrument of pressure on the USSR. They went to the Baltic Sea and carried out artillery fire there, went to Norway, made voyages in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. The American nation was on the rise, the idea of ​​confronting the Communists captured the masses, in response to creating Tom Clancy, the game “Harpoon” and films about “fur seals”. Despite the “cranberries” of these works, they convey the spirit of the era like nothing else, however, from the American side. Few people know, but in cinemas during the screenings of the action movie about Top Gan naval aviation, navy recruiting centers worked, and a lot of young people went directly to the fleet from the movie show. This ideological upsurge affected how American sailors prepared to fight the USSR and how they demonstrated this readiness to their Soviet "colleagues." Battleships, with their military glory from World War II and the latest missile weapons for the 80s, were here to a place like nowhere else.


Perry fully provided air defense and partially anti-aircraft defense, battleship - offensive capabilities. Even such a couple was dangerous and required serious forces for its destruction

The battleships had to fight, however, again against the shore. “New Jersey” twice, on December 14, 1983 and February 8, 1984, fired from the main caliber guns at the positions of the Syrian army in Lebanon.

"Missouri" and "Wisconsin" were noted during the 1991 Gulf War. Battleships conducted very intense and painful shelling of Iraqi positions and structures, using UAVs for reconnaissance and guidance of guns, with the number of main projectile shells shot in the hundreds, and in total two ships exceeded a thousand.

The Americans claim that one of the Iraqi units even intentionally showed UAV operators from Wisconsin their intention to surrender (and surrendered) so as not to fall under fire from 406-mm shells again. The ships also used Tomahawk cruise missiles against Iraq, Missouri fired 28 missiles, and Wisconsin 24. The operations of these ships again proved to be very successful, as before in all the wars where they were used.


The Gulf War (1991). Launch of the Tomahawk CD from the Missouri missile launcher across Iraq

Of the four battleships, only the Iowa did not fight during the last reactivation, due to an accidental explosion in one of the main-caliber towers that put an end to the ship’s real military career. However, this ship also had a propaganda and psychological effect on the enemies of the United States.

Since 1990, the era of battleships ends truly. October 26, 1990 is withdrawn to the reserve "Iowa", February 8, 1991 "New Jersey", September 30 of the same year, "Wisconsin" and March 31, 1992 "Missouri".

This day became the real end of active military service of battleships in the world, and not some other. At the same time, one must understand that they were not written off at all, they were simply taken back to the reserve. The Navy no longer needed these ships. Their operation was a problem - for a long time no spare parts were manufactured for them, maintaining technical readiness required a lot of effort and money. The last reactivation alone stood at $ 1,5 billion. The problem was specialists in ancient boiler-turbine power plants and turbo gear units. For a long time neither gun barrels nor liners for their barrels were produced. Such platforms were justified as long as it was necessary to squeeze the USSR and until ships appeared with installations for the vertical launch of missiles. Then they were no longer there, there were no such enemies with whom they would have to fight. Perhaps, if the renaissance of Chinese power had begun in the early 90s, we would again have seen these giants in service, but in the 90s the United States simply had no enemies at sea.

Congress, however, did not allow these ships to be completely decommissioned from the reserve until 1998, and only then they began to be remade into museums, removing the last battleship - "Iowa" from the lists of reserve warships already in 2011.

So why are they no more?


To summarize, to begin with: we cannot talk about any “death of a battleship” as a military weapon during the Second World War, until the mid-fifties, battleships regularly served in the fleets of different countries, they even had to fight with the Americans and French. Battleships remained a popular combat weapon in a war at sea another 10 years after the Second World War ended, their theory of combat use continued to be developed in many countries, and two countries - France and Great Britain even introduced a battleship into the combat structure of the Navy after the war. At the same time, in the USA and Britain, battleships from the time of the war were not written off, but kept in reserve. The Americans regularly upgraded their ships.

The USSR was left without battleships in 1955 and forced - due to the explosion of Novorossiysk, otherwise, this ship would have been in service for a long time.

After 1962, only four Iowa-class battleships remained in the US Navy reserve. Subsequently, they participated in three military conflicts (Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq) and in the “cold” confrontation with the USSR. Moreover, in terms of their strike potential in the late 80s of the twentieth century, they were one of the most powerful ships in the world, although they could no longer act without the support of more modern URO ships. The theory of the combat use of modernized missile-armed battleships was also actively developed, these were real warships and not museum exhibits in the service, and they fought effectively, albeit a little. Finally, the last battleship dropped out of the active combat personnel in 1992, and from the reserve in 2011.

So what finally led to the disappearance of the battleships? These are clearly not aircraft carriers, the examples above show well that aircraft carriers have nothing to do with it, if this were so, then the battleships would not have had 46 years of service after WWII, including combat use. Perhaps the authors of the second version of the myth of the disappearance of the battleship are right - those who believe that the point is the appearance of missile weapons and nuclear warheads to it?

But this purely logically cannot be the reason - otherwise the same Americans would not have done with their battleships what they did with them in the 80s. The battleship, of course, is vulnerable to nuclear weapons - but this is true for all ships, the first ships in which protective measures against nuclear weapons were constructively implemented appeared much later.

The battleship is naturally vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. But much less than, for example, frigates of the Knox type or the previous ones, Garcia. But these ships served for a long time and the class “frigate” itself did not disappear. So this argument is not consistent. In addition, the battleship itself, as the 80s showed, was a fully-fledged carrier of missile weapons; its dimensions made it possible to place a very impressive missile arsenal on it. For the old large missiles of the 60s, this was all the more true, and projects for remaking battleships into missile ships existed.

And if you divide the question "why did the battleships disappear" into two - why were the existing battleships written off and why they did not build new ones? And here suddenly the answer appears to be partially “hidden” - all countries that had battleships “pulled” them for a rather long time and often wrote off them only when they were no longer fit for nothing simply due to physical wear and tear. An example is the USSR, in which battleships designed before World War I were in service until 1954. And the US is also an example - the South Dakota stood in reserve, ready to return to duty before the early sixties. With the "Iowa" and so everything is obvious.

Only Great Britain wrote off the battleships that could still serve, and we know that it was a banal lack of money, operational and tactical arguments that required to leave at least a couple of battleships, the British had exactly as much as light in the Soviet Navy Project 68 bis cruisers.

Speaking of extinction. Battleships left the battlefield only by the physical depreciation and obsolescence of each particular ship, with the exception of Great Britain, which had no money. There was simply no such thing as a good and relatively new battleship that the economy could contain that was cut into needles. Nowhere. And this means that such ships had combat value to the very end. And it really was.

The key to answering the question “why did the battleship disappear” lies in the answer to the question: why did they stop building them? After all, the battleships fought before the early nineties and fought well, and even their large guns in all the wars where they were used were “out of place”.

In fact, a complex set of reasons led to the disappearance of the battleship. There was not one, one would not have led to the disappearance of this class of ships.

The battleship was an expensive and complex ship. Very large-caliber guns alone required a high-class industry, to speak of artillery fire control devices or radars. The same USSR simply “did not pull” the battleship, although the gun was made, but the gun is only a gun. Equally difficult and expensive was the training of the crew for such a ship. These costs, both from the point of view of money and from the point of view of waste of resources, were justified exactly as long as the "battleship" tasks could not be solved in other ways. For example, fire support for the landing using naval artillery. Was it worth it to build a battleship?

No, it was possible to concentrate more ships with medium caliber artillery. An assault force with enemy resistance may have to land once every fifty years, and less often in some countries. If for such cases "in stock" there is a battleship - good. No, it’s okay there are other ships, they will have to spend a total of a hundred shells instead of one battleship, but if necessary, they will solve the problem. There is aviation, if we have an enemy in the trenches and are dispersed in the terrain, then it can literally be napalm, if it is in the bunker, that is, it is possible to accurately put a bomb in the bunker. Both aviation and smaller classes of ships are inferior in strength to a battleship ... but the task is solved without building a battleship. So, you can not build it.

Or take the destruction of surface ships. For this there is aviation, there are cruisers, and just from the end of the fifties, there were nuclear submarines. And they are more useful than a battleship, they still have to be built, and they carry out the task of destroying NKs, so why a battleship?

Of course, everything fell into this piggy bank - an aircraft carrier, pushing the battleship to second place in the “ranking card” of warships, anti-ship missiles, which really represented a threat to such a ship, and nuclear weapons against which the battleship had no advantages over the ship easier.

Ultimately, the battleship left because there were no tasks for which its construction would be justified. They could be solved by other forces, which in any case would have to have. And there was simply no room left for the battleship. It is not conceptually obsolete, if we talk about its hypothetical modern missile and artillery version, and those battleship models that served, remained in demand and useful for the very end, just after a certain moment it became possible to do without it. Moreover, it was better with him than without him, but it was no longer important. The expenditure of the enormous money that the construction of the battleship cost was not justified under the conditions when other forces could solve all its tasks. Often, solving is worse than a battleship. But then, it’s “shareware”.

The battleship in the final version disappeared because it turned out to be too expensive and difficult to solve the tasks that it was intended to solve. While it was non-alternative as a tool, one country after another was invested in its possession. As soon as it became possible to do without him, everyone began to do without him. Save. And saved. This is the real reason, and not in aircraft carriers, atomic bombs, missiles, or something like that.


We can safely say today that the battleships “died for natural reasons” - physically aged. And new ones did not appear because of the unjustifiably high price, laboriousness and resource-intensiveness of production, because all the tasks that they solved earlier could now be solved differently. Cheaper.

However, if we remove the word “artillery” from the definition of a battleship given earlier, the idea that such ships have disappeared will in general become somewhat dubious. But this is a completely different story.


For the West, this is an atomic linear cruiser with guided missile weapons. So they classify these ships. And if there was more serious armor? After all, the difference between battlecruiser and battleship is in it. The question "where did the battleship disappear" could lose its meaning, at least in the West. But, again, this is another story ...
Author:
Photos used:
US Navy, seaforces.org, Wikipedia commons
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lexus 25 February 2020 18: 07 New
    • 18
    • 6
    +12
    The destruction of such a compound without nuclear weapons would require the efforts of a whole fleet and would have a great price

    The Soviet Navy had no shortage of “items” with “specials.” Warhead.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 18: 11 New
      • 15
      • 9
      +6
      The United States did not hide the fact that in response to a strike on the Navy they could strike with their nuclear weapons on Soviet territory.
      1. Lexus 25 February 2020 18: 23 New
        • 22
        • 4
        +18
        I believe that the USSR would not be limited to the expression of "concerns". You wrote about the complexity of destroying a group with a battleship without nuclear weapons, I replied that if necessary, funds were available.
        1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 18: 26 New
          • 16
          • 8
          +8
          To jam Iowa with a nuclear bomb, it had to be dropped at most 900 meters from the ship (depending on power). Well, or to blow up a rocket there. It was not easy, believe me. On the other hand, even without nuclear weapons, the battleship could be destroyed.
          And that would not be easy either.
          In general, this ship was a problem. This cannot be denied.
          1. Lexus 25 February 2020 18: 32 New
            • 11
            • 2
            +9
            From the understanding of the need to ensure confident defeat of large targets (battleships and aircraft carriers), most Soviet anti-ship missiles were then designed.hi
            1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 29 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Yes it is. But the task of defense from the RCC was to be solved by other ships
          2. Foxnova 25 February 2020 18: 41 New
            • 8
            • 2
            +6
            Tell this to the participants of the crossroads who became living corpses just by walking along the battleships.
            1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 12 New
              • 10
              • 4
              +6
              During the battle, a crew that didn’t fall on open decks could survive this radiation for at least a week, which would be enough to complete the fleet’s operation.

              It’s like tankers - they will die in three weeks from radiation, but until that time they will reach the Rhine.
              1. 3danimal April 1 2020 23: 59 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                There was a problem: if the front ceases to exist before approaching the Rhine.
          3. chenia 25 February 2020 19: 14 New
            • 8
            • 5
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            To jam Iowa with a nuclear bomb, she had to drop at most 900 meters


            Dropped for example at 1500 m-times. An order is for depth. Iowa is floundering. Immediately a second time more accurate. Or for this purpose we are greedy with two tactical ones.
            Or is it difficult to hit a missile within a radius of 1500 m, but Iowa is an elementary rocket?
            Well, how will the main caliber and reservation help?
            And here are two missiles from the "fishing boat".
            1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 30 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              These two missiles must still overcome the missile defense system, and the carrier would also have to survive to launch.

              But in general, yes, with nuclear weapons everything was hit with massive use.
            2. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 03 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The fishery longboat will not fit the warrant: barely turning on the radar for guidance, it is doomed. (There were examples, no one went over the line “are you definitely not a longboat?”, Immediately 2 anti-ship missiles on board).
          4. Alex Nevs 25 February 2020 20: 07 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Come on!. Are you serious? In a nuclear collision, there is nothing to do. Another thing is nuclear-free is a completely different thing.
            1. 3danimal April 28 2020 12: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Nuclear collision involves strategic strikes. Worst-case scenario, without winners (nothing is known about paradise).
              But in such conditions, the ships will go anti-nuclear warrant, 10-20km from each other.
              1. Alex Nevs April 28 2020 17: 49 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                All the time with the electronics turned off? BUT ..... one still has to think of it, guess which order to go with. In the worst case scenario, no one will immediately understand anything. Will come a little later. The capitalist, "reaping the fruits" of his burden on the shores of some kind of ocean, and "Kennedy will kill", so long as he does not touch this fate. So here no mind will prevail, but an ordinary human ... animal ...
                1. 3danimal 1 May 2020 09: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  As in an unexpected fight, a person will do what he has been preparing for a long time.
                  Boxer - will give out a "deuce" or something like that (verified), the military - act like in exercises.
                2. 3danimal 1 May 2020 09: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  With the news of the beginning of the conflict, the US Navy will take action - they will have a margin of time.
                  ICBMs are only shot at fixed targets; data is entered in advance.
          5. antivirus 25 February 2020 21: 03 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            But is it easier to cover the Pentagon and Seattle right away?
            and ask to withdraw the AUG later, if someone from both sides remains alive.
            Why are Harpoons if there are Minutemen?
            1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 12 New
              • 12
              • 3
              +9
              Why does everyone always forget that the US also has nuclear weapons?
              1. antivirus 25 February 2020 21: 52 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                that's all the questions will be resolved right away
              2. EvilLion 26 February 2020 09: 53 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Russia also has it and will be used with much greater probability simply because of the WWII complex.
                1. 3danimal April 28 2020 12: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Does this mean that the elite of Russia, mired in luxury, will immediately throw a beautiful life for itself and children into the furnace? "The Second World War" - for the "poor."
              3. dauria 26 February 2020 10: 55 New
                • 11
                • 2
                +9
                [quote] [Why does everyone always forget that the US also has nuclear weapons? / quote]

                The author, why did you forget that despite the battleship, despite the aircraft carriers, even the V-52 strategists, the Americans had to get out of Vietnam? Did the British sit quietly on their hump behind the English Channel, hiding from Hitler, who had no decent fleet at all?
                You described the reasons for the loss of battleships, forgetting the main thing - no fleet did not give Americans a chance in Europe. Without nuclear weapons, the war ended with Soviet tanks on the banks of the Biscay. With nuclear weapons - in the same place. True, without Paris, London, Moscow and New York. What nafig "landing" of Americans in Europe in the 80th year? Wars end on the mainland, even if they started on some kind of coral tussock with a “battle” of battleships.
              4. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 05 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Because the "inferior" US military will be afraid to use it (even in response). It is supposed to be firmly believed. Amen smile
          6. Uncle Izya 27 February 2020 21: 31 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Oh well, don’t write nonsense, one anti-ship missile hit in the commander’s cabin and everything to your battleship explosion rocket fuel burning will burn everything to the ground
            1. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 07 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Do you recall the death of MRC "Monsoon"? Take an interest in which part of the battleship was most protected (there are also a lot of photos).
              1. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 10: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Ask how Saud Dakota disabled the Nippon heavy cruisers in 1942.
      2. chenia 25 February 2020 19: 49 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The US did not hide that in response to a strike on the Navy


        And we did not hide, any use of nuclear weapons in Europe (even NATO allies) is the answer in the USA.
      3. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 10: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Only it was certainly a bluff from scratch, which our senators bought .....
  2. svp67 25 February 2020 18: 11 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    Why did the battleships really disappear?
    Just as a meteorite destroyed dinosaurs at one time, so did aviation and rockets with battleships
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 18: 27 New
      • 10
      • 6
      +4
      Not. A meteorite did not destroy the dinosaurs, aviation did not destroy the battleships - see the article, it is described in detail there.
      1. Simargl 25 February 2020 21: 17 New
        • 12
        • 2
        +10
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Meteorite did not destroy the dinosaurs
        Well, yes: we look at the cassowary and see that they have not gone anywhere ...
        You have an article without logic: you contradict yourself. Either your battleships did not die out, then they ceased to be built.
        What makes us develop or send weapons into oblivion? Relevance on the battlefield, right?
        Smooth-bore "nuclear" weapons were forgotten with the appearance of rifled, with "thick-skinned" cuirasses parted after the appearance of smokeless powder, including. You claim that aviation did not become a grave digger of battleships, but you forget about the little progress that took place in the early 50s. Since when did military aviation practically stop using propeller aircraft?
        Why stopped using heavily armored ships? Because almost any "scrap" opened this armor guaranteed.
        Why did they stop using guns (as the main weapons)? There are two reasons: the range of missile use is much larger than the range of cannon firing, and the accuracy ... is small (on average, according to statistics, less than 1% at maximum ranges).
        Why left in the ranks? Do not throw away! For pressing not technologically advanced countries that do not have a fleet, these are quite normal tools. Yes, and stuffed them with modern weapons - some cruisers will envy.
        Artillery duel - a race of learning and probability. Armor does not save against RCC even with a conventional warhead.
        By and large, the battleships were destroyed by a rocket engine. And jet.
        1. EvilLion 26 February 2020 09: 56 New
          • 4
          • 5
          -1
          Subsonic RCC battleship will not do anything from the word at all, just about to break armor. And according to all charters, such anti-ship missiles are not intended for battleships. Here, “Mosquito” is some other thing, although it will take a lot of hits.
          1. Simargl 26 February 2020 11: 31 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Quote: EvilLion
            Subsonic RCC battleship will not do anything from the word at all, just about to break armor
            Of course! If instead of warhead sand is poured, it will be so. Photographs of kamikaze tracks on board are an example.
            As for the anti-ship missiles, the very first test launch of the first anti-ship missiles with homing on the target broke the cruiser in half. Well yes: the Red Caucasus is a light cruiser. But KS-1 is the first anti-ship missile. This has not yet begun to set the cumulative warhead. All of the following were high-explosive-cumulative, which guaranteed to break through any battleship, and most cruisers - to take off, to the bottom.
            The first RCC showed that the ship can be torn like a rag with a single shot. But the experience of cannon duels is multiple hits and an almost live ship.
            Absolutely all anti-ship missiles level the guns in the war: range is higher, accuracy is higher, damage is higher. One minus - RCC a little more susceptible to air defense. That is if they are not armored.

            Quote: EvilLion
            A meteorite of them, apparently
            The meteorite is not finished off, they die out and die out without it, new species arose and are arising.
            The most famous, probably, extinction is the “oxygen catastrophe”.
            1. EvilLion 26 February 2020 12: 23 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              KS-1 is actually a small plane. But in general, to penetrate armor, you need a solid penetrator and high speed, or a cumulative shock core. The first missile, in principle, is not present, the kamikaze had heavy steel engines, but they didn’t pierce an armored deck, so it was against a heavily armored ship, and a light cruiser is not, by definition, a kamikaze is almost useless. And the cumulative core is scattered in the near-armored space, and the ship, unlike the tank, has no objects critical to damage directly behind the armor. Some “exoset” to the battleship can only damage something from the external view.

              So what about breaking through the battleship, this is for you to cumulative charges of hundreds of kilograms.

              But the experience of cannon duels is multiple hits and an almost live ship.


              No, they showed that even one hit with the main caliber is a very serious repair.
              Although before drowning, here, as in China with cancer, so in the Musashi EMNIP came up to 11 torpedoes, and a torpedo is VERY serious. A light cruiser is likely to go to the bottom from one torpedo. It’s just that it’s much more often something smaller. The same "Eagle" captured by the Japanese was razdolban fugaskami, yes, everything was destroyed on the upper deck, but the armored hull survived.
              1. irontom 26 February 2020 13: 00 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                In early November, tests of missiles of the KSSH were transferred to the Balaklava area, where the citadel (central part) of the unfinished heavy cruiser “Stalingrad” was used as a target. Prior to that, artillery and torpedo firing were carried out in the Stalingrad compartment, and aviation practiced all types of bombing. During the shooting the team did not leave the target. It was believed that the armor "Stalingrad" (board - 230-260 mm, deck - 140-170 mm) reliably protect the crew. 27 December 1957 of the year the rocket, flying 23,75 km, hit the board of the "Stalingrad". As a result, a figure-eight hole appeared in the board, with a total area of ​​55 m 2.
                Here is a fact against which you can’t argue.
                1. EvilLion 26 February 2020 14: 19 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  KS-1 is a small plane, the facts of breaking the same kamikaze ships not weakened by a million holes from before. shelling in the studio. Well, the hole is 55 sq. M. Even in the underwater part, this is just a repair, and not the fact that the ship will stop the task. Just a counter-flooding compartment.
                  1. irontom 26 February 2020 14: 41 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Any cruise missile aircraft, that's only much smaller in size, KSSh despite the flaws mounted on the EM and cost much cheaper than art. armament of the battleship. Not to mention the fact that he had a diving warhead. The fact of warhead entering the citadel of a heavy cruiser is not enough for you. Now imagine an undermining under all belts, no mine protection will save.
                    Just elementary physics is mass for speed plus a lot of combustible material, fuel and structural elements. A few hits of anti-ship missiles and no chance for a battleship, no air defense will help him. And there are also adjustable and homing bombs, one ton or a half-ton of present and hello fate of the battleship “Roma”.
                    The shooting of the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser in June 1961 was no less spectacular. Firing from a distance of 68 km led rocket ship "Perspicacious". The rocket hit the board of the cruiser and formed a hole in the form of an inverted eight, with an area of ​​about 15 m 2. Most of the hole was made marching engine, and the smaller - warhead inert equipment. This hole alone was not enough. The rocket pierced the cruiser from side to side and left the starboard side of the cruiser just below the foremast. The exit hole was an almost circular hole with an area of ​​about 8 м2, while the bottom hole cut turned out to be 30-35 cm below the waterline, and while the rescue service reached the cruiser, he managed to take about 1600 t of outboard water. In addition, the cruiser spilled kerosene residues from the tanks of the rocket, and this caused a fire that extinguished about 12 hours. The cruiser prepared for decommissioning did not have anything wooden on board, but the fire was literally raging - iron was burning, although it is difficult to imagine.

                    For the life of the cruiser fought the entire Black Sea Fleet. With great difficulty, "Admiral Nakhimov" was saved and assigned to Sevastopol.

                    And this is the end of the 40s, 50s, then the combat effectiveness of the RCC is only growing.
              2. Simargl 26 February 2020 20: 30 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: EvilLion
                KS-1 is actually a small plane.
                А Caliber - not?

                Quote: EvilLion
                But in general, to penetrate armor, you need a solid penetrator and high speed, or a cumulative shock core.
                To break through, first of all, you need energy to overcome the strength of the barrier. And after breaking through - a high-explosive effect. The impact core of the CS, usually copper, i.e. soft (relatively).

                Quote: EvilLion
                And the cumulative core is scattered in the near-arm space
                Therefore, they came up with a cumulatively high explosive warhead to first break through and then pump up excess pressure, which is not useful for technology and organisms.

                Quote: EvilLion
                Some “exoset” to the battleship can only damage something from the external view.
                No. Firstly, battleships, most of all, have differential reservations, and steering cars and shaft lines are quite accessible even for Exoset. The entire battleship is available for the P-120. At the same time, that Exocetons, that P-120, it is possible to fire a battleship from the ranges beyond the range of its guns.

                Quote: EvilLion
                So what about breaking through the battleship, this is for you to cumulative charges of hundreds of kilograms.
                Warhead P-120 about 800 kg. Enough?

                Quote: EvilLion
                No, they showed that even one hit with the main caliber is a very serious repair.
                Who would argue? ... ah, no! You can argue: a considerable number of through penetrations with minimal damage. In any case, one of the smallest anti-ship missiles has an explosive twice as large as a 406 mm HE shell.

                Quote: EvilLion
                "Eagle" captured by the Japanese
                And now, estimate that he got three pieces of the same KS-1 ... almost two tons of explosives - this is quite serious for add-ons, and the KS-1 can penetrate, although not all.

                Yes, the first anti-ship missiles were not able to destroy the battleship, but they showed that they did not need a heavy carrier to destroy such a carcass: relatively few relatively small ships were enough.
                Battleship - primarily an artillery ship. Artillery became an anachronism. They are trying to reanimate her, but she will remain in the second or third roles. I think more than 200 mm will not do more. And to put a bunch of towers - even more so.
                1. EvilLion 2 March 2020 10: 39 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  To break through, first of all, you need energy to overcome the strength of the barrier.


                  Nonsense. The energy itself can be increased by mass, but this will not lead to an increase in penetration, in addition, the projectile should not crack. So a lump of cotton wool weighing 10 tons, dispersed even to 3M to break through the armor will not work.

                  Warhead P-120 about 800 kg. Enough?


                  And the rocket itself is several tons. The joke was that only the USSR had such weapons, and it was not enough to place missiles on boats, you still have to get there, and after the first success with the sinking of the Israeli destroyer, the missile boats achieved nothing more, because they learned how to counteract them.

                  And now, estimate that he got three pieces of the same KS-1 ... almost two tons of explosives - this is quite serious for add-ons, and the KS-1 can penetrate, although not all.


                  So it is about 10-15 thousand tons in total.

                  Artillery became an anachronism.


                  She has a plus in the form of the ultimate low cost of shells.
                  1. Simargl 3 March 2020 14: 51 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Nonsense.
                    It begins ... to "win" - you collect all the omitted subtleties.

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Energy itself can be increased by mass, but this will not lead to an increase in penetration.
                    How BE ... with material science you have so-so ...

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    the shell should not break
                    The creators are cumulative in prostration: their shell is deformed and plastic.

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    And the rocket itself is several tons. The joke is that only the USSR had such weapons, and there are few missiles to deploy missiles on boats;
                    So what's the problem? Are we talking about getting in? Guided, longer-range missile is easier to do. Not necessarily from a boat - it is possible with a submarine or (M) RK.

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    So it is about 10-15 thousand tons in total.
                    So what? Now RCC is much more serious than KS-1.

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    She has a plus in the form of the ultimate low cost of shells.
                    What makes up a shot?
                    1 - Projectile cost.
                    2 - Cost of charge.
                    3 - The cost of the liner (with work). A liner with a maximum of 150 shots.
                    4 - The cost of the gun. How much is designed - I have no idea ...
                    The maximum %% hits when using artillery is slightly higher than 3%, i.e. 5 shells will fly from a single liner on target! FIVE. With much less efficiency and range!
                    To shoot from the monstrous calibers on the ground is also nonsense, because the vast majority of targets are available for 152/155 mm.
                    The battleship is a prodigy with giant artillery. The giant caliber will not return to the fleet - it is useless. Artillery dueling is possible only with pirates, such as Somali and Ukrainian, but there the AK-630 will do just fine, well, the AK 130 along the coast ... No one will reanimate the B-37: an expensive carrier, an expensive hit.
              3. tlauicol 27 February 2020 05: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                why beat in an armored belt? It’s enough for any Papuan Termite to pierce 17-25mm between the decks of Iowa, which is inaccessible to the bomb. Over the armored belt. Not a single J of explosive energy of 500 kg warhead will be wasted on empty air heating in front of the armored belt - all the power of destruction will go to the destruction of mechanisms and structures somewhere among barbets, chimneys and air ducts. A godfather. the charge will make a hole in the armored deck above the citadel. Further - either a boiler / turbine explosion, or am
                The Americans, as early as 45, pierced so much spaced armor with a smaller charge that no battleships could ever dream of. With detonation of charges.
                A kamikaze twice broke 4.inch deck. at a speed of 500km / h.
                If in the opposite direction, then ... except for the KrL we had nothing, and the west did not have heavy missiles (except for the Talos air defense system). But the multicumulative warhead of Cormoran (as well as the Chinese, Iranians, Otomat, even for Exocet is developed) burns 90mm of armor with impact cores. The height of the armored belt is 0.5-1m above the water, the armored deck is 50mm. With all the consequences ..
            2. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Kamikaze usually flew with one bomb.
        2. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 54 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          What makes us develop or send weapons into oblivion? Relevance on the battlefield, right?


          The criterion of "cost-effectiveness".
          1. Simargl 27 February 2020 19: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The criterion of "cost-effectiveness".
            Those. word efficiency not equal relevance?
            Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad is a very powerful ship ... Any ship with an AK 630 will cut it into chips.
      2. EvilLion 26 February 2020 09: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Apparently they finished off a meteorite of them, but they died out without it, there were no new species.
      3. Serg65 26 February 2020 12: 29 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        aviation did not destroy the battleships

        Based on the fact that the unloading of the Soviet Redoubts in Tartus forced New Jersey to leave for the Naples area, we rephrase this phrase ... unmanned aircraft (why is it not necessary to prove the RCC lethal vehicle?) Destroyed the battleships!
        And yes, Alexander, and you do not tell me why it was in 1954 that the Ganguts rested in the Bose?
        1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Based on the fact that the unloading of the Soviet Redoubts in Tartus forced New Jersey to leave for the Naples area, we rephrase this phrase ... unmanned aircraft (why is it not necessary to prove the RCC lethal vehicle?) Destroyed the battleships!


          No, Sergey, she made them clean up in Naples! laughing

          And yes, Alexander, and you do not tell me why it was in 1954 that the Ganguts rested in the Bose?


          So how much is it possible?
      4. Uncle Izya 27 February 2020 21: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Torpedo what is not taken into account already?
    2. Borik 25 February 2020 18: 31 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      USSR - 3 ("Sevastopol" / "Giulio Cesare", "October Revolution", "Novorossiysk").


      It seems that the author has mixed up a little. Not Sevastopol And Novorossiysk / Giulio Cesare
      1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 13 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Yes, a mistake. I will fix it.
    3. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You are wrong, colleague. Myth and reality are slightly different.
  3. Viktor Sergeev 25 February 2020 18: 15 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Very expensive piece of iron, requiring huge funds for maintenance. Economics is important always and everywhere.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 18: 27 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      The price eventually ruined them. Not even so much in money, but in the need to maintain entire sectors of industry, for something else not needed, for example, in the production of guns.
      1. Simargl 26 February 2020 19: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        for example, regarding the production of guns.
        Well, whole sectors of the industry for rocket production keep it up. It just so happened that such large guns became an anachronism.
        1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 48 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          They just got too expensive. But if you look at the "now", then we have a naval "Coalition" of 152 mm, the Americans have Zumwalt and the railgans with the Chinese.

          Everything goes in a spiral ...
          1. Simargl 27 February 2020 19: 19 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            They just got too expensive.

            Quote: Simargl
            Well, whole sectors of the industry for rocket production keep it up.
            Those. if it made sense - money was found would.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            But if you look at the "now", then we have a naval "Coalition" of 152 mm, the Americans have Zumwalt and the railgans with the Chinese.
            152 mm will do nothing at the extreme distances of battle with the enemy (missile). The density of a minute volley, with a ridiculous number of guns, is quite large, but ... it does not reach the monstrous gauge of battleships and the number of active guns. Ammunition, now, like, HE and anti-aircraft shrapnel (the same HE). In general, if you use a ship to pressure the shore, then I do not quite understand why such a small number of guns, albeit with a good rate of fire ...
            Railgun - not needed: range is limited by the curvature of the Earth ... but we then know that it is flat drinks

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Everything goes in a spiral ...
            Not yet: barrel artillery has not yet come out of 152/155 mm, the number of trunks on board (GK) is 4 maximum (Peter the Great has 4 trunks 130 mm, Zumvolta - 2 pieces 155 mm).
            1. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 15 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In Peter - one 2-barrel AK-130, 2 are only destroyers "Modern" Soviet-built.
              IMHO, this AU is the same mistake as the projects of two-gun (one caliber) tanks. Instead, the creation of a 152mm marine AC was much more effective.
              1. Simargl April 2 2020 05: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                much more effective was the creation of a 152mm marine ac.
                For what?
                AK-130, rather, an anti-aircraft gun (at the time of creation), and for use - a salute cannon ... well, shoot mines, probably ... It can work along the shore, but ... for how many minutes?

                Quote: 3danimal
                AU 256-305mm
                What is the point of them? They can’t crack a modern military barge, the consumption of shells is large, the range - so-so, to work along the shore - is excessive, the AU itself is heavy, and by the rate of hits and hits it is better to get rockets of the same mass.
                1. 3danimal April 2 2020 10: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  It’s just by the action of the AK-130 by land: a 152mm AU looks preferable. Separately, there is the monstrous weight of the AK-130.
                  1. Simargl April 2 2020 11: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    I am exactly by the action of AK-130 by land
                    How do you imagine this? Scare the Papuans on camels? Something significant country will not let the ship go ashore for 100 km, and when the "unsupported" is suppressed, it’s easier to take the BDK, spread the Msta-B battery on it and hammer it slowly, if you really need to shell it.

                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Shells 250-500kg are quite suitable for strikes along the coast.
                    Unsuitable. Up to 15% of explosives are massed into the projectile. The experience of WWII showed that the thing is stupid.

                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Active-reactive option, but in such a caliber
                    ... and in the end, you will come to the 400-600 mm caliber launcher version ... and you get ... UKKS tongue
                    Because, like a shell, a thing is specific, and sea targets are a moveable and highly protected thing.
                    1. 3danimal April 2 2020 13: 29 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      So just 305mm. A missile is much cheaper than a rocket, even an adjustable one.
                      In an aerial bomb, the share of explosives is within 50% of the mass, so a 500kg shell approximately corresponds to a 225kg bomb. At the same time, it penetrates much better into shelters.
                      On the barge, no one will place land-based ACs for work along the shore. Pay attention to the trunks of marine (!) AU when shooting. They are constantly in motion, compensating for pitching. (This is just one of the differences between the marine art systems)
                      An ardent supporter of the return of calibers over 152-203mm, I am not, IMHO, 152 would be optimal on ships of the 1st rank.
                      1. Simargl April 2 2020 14: 22 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        a 500kg shell roughly corresponds to a 225kg bomb.
                        Yes?
                        F-625D (203 mm for B-4) - 100 kg carcass, 15,77 kg of explosives (it’s easy to consider %% here).
                        For 30.5 cm SK L / 50 - 405 kg carcass, 11,5-26,5 kg BB. This, for a minute, is 3-6,5% by weight.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        On the barge no one will place land-based ACs for work along the shore.
                        BDK - this is such a thing - to capture the bridgehead.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        An ardent supporter of the return of calibers over 152-203mm, I am not, IMHO, 152 would be optimal on ships of the 1st rank.
                        Uh ...
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        So just 305mm. A missile is much cheaper than a rocket, even an adjustable one.
                      2. 3danimal April 2 2020 17: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        . Uh ...

                        Abstract reflections. As part of a hypothetical decision by the US Navy, to allocate funds for a pair of highly specialized ships.
                      3. 3danimal April 2 2020 17: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        12 "/ 50 (30.5 cm) Mark 8" New "gun, used since 1944
                        Projectile: HC Mark 17 Mods 1 and 2 - 940 lbs. (426.38 kg)
                        Explosive charge: HC Mark 17 - 79.44 lbs. (36.0 kg) Explosive D
                        BB share 8,45%
                        Modern shells can be created with a greater share of explosives.
                        Mark 82 is an American aerial bomb developed in the 1950s. It has a nominal weight of 227 kg, but its actual weight may vary depending on version. The case is made of metal. It is filled with 87 kg of Tritonal explosives. Wikipedia
                        Weight, kg: 241 kg
                        Explosive mass, kg: 89 kg
                      4. Simargl April 2 2020 20: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        12 "/ 50 (30.5 cm) Mark 8" New "gun, used since 1944
                        Projectile: HC Mark 17 Mods 1 and 2 - 940 lbs. (426.38 kg)
                        Explosive charge: HC Mark 17 - 79.44 lbs. (36.0 kg) Explosive D
                        BB share 8,45%
                        BB share 8,45%
                        Quote: Simargl
                        Up to 15% of explosives are massed into the projectile.
                        So yes:
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Modern shells can be created with a greater share of explosives.


                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Mark 82 - American Aviation bomb
                        Weight, kg: 241 kg
                        Explosive mass, kg: 89 kg
                        BB share 37%

                        FAB-250ShL - bomb mass - 266kg, explosive mass - 137 kg, explosive share 51,5%
                      5. 3danimal April 3 2020 05: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You have incorrect data, the mass of explosives in this bomb is 92 kg. Accordingly, the share of explosives is 34%.
                        What is it about: 6kg of explosives in a 152mm shell is better than 3kg of explosives in a 130mm shell. You can recall the assault of the same Berlin, where 152-203mm caliber howitzers were simply demolished, prepared for defense. A smaller proportion of explosives in the projectile, respectively, increases the penetrating effect of the protected fortifications. It is much cheaper than a rocket, there are many purposes for which the use of artillery is preferable.
                        A larger caliber - a greater range, including an active rocket.
                        IMHO, on ships of the 1st rank (the same "Burk" or "Deringah") 152mm AU looks preferable. (At one time, the Americans were greedy, having developed immediately 203mm AU).
                      6. Simargl April 3 2020 17: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        IMHO, on ships of the 1st rank (the same "Burks" or "Deringahs") 152mm AU looks preferable.
                        Let's again: this IMHO comes to the shore. What's next? If at a distance of artillery - so it’s more convenient to hit it from the shore - with the same MLRS add-ons to break, make the hull smooth. But MLRS have any serious forces, the installations themselves, usually a lot. Those. easier to start with a helicopter, aircraft, missiles, BDK. And to put MLRS for this - more efficient.
                        Bullet precision? So a rocket with higher characteristics is not much more expensive. And the shell for Zumvolt is ...
                        An artillery duel between ships? Well yes: recently happened. One shot from AK-630 and 24 prisoners.
                      7. 3danimal April 4 2020 03: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        About prices: give an example.
                        An ERGM projectile with a range of 115km cost $ 30-50 thousand (inflated prices for 155mm AGS are an exception, if they were to produce a sufficiently large batch and optimized, they would not be much more expensive). "Tomahawk" about 2 million, plus a relatively small number on board (unlike shells).
                        MLRS - at what range and with what accuracy?
                      8. Simargl April 4 2020 04: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        km
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        MLRS - at what range and with what accuracy?
                        Quote: Brechopedia
                        9M542 - adjustable missile with detachable high-explosive or cluster munition with a firing range of up to 120


                        Quote: 3danimal
                        An ERGM shell with a range of 115km cost $ 30-50 thousand

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Tomahawk about 2 million
                        Are you serious now ?! Some kind of bullet in which the effectiveness of the Papuans is mixed (even with a large elongation), the effective volume and mass of the explosives are less than 125 mm. The “Tomahawk” has the same warhead as the 100 of these ERGMs and the range is at least 4 times higher.
                      9. 3danimal April 4 2020 06: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Why spend an entire missile on a target for which 1-2 high-precision shells are enough to destroy? In addition, the Tomahawks will always be smaller in the arsenal of the ship and they can be useful for more important purposes.
                      10. 3danimal April 4 2020 06: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        . Quote: Brechopedia
                        9M542 - adjustable missile with

                        ... 300mm caliber. Do you propose creating a heavy marine MLRS from scratch? Which, unlike the AU, is suitable exclusively for strikes along the coast.
                        At "Tomahawk" the same warhead as at 100 of these ERGMs and the range is at least 4 times higher.

                        The range is 15 times higher. But for him - his goals. How will you support the landing with the help of CR (for example)? And there are few of them on the ship (compared to shells).
                      11. Simargl April 4 2020 08: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Do you propose creating a heavy marine MLRS from scratch?
                        I am not the only one inclined to this thought.
                        The mass of a 300 mm rocket is about 800 kg, the launch for 12 missiles is about 22 tons, even if the warehouse + charger is the same, per missile - about 2,7 tons per missile in the launch and 1,5 tons per missile in storage (taking into account the mass of the loading and transport mechanism).
                        The original AGS weighs 90 tons. How many shells are on the assembly line - I have no idea, but let's say that's all. The projectile weighs about 100 kg, on the same Zumvolte there are 920 pcs on two barrels. 272 t. Minimum. Rather, 400. By weight, in two installations, these are 2x12x2,7 + 138x1,5 ... 162 missiles. A big difference? It seems to be 5,5 times. But in the same 9M542, the mass of explosives is 6,3 times greater. 9M55K5 also has about 600 elements and will cover the same column of light equipment every 30 times more efficiently. The nomenclature of warheads is the broadest. Soft start - electronics are simpler. The price is much less than $ 800 million per piece (30-50 thousand - this is for Excalibur in a simplified version for mass production).

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The range is 15 times higher. But for him - his goals.
                        Stop, stop! You me do you blame for attracting shells and missiles to comparison? Yes, this is arrogance! You compared, I answered (yes, it's crooked and ambiguous). But this is your pitch! I compared the range for the maximum warhead (the lowest - 450 km).

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        How will you support the landing with the help of CR (for example)?
                        MLRS. What does the KR have to do with it?
                      12. 3danimal April 4 2020 08: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The mass of a 300 mm rocket is about 800 kg, the launch for 12 missiles is about 22 tons, even if the warehouse + charger is the same, per missile - about 2,7 tons per missile in the launch and 1,5 tons per missile in storage (taking into account the mass of the loading and transport mechanism).
                        The original AGS weighs 90 tons.

                        Accurate data on the mass of the proposed installation cannot be obtained.
                        At AGS, not all styling is ready to fire.
                        It can fire with conventional shells with much greater accuracy.
                        But the cost of firing will be significantly higher.
                        Stop, stop! Do you blame me for bringing the projectile and CD to the comparison ?! Yes, this is arrogance! You compared, I answered (yes, it's crooked and ambiguous).

                        He only pointed out the inaccuracy and recalled the principle of "each target has its own ammunition."
                      13. Simargl April 4 2020 08: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Accurate data on the mass of the proposed installation cannot be obtained.
                        At AGS, not all styling is ready to fire.
                        Brechopedia claims 87,5t. But I think this is without a conveyor.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        It can fire with conventional shells with much greater accuracy.
                        For shorter range, etc.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        But the cost of firing will be significantly higher.
                        The cost of a shot of what is the sum I wrote.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        He only pointed out the inaccuracy and recalled the principle of "each target has its own ammunition."
                        Yes, I did not have inaccuracies! This YOU compared a 155 mm projectile with an efficiency of 125 mm and KR !!! Yes, even if not ERGM, but LRLAP ... but the latter has such a price that it’s better to run the "ax" ...
                      14. 3danimal April 4 2020 09: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        155mm guided projectile, which differs little in design from ERGM, with a sufficient size of the series will have a comparable cost.
                        I will repeat again that for KR and ERGM there are goals. AU Mk45 are on many ships, how many are heavy MLRS? And after all, they still will not refuse from the AU, to allocate additional space for the MLRS? But then it’s easier to launch the M30 GMLRS (caliber 240mm, range 85km, 4 per cell) from Mk41. (Hypothetically)
                      15. 3danimal April 4 2020 09: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        * The cost of the M30 GMLRS is $ 100000.
                      16. Simargl April 4 2020 11: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        * The cost of the M30 GMLRS is $ 100000.
                        And by the effectiveness of pieces 5 ERGM will block.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        AU Mk45 are on many ships, how many are heavy MLRS?
                        So! You already decide! From the very beginning I claim that 130 mm (for bourgeois - 127 mm) is higher than the roof, because nobody, by and large, will use it in battle (between comparable opponents), because they will shoot at each other with much more powerful and long-range anti-ship missiles, and aircraft and the same missiles will work along the coast, to counter a weak enemy they will seize a bridgehead, adjusting the BDK and will work from the ground on the ground.
                        I repeat once again: there is no point in wildly expensive artillery with a shot price comparable to a missile and an efficiency of 127 mm shell (and 125 mm, which can be high explosive) on ships, because their arsenal is not so small.
                      17. 3danimal April 4 2020 12: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Take an interest in landing tactics: both the Americans, the Soviets, and the Russian Navy are supposed, including support for naval artillery.
                        I repeat: AU are guaranteed to remain on ships. What prevents a part of the shells, in addition to high-explosive and anti-aircraft, from deploying guided ERGMs? Suggest for "easy" purposes (for the Kyrgyz Republic) to drive a helicopter? It may be needed for other tasks, it may be fired from MANPADS, for which ERGM is invulnerable.
                        By analogy - and the AU 155 / 152mm.
          2. 3danimal April 4 2020 07: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            9M542 - adjustable
            and also costs a lot.
            And the accuracy is disadvantageously different from the same ATACMS.
          3. 3danimal April 4 2020 08: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Some bullet in which the effectiveness of the Papuans is mixed (even with high elongation), the effective volume and mass of the explosives are less than 125 mm

            This projectile has a mass of ~ 50 kg and a 3,2 kg explosive charge.

            http://www.navweaps.com

            Most conventional rounds have a burster of about 7.75 lbs. (3.52 kg). The ERGM has a burster of 7.2 lbs. (3.3 kg)
          4. Simargl April 4 2020 08: 17 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            This projectile has a mass of ~ 50 kg and a 3,2 kg explosive charge.
            The explosive mass is 125 mm more similar ...
          5. 3danimal April 4 2020 08: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            See the quote - in standard high-explosive "blanks" of 3,52 kg of explosives.
            Yes, the shell itself is heavier - this is the control and the solid propellant rocket engine.
          6. Simargl April 4 2020 08: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            Yes, the shell itself is heavier - this is the control and the solid propellant rocket engine.

            What am I talking about? 155 mm with an efficiency of 125 mm.
          7. 3danimal April 4 2020 09: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            130 / 127mm (by weight of explosives).
            125mm - tank gun.
            20kg heavier than 127mm conventional HE, 10kg lighter than 155mm HE. With disparate range and accuracy. For related purposes.
          8. Simargl April 4 2020 10: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            20kg heavier than 127mm conventional HE
            Those. fastened to a shell 127 mm solid propellant rocket engine and packed it in 155 mm?
            Quote: 3danimal
            With disparate range and accuracy. For related purposes.
            ... and price.
            What are the goals? I repeat: the same Zumvolt against the Papuans with machine guns - maybe. But against such and AK-130/192 - the very thing: seized the coast, rolled out towed artillery and dolby as you like.
            As soon as the enemy is somehow prepared and has at least MLRS - Zumvolt lives 3-5 minutes after detection. This is not to mention normal coastal defense.

            Quote: 3danimal
            155mm guided projectile, which differs little in design from ERGM
            Something I did not understand ... ERGM is managed. He just screwed the rocket.

            Quote: 3danimal
            with a sufficient size of the series will have a comparable cost.
            I do not understand - why where? If you mean that ERGM, due to its resemblance to an adjustable 155mm projectile of the Krasnopol or Excalibur type, but the ERGM engine is much more complicated than the Excalibur gas generator. And MLRS.
          9. 3danimal April 4 2020 12: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Let’s make it clear: ERGM is a guided projectile of 127mm caliber, not 155. It is 20kg heavier than a conventional 127mm HE shell.
            If the enemy has light anti-ship missiles or MLRS, what will he oppose .. Burke? The KR will be hit by large targets, and after that the ERGM will work at 100+ km range. At the same time, he will maneuver. How did you plan to launch a MLRS ship at sea (not direct fire)?
  4. Simargl April 3 2020 17: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    630 is not a caliber wink lol
  • 3danimal April 2 2020 10: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    working along the shore is redundant, the AU itself is heavy, and in terms of the hit and hit ratio it is better to get rockets of the same mass ..

    Shells 250-500kg are quite suitable for strikes along the coast. Akin to the FAB 100-250kg. Accuracy - GPS guidance; in the 21st century, adjustability is implied smile
    They can’t crack a modern military barge, the consumption of shells is large, the range is so-so

    The active-reactive version, and even in such a caliber, will have an impressive range of about 100-150 km. Hypothetically, it is possible to supply a 30-40 kg GOS, to drown barges (it will be cheaper than smashing them with SM-6).
    1. Simargl April 3 2020 17: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: 3danimal
      drown barges
      "Bumblebee" is not enough (1204)?
  • 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Although there were projects of 203mm naval AUs, they refused in vain, IMHO.
    Of relatively recent references to projects of rocket-artillery ships with AU 256-305mm.
  • igordok 25 February 2020 20: 18 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    He remembered the same thing - “If you want to ruin the country, give her a cruiser”
    After reading the headline, the first thing I saw was who the author of the article was. I was surprised that not Kaptsov. belay But if Oleg extolled the armor of battleships, Alexander (the author) thinks more about weapons. I do not support the idea of ​​the article, but read it with interest.
  • pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 22 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    battleship will be cheaper than an aircraft carrier, even now.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Not cheap enough to get back to it.
      1. pin_code 28 February 2020 14: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        wait and see ... because everything is new, well-forgotten old. Why the hell is not joking ...
  • Amateur 25 February 2020 18: 37 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The attack of the ship’s assault aviation regiment on the Yak-38, delivered without nuclear weapons, the battleship was almost guaranteed to survive.

    With a combat radius of 195 km and the absence of a radar, it is possible to consider the Yak-38 a combat aircraft only with sooooo much desire. Especially considering the possibility of an attack by these aircraft of the American battleship.
    GSH-23 - a deadly anti-link weapon.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 15 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Well, with bombs, they could kick a lot of people. In addition, the first Yak-195 had a radius of 38 km, and in 1984 the Yak-38m appeared, it was different in color, they were painted in light gray.
      And this was a different level car.
  • Foxnova 25 February 2020 18: 40 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    The basis of the offensive capabilities of the USSR Navy in the DMZ is

    Which here does not seem to exist what would happen to the battleship after hitting several 650 mm torpedoes under the bottom ...
    1. mark1 25 February 2020 19: 10 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      And missile aircraft ...
    2. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 16 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      The question here is that surface forces in the United States have always covered submarines and often basic aviation.
      It was necessary to live to see the launch of the torpedo. It was very difficult in the 80s.
      1. Foxnova 26 February 2020 09: 04 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        For this, they came up with 650 mm torpedoes with a range of 100 ki
        1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 50 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          At 100 km you need to somehow find the target yet, for the submarine.
          1. Foxnova 27 February 2020 15: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There was a lot of legend for this.
            A wake trail lasts a very long time

            As one American admiral said to the question, how do you plan to protect the aircraft carrier from new Russian torpedoes marching along the wake

            I will put a destroyer in the wake of an aircraft carrier
            1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 21 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              A destroyer cannot be placed in the wake of an aircraft carrier, it will prevent aircraft from landing.

              There is a “Niksi”, there are submarines that can destroy the Soviet submarine, there is a full speed mode to increase the time it takes for the torpedo to reach the target, there is an option to make a very sharp tack once in a while, then the torpedo will pop out of the CS.

              In general, everything is complicated.
              1. Foxnova 3 March 2020 17: 49 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Only the cop will not go anywhere, and if the torpedo is in close proximity, then on board there are acoustic and electromagnetic sensors and guidance systems for them
                Som was a very dangerous weapon
                1. timokhin-aa 4 March 2020 10: 58 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  It was dangerous, but not absolute, countermeasures were and are.
            2. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 19 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The legend didn’t really work and rested in a Bose. The reason for this is the underestimation of the scientific and technical capabilities (insufficient) of that time.
    3. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      you still need to come up and launch a torpedo, that in the year 50, that in 2020 ...
  • Kostadinov 25 February 2020 18: 41 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Nuclear submarines decided the fate of the battleships.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 16 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Partly yes, they "took away" the task of defeating surface ships. This is in the article.
  • Vasily Ponomarev 25 February 2020 18: 49 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    so an author with such distortions can write in the same vein about galleys, so much has been written that it’s even hard to start somewhere, I’m wondering, the author really thinks that the battleships were not held because hundreds of them were made for them in the Second World War additional barrel and thousands of shells, not because their resource has not yet been developed and it was just a pity to cut them, but because of the effectiveness of a large caliber?
  • tlauicol 25 February 2020 19: 02 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    The battle near Samar Island showed that armored artillery ships are quite capable of inflicting losses on aircraft carriers, while ensuring the surprise of the attack.
    nope, only if the escort will drag less than 20 knots
    Having sunk the Musashi, the Americans could only get into the Yamato twice, twice into the Nagato and damage several smaller ships. The unit retained combat effectiveness and continued to participate in battles the next day. Once again, all this without a single Japanese aircraft in the air.
    so the battleship also need airplanes? type, battleship, plus air defense ships, plus air defense ships, plus aviation, plus minesweepers all stronger?
    In fact, the Japanese’s attempts to attack the American battleships from the air, when the latter could be "reached" by the aircraft, ended in the beating of the aircraft, not the ships
    yeah, these are all battleships ... without see above
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 19 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      so the battleship also need airplanes? type, battleship, plus air defense ships, plus air defense ships, plus aviation, plus minesweepers all stronger?


      The point is that the combat stability of NK according to the results of the Pacific War is underestimated, we look at the connection of the Kurites - they finished off 15.00 aircraft from morning to 259:XNUMX. The result - one ship was sunk, several damaged, the next day the escort drowns the connection, damages five more (one later kamikaze is finished) and drowns three destroyers or escort destroyers to the heap, I don’t remember the details, and four more cripples to a half-dead state.

      Aviation won?

      yeah, these are all battleships ... without see above


      Well, we’ll remove it from the LK equation and see how the carrier itself would shoot at those who broke through the fighter cover.
      1. Fat
        Fat 25 February 2020 23: 44 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        so the battleship also need airplanes? type, battleship, plus air defense ships, plus air defense ships, plus aviation, plus minesweepers all stronger?


        The point is that the combat stability of NK according to the results of the Pacific War is underestimated, we look at the connection of the Kurites - they finished off 15.00 aircraft from morning to 259:XNUMX. The result - one ship was sunk, several damaged, the next day the escort drowns the connection, damages five more (one later kamikaze is finished) and drowns three destroyers or escort destroyers to the heap, I don’t remember the details, and four more cripples to a half-dead state.

        Aviation won?

        yeah, these are all battleships ... without see above


        Well, we’ll remove it from the LK equation and see how the carrier itself would shoot at those who broke through the fighter cover.

        Operation Ce1 was thought out to the smallest detail. The Japanese fleet actually sacrificed their already empty ship carriers and a group of ships older than Yamato and Musashi .... Kurita broke through to Leita, but the task to destroy the landing did not begin. They could organize hell on Leyte in a couple of hours.
        American battleships would not have time for the distribution of elephants
        1. Alexey RA 26 February 2020 11: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Thick
          Kurita broke through to Leita, but did not begin to fulfill the task of destroying the landing.

          He would not have been able to fulfill it. The Japanese, as always, underestimated the speed of the Yankee landing: by the time of the hypothetical approach, the Kurita’s formations had already been on the coast and some of the supplies.
          1. Fat
            Fat 26 February 2020 13: 18 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Quote: Thick
            Kurita broke through to Leita, but did not begin to fulfill the task of destroying the landing.

            He would not have been able to fulfill it. The Japanese, as always, underestimated the speed of the Yankee landing: by the time of the hypothetical approach, the Kurita’s formations had already been on the coast and some of the supplies.

            Why didn’t Kurita shell the landing areas between Palo and Dulag? Does the imperial army interfere with the imperial fleet? Or is it something else, for example, the personal qualities of Kurita Takeo?
            1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 59 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              for example, the personal qualities of Kurita Takeo?


              Exactly.
              1. Fat
                Fat 27 February 2020 16: 11 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                for example, the personal qualities of Kurita Takeo?


                Exactly.

                I agree on everything
                1. Fat
                  Fat 27 February 2020 16: 26 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Moreover, the main caliber of the superlinkor had shrapnel incendiary shells ....
                  Probably Kurita Takeo in a relationship with Greta Tumberg ....
      2. tlauicol 26 February 2020 03: 51 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        OK, remove the cruisers and destroyers from the compound.
        Lost one ship? Ahah.
        Exchange "one hazel grouse - one horse". Queen for four pawns yes
        1. Fat
          Fat 26 February 2020 15: 52 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          OK, remove the cruisers and destroyers from the compound.
          Lost one ship? Ahah.
          Exchange "one hazel grouse - one horse". Queen for four pawns yes

          ... In case of failure in the Philippine operation, sea communications with the south would be completely cut off and the fleet, returning to Japanese waters, would not be able to receive the necessary fuel, and if left in the southern waters, would not be able to receive ammunition and weapons. There was no point in saving the fleet due to the loss of the Philippines. (C) Admiral Toeda Soemu
    2. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      so US escort ships were not very fast, built on the basis of civilian ships. that’s why they were built in such numbers.
    3. Alexey RA 26 February 2020 11: 30 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      nope, only if the escort will drag less than 20 knots

      The funny thing is that the 20-node AVE Spragyu as a result left the 30-node connection of Kurita. Kurita maneuvered, maneuvered, and maneuvered - avoiding airstrikes and torpedoes of American EMs (real and apparent), he managed to break contact with the American Tuffy himself.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The question was in Kurita, and not in the ships.
        1. Alexey RA 27 February 2020 17: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The question was in Kurita, and not in the ships.

          Wow ... the cruiser-battleship connection led by superLK goes to the distance of visual contact with the enemy’s AB. AB are covered only by destroyers (more precisely, three EM and four EEM). And in this situation, battleships with cruisers, instead of approaching at full speed with the AB, suddenly begin to waltz and evade. And this is in a situation where the enemy's AVs are identified as percussion (rather than escort).
          I immediately remembered Farragut:
          Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! smile
          1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 09 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            What are we talking about. But he could “break down” the previous day, the day was not easy.

            Although to merge the battle with an advantage in max speed of 10-15 knots and superiority in artillery, it was still necessary to try ...
  • Sapsan136 25 February 2020 19: 04 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Against the Eagles, it was simply not realistic to use Rocket Harpoon, since the range of the Rocket Harpoon was less than 300 km, and Orlan was armed with much heavier Granit missiles, with a range of 700 km and an intelligent guidance system that leaves no chance of survival even for a battleship in the affected area ... And by the way, the battleship Giulio Cesare was renamed to Novorossiysk, and not to Sevastopol ...
    1. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 42 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The question is whether it is possible to launch anti-ship missiles at such distances without an external control unit.
      1. Sapsan136 27 February 2020 11: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        If you study the warheads of Soviet missiles, you will understand that this is a very smart weapon .. The aircraft carrier is clearly visible on the locators, you can’t hide this trough ... Missiles go to the flock area, one takes place above the others and its radar directs missiles reaching below the radar level ... If it is shot down, the next missile takes its place ... Next, the missiles, using the selection system installed on them, attack the largest targets, an aircraft carrier, cruisers, destroyers, BDKs, tankers ...
        1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 46 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          The aircraft carrier is clearly visible on the locators, this trough can not be hidden ...


          Wrong.

          Missiles go to the area in flocks, one takes a place higher than the others and its radar directs missiles reaching below the radar level


          Topic covered in the late 80's

          Further rockets using the selection system installed on them attack the largest targets


          The most radio contrast. But such an algorithm was not for all RCCs; some attacked the first target captured by the GOS.

          BDK


          This is our class of ships, the enemy did not have such, there were TDK - tank landing ships (LST).

          In general, read more, write less, at least for now.
          1. Sapsan136 27 February 2020 20: 49 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Good mister, what the BDKs are called in the USA doesn’t change their essence, it’s a big landing ship ... Are we talking about the matter, or are we trolling ?! All the new heavy USSR missiles had an aiming algorithm, but they don’t tell you what’s on modern ones, it’s a military secret of the state ... Granite missiles have such an algorithm, Volcano and Basalt missiles too ... Read less Novodvorskiy, only there may call an aircraft carrier an invisible ship ...
            1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 11 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              YES, not all missiles had a "flocking" mode, drink some water. Some modifications of some missiles, and this topic was later abandoned.
        2. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Read about the super-intelligent heads of Soviet RCC (and how else - on the largest microcircuits in the world wink ), it so happens that they will be smarter than modern ones good
  • tlauicol 25 February 2020 19: 06 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    built TWO battleship after WWII? Wow! Where are the statistics on aircraft carriers?
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 22 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Well, no one says that they stayed in first places.

      And by the way, when did the Americans begin to build a new aircraft carrier next time after Midway?
      Six years after WWII. When the Dakot bed was still on the can, four Iowas were running.
      1. tlauicol 26 February 2020 03: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why do they need another hundred aircraft carriers? The old ones were given away and new ones began to be built in large series. And the battleships?
        1. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Battleships were in canned food in large quantities until the 60s. In small ones, it’s clear to what extent.
  • bk316 25 February 2020 19: 24 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    Alexander, as it were, called the reason why the battleships are not being built and, as it were, shyly veiled it.

    And the reason is that the battleship can not be used in any way except as part of the ACG unless it is against the Papuans (and by the way, pay attention to ALL examples of use after WWII against the underdeveloped countries). It is impossible because it is very scary to lose it, which is why it is really as if they are covering it with the US strategic nuclear forces:
    The United States did not hide the fact that in response to a strike on the Navy they could strike with their nuclear weapons on Soviet territory.


    Why not use it? But because a volley of 3 shells of the Buyok MRK type, which can generally be placed on the Iowa deck as boats and the total team of which is less than 20 times less than the battleship team, is 24 gauges, and in the variant with UBC they cannot be intercepted by five burks. So Buyans need to be destroyed for 500 kilometers, which means you need an aircraft carrier. AND WHY THEN LINCOR? Well, by the way, I’m repeating Alexander laughing

    In general, it seems that the next round of the shield and sword race is coming, and ship air defense can be ignored for 10-15 years. Then it remains one to destroy the enemy until he launched the anti-ship missiles, which means their anti-ship missiles and better from an airplane, which means only AUG.
    1. Simargl 25 February 2020 21: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: bk316
      And because a volley of 3 shells like Buyok MPCs, which can generally be placed on the deck of Iowa like boats
      Well, well ... roll back to the time when the battleships died - by the 50th.
    2. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 25 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      And the reason is that the battleship can not be used in any way except as part of the ACG unless it is against the Papuans (and by the way, pay attention to ALL examples of use after WWII against the underdeveloped countries).


      They were reactivated in the 80s for the war with the USSR.

      But because a volley of 3 shells of the Buyok MRK type, which can generally be placed on the Iowa deck as boats and the total team of which is less than 20 times less than the battleship team, is 24 gauges, and in the variant with UBC they cannot be intercepted by five burks. So the Buyans must be destroyed for 500 kilometers


      The Buyan-Ms do not have CC systems, they can only shoot when they receive the bearing on the target and ranges externally, they themselves cannot detect the NK and cannot attack it.
      Well and yes, by the time the surface forces approach, such rubbish as the Buyans will be wiped out by submarines, the aircraft will not even have time.

      Then it remains one to destroy the enemy until he launched the anti-ship missiles, which means their anti-ship missiles and better from an airplane, which means only AUG.


      The fact is that AUG / AUS are used in the main direction, and on secondary ones the NBG are fighting for themselves, often only with helicopters.
      1. bk316 26 February 2020 11: 31 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        The Buyan-Ms do not have CC systems, they can only shoot when they receive the bearing on the target and ranges externally, they themselves cannot detect the NK and cannot attack it.

        And that AWACS planes no longer fly, and why are we deploying the Tundra?
        And finally, Wave perfectly sees the battleship as much as 3000 km.
        And about the near future, forget about "WHO WILL GIVE THE GOAL DESIGN?" The satellite constellation will issue, time is coming (very very soon) nanosatellite networks. And within the framework of the global Internet, tens of thousands of satellites will be launched, the deployment price of such a network will fall below the cost of one LC, the deployment time will be within XNUMX hours, and it will be seen that is larger than the boat ....


        Well and yes, by the time the surface forces approach, such rubbish as the Buyans will be wiped out by submarines, the aircraft will not even have time.

        Well, let’s suppose the submarines, but how will the LK approach the distance of a shot along the coast in the presence of coastal anti-ship missile systems?
        Again, one submarine is how much RTOs in cost? Well, it will be hard for submarines to work under PLA. Will they risk slipping ashore closer to the same 300 km?
        1. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 43 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          And about the near future, forget about "WHO WILL GIVE THE TARGET DESIGN?" The satellite constellation will issue, time is coming (very very soon) nanosatellite networks.


          Not before the first apple tree blossoms on Mars. Verily I say unto you.
          1. bk316 26 February 2020 12: 48 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Not before the first apple tree blossoms on Mars.

            Very funny, but no. Much faster laughing - 10-15 years. That is, if the Russian Federation now pawns the LC, then it will not be adopted yet laughing
            1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 51 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Much much faster laughing - 10-15 years.


              Let's start with the basics.
              What does the word DESTINATION mean?
              1. bk316 27 February 2020 16: 13 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                What does the word DESTINATION mean?

                Oh this is a wonderful question. As an artilleryman it will be easy for me to answer.
                Target designation is the process of transmitting information from the giving to the receiving.
                The information should be in the format and volume necessary for the host to perform actions with a goal.
                In the simplest case, this action is aiming. There are various methods of target designation. In artillery, for example, accepted:
                Direct target designation is when the giver simply directs the aiming device at the target;
                the most common is targeting relative to landmarks;
                coordinate targeting - separately, due to the specifics of artillery, an indication in polar coordinates;
                target designation by tracers, incendiary shells and smoke, laser illumination and much more laughing


                In the context under discussion, this is likely to be coordinate target designation in absolute rectangular coordinates.

                But I think that very shortly before the global system of lighting the situation on marine and oceanic theater. There is such a NIISA office, read it might be interesting ...
                1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 26 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  At sea, the control center is information containing the bearing on the target, and the distance to it, if the target is stationary, and also information about the actions of the target (course, speed, depth for the submarine, flight altitude for the aircraft).
                  Based on these data, the calculation of data for firing is carried out in accordance with the PRS - rules of rocket firing.

                  And without them - is not conducted.

                  The satellite could not measure the speed of the target several times during the flight - hello. No salvo, although approximate, to a kilometer the target location area is known.

                  Or it is necessary to get close to it so that even with such initial data, it does not leave the capture sector of the GOS missile that you send to it, it does not have time.
                  1. bk316 April 3 2020 14: 32 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    containing the bearing to the target, and the range to it,

                    This is
                    indication in polar coordinates;
                    belay

                    so that even with such initial data it doesn’t leave the missile seeker’s capture sector,

                    Obviously Well, count. I already thought a couple of years ago, it was enough even on old CDs.
                    And now take the TTX of Zircon and let him even have an optical seeker.
      2. EvilLion 26 February 2020 14: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        They were reactivated in the 80s for the war with the USSR.


        What, right up to Paris would get, if Soviet tanks entered there?
    3. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 32 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I think buoys will be detected earlier and there will be bits. Iowa is unlikely to go ashore ... then the buoys will come out ... and if there is a storm ??? here and compare the boat and the liner. and it’s not a fact that the same caliber will cause fatal damage to a battleship of 50k tons.
      1. bk316 26 February 2020 11: 48 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I think buoys will be detected earlier and there will be bits

        Why? The image intensifier tubes are hundreds of times larger than the MRI image intensifier tubes.
        Iowa is unlikely to go ashore ...

        Well, even if it’s worth 1000 km, it’s not threatening the Russian Federation.
        not the fact that the same caliber will cause fatal damage to a battleship of 50k tons.

        I wrote a caliber with SBN. There is not yet a ship capable of withstanding the impact of the NWS. Yes, and probably will not.
      2. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 44 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        and it’s not a fact that the same caliber will cause fatal damage to a battleship of 50k tons.


        Well, this is just a fact, but the fact is that here, as in a joke - he will eat something, but who will give it to him?
    4. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Shells "Buyan" - the result of the deplorable state of shipbuilding (in the production of ships of the first rank). A highly specialized ship, completely unable to attack its own ships with its arsenal. As well as defending itself from attack.
      Against the MPA (and it is?) AUG aircraft will perform, everything is complicated.
  • tlauicol 25 February 2020 19: 26 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    who died under the shells of "New Jersey" in the hundreds, the number of people killed in the thousands,
    come on ? oh cunning! thousands of shells were measured per Vietnamese killed by this battleship
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 26 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      I mean, he killed 20 people or what? Well, so why juggle ...
      1. tlauicol 26 February 2020 04: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I mean, he killed 20 people or what? Well, so why juggle ...

        172 people according to the Marines.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Can I have a document?
          1. tlauicol 26 February 2020 13: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            oops, the error came out! not 172, but "146 reliably killed" in almost any article about Jersey. And the consumption of shells 16 and 5 inches.
            But about the "thousands of dead" there are references?
            1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 26 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              months of firing at BC strongholds and warehouses and 146 killed? These are only those whose bodies were found and were able (wanted) to separate from other bodies.

              I didn’t specifically look for the docks, but this is an unrealistic figure. It was just the Americans who counted those whom they counted.

              See destruction statistics

              MAIN BATTERY
              Structures destroyed - 439
              Structures damaged - 259
              Bunkers destroyed - 596
              Bunkers damaged - 250
              Artillery sites neutralized - 19
              Automatic weapons, AA, and mortar sites silenced - 35
              Secondary explosions - 130
              Roads interdicted - 26
              Meters of trenchline rendered unusable - 1,925
              Cave and tunnel complexes destroyed - 75
              Enemy killed in action (confirmed) - 136
              Enemy killed in action (probable) - 17
              Troop movements stopped - 12

              SECONDARY BATTERY
              Structures destroyed - 56
              Structures damaged - 92
              Bunkers destroyed - 59
              Bunkers damaged - 73
              Artillery sites neutralized - 2
              Mortar sites silenced - 6
              Waterborne Logistic Craft (WBLC) destroyed (Sea Dragon) - 9
              Secondary explosions - 46
              Enemy killed in action (confirmed) - 10
              Enemy killed in action (probable) - 7

              With such destruction of the objects occupied by the enemy, 146 killed an impossible figure. This would require the Vietnamese to use robots, and the Americans to be able to fight with constructions unoccupied by the enemy.
              In addition, the Vietnamese pulled the dead out of the fire when they could.

              Or is there such an example of a destroyed structure as a sealed cave (and such was) - there as it was with the dead? Who counted them?
              1. tlauicol 27 February 2020 14: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The Americans counted every meter of trenches and roads, but the number of linden killed?
              2. bk0010 27 February 2020 17: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I quite admit a small number of those killed: the battleship is not a plane, suddenly it will not jump out from behind the mountains. There is no particular doubt why he dragged himself either. Conclusion: everyone who can’t fight the battleship “makes legs” to where he won’t be able to beat with his expensive shells.
              3. Sasha_rulevoy 27 February 2020 20: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Compare with the "October Revolution": one hundred tanks were destroyed near Sevastopol, and only trucks and armored personnel carriers without an account.

                Or on Tarava, the battleships, too, seemed to destroy hundreds of bunkers (from palm logs), and the landed marines discovered that not one was actually destroyed. As stated by Georges Blonte, nearby explosions simply covered the bunkers with earth, which was only to the advantage of the latter.

                In Vietnam, since all the shells flew across the border, it was not possible to land there, the estimates remained unshaken.

                destroyed structure as a sealed cave (and it was) - how was it with the dead? Who counted them?


                Probably not at all. Half an hour we worked with shovels and dug up.
  • Nfl1.6 25 February 2020 19: 29 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The Union didn’t “pull” the “Union” - the war began. (1)
    I always affirm in THESE disputes - do not die Stalin in 53, the history of battleships in the world went a different way. (2).
    1. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      most likely that is how aircraft carriers would start building earlier ...
    2. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      For many fellow citizens, this was a very good event.
  • Senior seaman 25 February 2020 19: 37 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Sevastopol / Giulio Cesare, "October Revolution", "Novorossiysk"

    Giulio - Novorossiysk
    A plus article. Artillery ships are very effective for working along the coast, it is a pity we only have them left.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 26 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Yes, it was sealed up.
  • Taoist 25 February 2020 20: 07 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    "The strike of a naval assault regiment on the Yak-38, delivered without nuclear weapons, the battleship was almost guaranteed to survive." ... (c)

    neighing ... To begin with, the Yak had no anti-ship weapons at all. except for such NAR and FAB ... The only SD that he carried the X-23 ... had radio command guidance and a launch range of less than 10 km .... (I’m silent about the power of its high-explosive fragmentation warhead) ... So that if someone really would have had to "charge" the Yaki to defeat Iowa ... then they would immediately charge the "special mission" ... without options ... And the regiment would not be needed ... ;-)
    But in fact, yes, battleships were killed by the economy ... there were no tasks for them that could not be solved more efficiently and cheaper ...
    1. 3danimal April 2 2020 00: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It would take a group of planes, because not all would break through.
  • Undecim 25 February 2020 20: 09 New
    • 12
    • 1
    +11
    What the author is right about is that the battleships left the stage as a result of the natural evolution of the methods and means of armed struggle, as happened in the past with bows, knightly armor, cavalry, and so on.
    In 1936-1945, 27 battleships of the last generation were built: 10 in the USA, 5 in the UK, 4 in Germany, 3 each in France and Italy, 2 in Japan. And in none of the fleets did they live up to their hopes.
    True, the author comes to this conclusion, which is not disputed by anyone, goes by some very very roundabout way, discussing, in essence, with himself.
    1. Catfish 25 February 2020 20: 35 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Good evening, Vic Nikolaevich. hi
      True, the author comes to this conclusion, which is not disputed by anyone, goes by some very very roundabout way, discussing, in essence, with himself.

      Well, the author likes this topic, free - the will. smile
      There was one more urgent project, especially for our current fleet. perhaps the author will still turn to him with time.
      1. Undecim 25 February 2020 20: 48 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        relevant, especially for our current fleet, the project.
        And what is it relevant today? Is that verses about him Nekrasov:
        Somewhere it’s all awkward,
        Something is a sin ...
        We spin like a "popovka"
        And forward to the top.
        1. Catfish 25 February 2020 20: 49 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Excellent! Plus you and Nekrasov, because that is exactly what I had in mind. smile
          1. Undecim 25 February 2020 20: 56 New
            • 7
            • 2
            +5
            Now the turbopatriots will catch up, zamusuyut.
        2. Lopatov 25 February 2020 21: 11 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Undecim
          We spin like a "popovka"

          It is said that in those days the intelligentsia was as far from the army with the navy as it is now
        3. sharp-lad 26 February 2020 00: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In fact, in this interesting boat, the only ineffective part was the steering pen. smile
          1. Catfish 26 February 2020 02: 34 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            In fact, he did not even hold a three-point wave of fordewind at all, the blows were of monstrous power. After all, the yacht was built with a similar hull, and it was embedded in the very first storm. request
            1. sharp-lad 26 February 2020 21: 00 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              As far as I remember, this boat was intended to protect the internal water areas, and if memory was not so bad, two of them were not designed for seaworthiness. smile hi
              1. Catfish 26 February 2020 21: 48 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                True, there are two battleships and coastal voyages, and then the yacht that I wrote about. hi smile
                1. sharp-lad 26 February 2020 21: 59 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  About the failed yacht in that Soviet book was also mentioned, but briefly and with reference to the complete unsuitability for sailing on the seas. smile hi
      2. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 37 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        minus from me, call me already. but everyone should have their own point of view, especially Timokhin writes. How many articles have you written?
        1. Catfish 26 February 2020 09: 31 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I can’t speak on behalf of the author, but in my opinion, every author writes in order to be read, and after reading, expressed their opinion on what they read.
          ... but everyone should have their own point of view,

          I expressed my point of view there? And even if I said something, "everyone should have their own point of view" - these are your words. So you are not even minus the point of view, but do not understand what.
          ... how many articles have you written?

          And you ?
    2. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Would you know how many people are still convinced that the matter is aircraft carriers and anti-ship missiles ...
      1. Undecim 25 February 2020 22: 24 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Would you know how many people are still convinced that the matter is aircraft carriers and anti-ship missiles ...
        RCC is a separate issue, since full-fledged RCC appeared after the issue of building battleships was removed from the agenda.
        As for aircraft carriers, this is precisely one of the manifestations of those new methods and means of warfare, due to which battleships left the stage.
        Here it is possible to draw a distant parallel with the competition between armor and firearms - at some stage it became clear that impenetrable armor was theoretically possible to produce, but materially and physically they would be unbearable.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 48 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          As for aircraft carriers, this is precisely one of the manifestations of those new methods and means of warfare, due to which battleships left the stage.


          It is "one of." Of the many, which later, together, made the construction of new battleships unjustified - with their unconditional usefulness.

          Here it is possible to draw a distant parallel with the competition between armor and firearms - at some stage it became clear that impenetrable armor was theoretically possible to produce, but materially and physically they would be unbearable.


          Can. But in fact, they were used long after the appearance of muzzle-charging broads, just in the form reduced to cuirass.
          And the last - in WWII, our sappers.
          And then bulletproof vests appeared.
          1. Undecim 26 February 2020 13: 05 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            But in fact they were used long after the appearance of muzzle-charging broads
            Likewise, battleships were built long after the advent of airplanes.
    3. Vedzmin 26 February 2020 12: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They did not live up to the hopes of those who did not know how to use it competently. And in the US and UK fleets, they worked very well.
    4. Hog
      Hog 26 February 2020 15: 03 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      In 1936-1945, 27 battleships of the last generation were built: 10 in the USA, 5 in the UK, 4 in Germany, 3 each in France and Italy, 2 in Japan. And in none of the fleets did they live up to their hopes.

      Battleships were built for a general battle against equal opponents (Jutland), but he was not there, so if the admirals did not have the courage to send ships into battle, what was their fault?
      PS: Admirals have outlived themselves by the beginning of the twentieth century (this is not Nelson under Trafalgar), they were more afraid for their fifth point.
  • SVD68 25 February 2020 20: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In fact, classic battleships destroyed missiles. Not in the sense that the battleships had nothing to oppose to the missiles. In the sense that the missiles were more effective than the main guns of the battleship’s main caliber. Missiles proved to be more effective than armor battleship to protect against missiles.
    And in connection with the foregoing, the handsome man from the last photograph is the battleship of our time.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 30 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      In the sense that the missiles were more effective than the main guns of the battleship’s main caliber.


      Especially along the shore.
      Especially in a situation of exhaustion of anti-ship missiles in the battle of opposing parties.

      Missiles proved to be more effective than armor battleship to protect against missiles.


      Well, if that were the only thing, then the LK would continue to build, only without armor and with an air defense system.

      And in connection with the foregoing, the handsome man from the last photograph is the battleship of our time.


      Battle cruiser. The blow weakly holds.
      1. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I think that the armor would be left. but when the RPC arsenal ends ... hello, I am your death (battleship)
      2. SVD68 26 February 2020 08: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Especially along the shore.
        Especially in a situation of exhaustion of anti-ship missiles in the battle of opposing parties.

        They don’t shoot sparrows from cannons - each target has its own caliber. The main caliber of battleships is designed to defeat highly protected targets, for weakly protected targets it is redundant. But guided missiles and bombs have a significant advantage in accuracy and range, and the battleship can shoot the entire ammunition ... and not get hit. The main gauge of battleships is a poor remedy against the shore.
        Because Iowa put rockets.
        About the exhaustion of RCC. And why are they exhausted? Because of the armor of the battleships? Or due to the "armor" of anti-aircraft missiles?

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, if that were the only thing, then the LK would continue to build, only without armor and with an air defense system.

        The United States chose airplanes as a strike weapon. And the USSR, as the economy allowed, began to build projects 1144 and 1164. In fact, modern missile battleships.

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Battle cruiser. The blow weakly holds.

        Who checked that weak? It seems to me that he will much better withstand the attack of aircraft and PKR than the classic battleship.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 50 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Because it was designed in the rocket era.
          And now let's estimate the same approaches, but with the task of localizing the RCC explosion in a small body volume. That is, the design has several powerful armored partitions and the same armored decks that divide the ship into sectors from which the shock wave will not come out. Plus local booking aggregate, posts and MO. Plus radiolucent composite armor protection for radar antennas. Then there would be a battleship.
          1. bk0010 26 February 2020 20: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            from which the shock wave does not come out.
            But is it possible to make some knockout traffic jams (like for tankers) in order to direct the shock wave to a safe place (above the deck, for example). And it’s somehow problematic to keep the wave from 0.5 tons of TGA (in reasonable volumes, of course, it’s clear that in an empty aircraft carrier hangar this is quite feasible, but this is an exception).
            1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 47 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Unrealistic, too powerful a blast.
              This topic has not really been investigated, by the way, so far. There are separate experimental research works on especially protected ships, but this is more of a training work for designers than something real.
      3. Sergey Zhikharev 28 February 2020 17: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Then why did they stop building or did not begin to build battlecruisers (continuation of Alaska)?
        Armor is not needed. Guns can be made even larger - in 16, or even 18-20 inches (which is worth the penny).
        We put "volcanoes" and missile defense, and that's it - is there a replacement for the battleship?
    2. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      where and when is it checked? When the rocket destroyed the battleship, did everyone cry and surrender the monsters to the Reclamation? give an example ...
      1. SVD68 26 February 2020 08: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: pin_code
        where and when is it checked? When the rocket destroyed the battleship, did everyone cry and surrender the monsters to the Reclamation? give an example ...

        Yes, it's not about drowning. And about the fact that aircraft and missiles were considered a more effective means than six-dozen guns, and ships with such guns and stopped building. A SAM considered a more effective means of protection against aircraft and missiles than armor. And heavily armored ships stopped building.
  • bk0010 25 February 2020 20: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Battleships died when they stopped building. Let me remind you that the first normal (without Washington restrictions and with adequate air defense time) battleships (montans) were dismantled on slipways. As for the service time, de Moines and Baltimore also ran up to the 80s, and they only have 203 mm GK and armor is not battleship.
  • Santa Fe 25 February 2020 20: 46 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Great article, Alexander!

    I do not agree with only one:
    in the second half of the forties, the presence in the fleet of several battleships could afford even Argentina

    laughing

    This incredible event went down in history as South American Dreadnought Race

    Started with the acquisition of dreadnoughts in England

    Further, it was somewhat reminiscent of dancing in modern Russia around the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov. An inexplicable desire to support the life of a ship that doesn’t come to consciousness, for which there is none, and this is obvious to everyone: no tasks, no money, no strength to keep it and use it as intended. Neither escort ships, nor the ability to train the crew, nor the ability to order from the manufacturer and repair the failed equipment, neither fuel, nor shells

    But needed !!!! Write off no way !!!
    even though Argentina, Brazil and Chile are funnier for the whole world with a battleship than without a battleship


    As soon as the Minas Gerais was handed over to the Brazilian Navy, a riot of black sailors broke out on board the dreadnought - fortunately, the conflict was resolved peacefully, but the fleet management had to remove the bolts of the ship’s guns. The fact eloquently testifies to the real state and combat capabilities of the Brazilian battleships.

    The situation with the Argentine Navy was not in the best way - already during the first voyage to the shores of South America, the brand new dreadnought Rivadavia hit the rocks twice and collided with a barge
  • Demagogue 25 February 2020 20: 50 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    I don’t know why Alexander persists in this theory about the battleships. Any surface ship without an umbrella for its aircraft will be destroyed by enemy aircraft. Just because the planes, remaining invulnerable beyond the radio horizon, will launch the kr until they sink it or disable it. The battleship is not a serious threat.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 41 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Any surface ship without an umbrella for its aircraft will be destroyed by enemy aircraft.


      See Kurita mix at Leyte.
      1. Demagogue 25 February 2020 22: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Any surface ship without an umbrella for its aircraft will be destroyed by enemy aircraft.


        See Kurita mix at Leyte.


        The battleship, in order to use the main weapons, must approach the enemy to a small distance of tens of maximum. Where will the radar get? Who will let him do it today? The battlefield grew to hundreds of kilometers.
        With Leyte, ships could shoot down at least part of the attacking aircraft. Today it will not work against a strong adversary.
        1. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 46 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          he will not be alone. at least KUG, as a maximum AvKR (air defense), as a maximum under the umbrella of a full-fledged aircraft carrier, and it does not matter which country and fleet.
          1. Demagogue 26 February 2020 10: 28 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Why then if he needs aug? For its cost, an aircraft carrier can be built normal.
        2. Hog
          Hog 26 February 2020 15: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The battleship, in order to use the main weapons, must approach the enemy to a small distance of tens of maximum. Where the radar will get.

          Do you really plan to send the fortieth ship into battle against modern aviation (he will shoot back from it with airlics and bofors, and she will be shot at it)?
          If comparing so keep in mind that be built in our time it will be crouched with hundreds of missiles.
          1. pin_code 26 February 2020 15: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            so I mean too, the air defense of such a ship will be powerful
          2. Hog
            Hog 26 February 2020 15: 40 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            * If comparing so, keep in mind that if it was built in our time it will be an arsenal with hundreds of missiles.
          3. Demagogue 26 February 2020 15: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Missiles without aviation do not have a farther than the radio horizon. At least a million of them cram into the battleship, shoot somewhere? Everything is decided by aviation. She scouts the targets and then hits them. Dear big rocket ship is useless. And no air defense will protect him. His radar will see low-flying aircraft no further than 40 km. This is ordinary, and stealth is even closer. They will shoot twenty times and leave again over the horizon. A battleship’s air defense can only intercept missiles and bombs, and not carriers. Only when starting from 40 km, let’s say Bramos, it will fly to the ship so quickly that the air defense may not react. And if the rocket is hypersonic? Interference can shoot, but the GOS of modern missiles scan the silhouette of the ship and check against the database. And the battleship is huge, it's hard not to hit. At least they can shoot down radar antennas.
            1. Hog
              Hog 26 February 2020 16: 31 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              40km if yes. Most RCCs are subsonic. EW + jamming.
              So the task is to drown the ship (which itself is also stealth) or to shoot down a couple of radar antennas and not the fact that they are most needed.
        3. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Simulation of battles in the 70s showed that by firing ships of anti-ship missiles, approaching, they launched the remnants of missiles, and then guns. Therefore, in the Navy appeared 130-mm guns.
        4. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, until we see the bulk of aviation on the top five Burkov and Ticonderoga in one order, I would not dare to write about the "will not work." In a long time, the ships will not run out of rockets. But during this time, a lot can happen.
      2. gsev 26 February 2020 02: 28 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        See Kurita mix at Leyte.

        When Leyte, American attack aircraft carriers were distracted by the destruction of Japanese aircraft carriers. The Americans did not know that Pearl Harbor level pilots would fly on aircraft carriers. In addition, the connection between the group of attack aircraft carriers and convoys that fell under the distribution of the Japanese naval fleet was lost. Convoy aircraft carriers, or rather, their aircraft were armed with anti-submarine weapons, and bombs from escort aircraft carriers did not pose a big threat against heavy Japanese ships. American pilots imitated the attacks of the Kurita compound, forcing the battleships to zigzag. Without aviation, Kurita did not know the situation. It is now clear that in Leyte Gulf, he could meet defenseless transport workers, and not his death in the form of dive-bombers.
        In Korea, battleships had no more effect on the course of battles than self-propelled 105mm howitzers with shells equipped with radar fuses. The Americans fled from Wonsan by sea, since the battleships with their guns would not be able to restrain the Chinese infantry for a long time. In an artillery duel in Wonsan Harbor, 76mm and 105mm guns of the Koreans crushed destroyer artillery and survived the battle with cruiser artillery. The Koreans took the guns to the tunnel shelters when they had only the minimum necessary reserve left for them to repel the landing. I suppose that in 3 days of intense fighting, Chinese volunteers lost more people from field artillery than they, along with the KPA, lost during the entire war from battleship fire. And I will assume that the United States cost one battle ship departure from its base to Korea as the contents of field artillery during the year of the war cost.
        In Lebanon, after the artillery preparation of battleships and airstrikes, the infantry of the phalangists went into battle .... and suffered a complete defeat. AK-47 bullets reached the phalangists behind any brick wall of a Lebanese building. The Syrians and Muslims were behind similar walls beyond the reach of bullets fired from M16 .. Then the United States rehearsed an attack on Murmansk and Polyarny, attacking the Soviet naval base in Syria. 3 lost planes, one shot down by Strela, revealed that it is dangerous to attack Murmansk during the day.
      3. tlauicol 26 February 2020 04: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Any surface ship without an umbrella for its aircraft will be destroyed by enemy aircraft.


        See Kurita mix at Leyte.

        where the cruisers did all the work
        1. timokhin-aa 26 February 2020 12: 53 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          I'm talking about the day when Musashi was sunk. How many Japanese fighters were there? And how many flights did the Americans have? The result is one battleship. How many?
          1. tlauicol 26 February 2020 13: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            I'm talking about the day when Musashi was sunk. How many Japanese fighters were there? And how many flights did the Americans have? The result is one battleship. How many?

            Musashi alone and all ?! Modestly. Just one battleship Musashi .. no comment
            Kaptsov would call it the triumph of armor and the victory of the battleships.
            1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 51 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              From battleships.
  • doktorkurgan 25 February 2020 20: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In any case, if the volley of Soviet ships had not reached the target, and if the missiles had already been used up, then the only option for our ships would have been flight. Moreover, this flight would be a problem - the modernized Iowas could reach 34 knots and it was still impossible to counter anything with their guns and armor in the 70s. But, with the caveat, if other ships would repulse the missile strike of the Navy completely, before the missiles are exhausted.

    Considering the presence of special warheads on our anti-ship missiles, vague doubts torment me, I could reflect ...
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 32 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Considering the presence of special warheads on our anti-ship missiles, vague doubts torment me, I could reflect ...


      Not on all missiles and not on all ships. Well, in general, yes, it was actually the only way out.
      1. Taoist 25 February 2020 22: 30 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Well, to put it mildly, it’s not so ... even without special warheads, a couple of Malachites with their speeds and "very large" warheads would have been enough so that any armored trough would certainly not be drowned, but blind, deaf and demented so much that it would be very carried away by the "struggle for survivability "instead of performing a combat mission ...
        1. pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 49 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          the range of Malachite is 150 km maximum. do we have kamikaze ???
          1. doktorkurgan 26 February 2020 08: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            NPS pr. 670M, however.
          2. Serg65 26 February 2020 12: 47 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: pin_code
            do we have kamikaze ???

            Yes, the entire surface Navy of the USSR consisted of only kamikaze!
          3. Taoist 26 February 2020 17: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I even served with such people ... Or do you think the “special mission” on Yaki was simply suspended for beauty.? .. By the way, “one-way” Yaka has quite a decent “combat radius” ...
        2. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 14: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The questions would be whether the Malachites would fly to the LC or not. And there would be LC in the general warrant, taking the first blow in principle.
          1. Taoist 27 February 2020 19: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Cruiser pr. 1143. There, besides the Yak 38, it wasn’t Malachite but the pebbles were more abruptly ... so they would fly ... and they could already isolate the most important goal ... But without carrier-based aviation with interception at distant lines, it would be completely unrealistic to ward off these rocket launchers. .. So that any armored carrier would not have choked water of such fire ...
        3. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          escort ships would eat a couple.
      2. tlauicol 26 February 2020 04: 50 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        and a high-explosive cumulative warhead, as they are called? Iowa, Baltimore, Des Moines and light cruisers will not like it. And the Termites were in any Papuans
      3. doktorkurgan 26 February 2020 08: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So write that it was planned and planned to apply, a combination of vigorous loaves and ordinary.
        Here, by the way, is the absolutely correct thesis:
        ... the main force at sea in the war in the Pacific was not an aircraft carrier, but an aircraft carrier formation consisting of aircraft carriers and high-speed battleships, cruisers and destroyers.

        In the same way, this can also be projected on ideas implemented in the 80s - we are not talking about battleships as such, but about the connection, as part of the shock AV (which, among other things, was responsible for lighting the surface and air conditions - deck aircraft DLROiU), battleship , URO cruisers with the Aegis and EM systems (at that time the nifig wasn’t the Burke, but even the Spurians - mostly PLO tasks) supported by the nuclear submarines.
        But then, on the Soviet side, it is necessary to consider not only KUG-i, but also anti-aircraft formations, which included regiments of naval missile carriers and anti-ship missile launchers, tied to the marine intelligence system - Success or Legend.
        Naturally, things didn’t do without obliteutungs, but not only with us, but also with the Americans.
  • Engineer 25 February 2020 20: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Contrary to popular belief, US carrier-based aircraft in strikes against ground targets showed themselves poorly - much worse than army aviation could have shown itself under the same conditions. Compared to the devastating effect of artillery bombardment with large-caliber guns, the strikes from the decks were simply “nothing.”

    The most controversial place, in my opinion, in the whole article.
    But this moment surprised me at all:
    In some ways, an example of similar actions during the Second World War was the Battle of Guadalcanal, where the Japanese planned to land under the cover of artillery ships androgue in battle with American artillery ships -

    The fate of Guadalcanal was decided in November 42nd. 7000 Japanese soldiers were to be landed under the cover of a powerful fleet. On Friday the 13th, the Japanese fleet won convincing victory. But the planes with Henderson Field and Enterprise finished off “Chia.” Seeing that Hendeson Field was functioning, the Japanese detained a convoy with troops near the Shortland Islands. This led to disaster. On November 14, 7 of 11 transports sank from Henderson Field and Enterprise. The surviving paratroopers were returned from them.
    On the night of November 14-15, Admiral Lee's squadron was able to approach Guadalcanal and intercept the Japanese fleet and take revenge. But even in these conditions, the remaining Japanese transports managed to start unloading and were destroyed aviation and coastal artillery.
    Thus, the key factor in the victory at Guadalcanal is Henderson Field + Enterprise. US Navy lost first battle and ran away after the second leaving the battlefield to the enemy.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The fate of Guadalcanal was decided in November 42nd. 7000 Japanese soldiers were to be landed under the cover of a powerful fleet. On Friday the 13th, the Japanese fleet won a landslide victory. But the planes with Henderson Field and Enterprise finished off “Chia”


      The Japanese left on the 13th due to Abe's cowardice, but the next day, Willis Lee's ships came back and trampled them from there.
      1. Engineer 25 February 2020 21: 50 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        No, they didn’t. The battlefield remained with the Japanese, despite the tactical failure. You stubbornly do not want to admit that all the work was done by the aircraft, and the Amer ships openly coordinated.
        1. gsev 26 February 2020 02: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          and the Amerian ships openly coordinated.

          The US Navy honestly fulfilled its duty. At that time, the Japanese had better night optics and the training of fighting at night. The waters of Guadalcanal were called the iron bottom in memory of the American ships that died in battle, but by no means escaped or collapsed. In addition, the US Marine Corps at that time was 100% composed of volunteers who knew that they consciously chose the most dangerous military branch in that war. Making such an informed choice, US citizens prepared themselves for service and feat and learned to shoot. In a battle on the Tenaru River, they shot Japanese Guards Infantry, who considered them to be Chinese poorly trained soldiers.
          1. Engineer 26 February 2020 08: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The US Navy honestly fulfilled its duty.

            In the first battle of the 13th, definitely yes. In the second, most likely not.
  • exo
    exo 25 February 2020 21: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    When I started reading the article, I thought that the author was Oleg Kaptsov)
    Indeed, the battleship did not lose its effectiveness after the war. And as it were, to the place he was the British, in 1982. By the way, now there is no real alternative to large artillery ships, with the support of amphibious assault forces (in terms of the price / effectiveness of ammunition). Another thing is that for the sake of this one task, nobody will build such ships.
    Well, the beauty of such giants is a special story.
    1. gsev 26 February 2020 02: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: exo
      And as it were, to the place he was the British, in 1982.

      And why did the British need him in 1982? All decided on night vision devices for the British paratroopers and their absence among the Argentines. If, instead of building an aircraft-carrying cruiser, the USSR would provide the DRA army with night vision devices that are superior to US devices, the war in Afghanistan could be won without the introduction of ground troops of the USSR.
      1. Alexey RA 26 February 2020 11: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: gsev
        If instead of building an aircraft-carrying cruiser, the USSR would provide the DRA army with night-vision devices superior to US devices

        Then the spirits would have appeared and Soviet night vision devices.
        “Well, now you won’t get into the forest at all.” Previously, the bear had two slingshots, but now it also has a machine gun.
        ©
        1. gsev 28 February 2020 10: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Then the spirits would have appeared and Soviet night vision devices.

          I heard a similar version from the Afghans regarding the Soviet army. "Allegedly, the operations of the SA against Shah Masud were aimed at supplying him with ammunition. Soviet soldiers scattered a lot of rounds on campaigns."
  • Narak-zempo 25 February 2020 21: 01 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    In general, this episode of the battle (the battle near Samar Island) leaves the impression that the Japanese simply broke psychologically, faced with desperate, stubborn resistance from the Americans, which included numerous examples of personal sacrifice of sailors and pilots who saved their aircraft carriers from death, including mass sacrifice

    You write heresy, however. All couch patriots know that pindocs are incapable of self-sacrifice laughing
    But seriously, when confronted with a squadron aircraft carrier, even an ersatz of the Independence type, the japas simply would not have much chance of approaching the firing distance, because would not have the advantage of speed. Not to mention the fact that the composition of their air groups had a much more pronounced anti-ship character, and the cover was more serious. Tomatoes one cruiser would not get off.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 February 2020 21: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But seriously, when confronted with a squadron aircraft carrier, even an ersatz of the Independence type, the japas simply would not have much chance of approaching the firing distance, because would not have the advantage of speed.


      Erzats Independence just had a good speed, but the rest is not a fact so to speak. Maybe yes, maybe no. It is sometimes impossible to break away.
      For example, if you are not in the know, the aircraft carrier that sent the strike to strike could not change course. At all.
      Yes, and there are other considerations.
      1. Narak-zempo 25 February 2020 22: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Erzats Independence just had a good speed, but the rest is not a fact so to speak

        Lexington type 34 knots, Essex type 33 knots, Yorktown type 32 knots. LKR type "Congo" 30 knots, all other LC Imperial Navy were slower. Yes, it is possible to make corrections for the difference between the real operating speed and the maximum in tests, for wear of mechanisms, but they work in both directions. In addition, an aircraft carrier with a high side is elementarily seaworthy.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        the aircraft carrier that sent the strike to strike could not change course. At all

        Because the use of radio to drive an air group to the ship was not allowed for reasons of stealth. Which makes no sense when it is already detected by surface forces of the enemy.
        1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 02 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Lexington type 34 knots, Essex type 33 knots, Yorktown type 32 knots. LKR type "Congo" 30 knots, all other LC Imperial Navy were slower. Yes, it is possible to make corrections for the difference between the real operating speed and the maximum one in tests, for wear of mechanisms, but they work in both directions.


          Each ship has a graph of V / Vmax versus excitement.

          Because the use of radio to drive an air group to the ship was not allowed for reasons of stealth. Which makes no sense when it is already detected by surface forces of the enemy.


          Then the course turns into a corridor limited by the range of aircraft transmitters and the remaining fuel in the shock group. The difference in those years was not very big.
          1. Narak-zempo 27 February 2020 21: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            range of aircraft transmitters

            In fact, there is no need for a transmitter here, but a radio meteorological range, and the range depends solely on the power of the transmitting ship station (many times more than the combat radius of aircraft).
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Each ship has a graph of V / Vmax versus excitement.

            So what? Do you have reason to say that for aircraft carriers this figure is worse than for Japanese battleships and cruisers, and not vice versa?
            In an extreme case, it was possible to save the ships to lose the air group for fuel production, despite the fact that the Americans had good chances to raise the crews from the water. In the same battle at Leyte, Halsey, obsessed with the desire to crack down on Ozawa's aircraft carriers, sent out strike groups at the limit of his range, and he was not embarrassed that they would return in the dark, and many planes would be lost.
  • fomin 25 February 2020 21: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Dear interlocutors. unfortunately, the author was "entangled in three pines" comparing battleships and aircraft carriers. The fate of the swords of bows and arrows was crossed out by the appearance of firearms, and although you can still shoot an arrow with a poisoned tip into your opponent, but none the less. The fate of the battleships was predetermined by the first flight of the invention of the Wright brothers. It makes no sense to build an expensive battleship if one bomber with a heavy bomb can sink it. the cost of which is slightly more than the cost of an admiral boat on a battleship. If someone doesn’t agree, remember the fate of the Japanese super battleships Moussashi and Yamato for drowning was spent on each of about two dozen aircraft. Compare how much 15-20 planes and a battleship cost.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      If someone doesn’t agree, remember the fate of the Japanese super battleships Moussashi and Yamato for sinking was spent on each of about two dozen aircraft.


      And how many flew out to hit these ships you do not want to remember?
  • Dart2027 25 February 2020 21: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To build such giants now certainly is useless, but ships of the 1st rank with armor and dimensions like those of 68 bis cruisers are quite possible.
  • Observer2014 25 February 2020 21: 47 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Why did the battleships really disappear?
    Due to the appearance of tactical nuclear weapons. Point.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 04 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Then the NK would disappear altogether, because the nuclear bomb does not matter which ship to destroy.
      Point.
      1. Whalebone 27 February 2020 16: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But there are big doubts that large NKs are generally needed for advanced naval aviation. At 1000 km from the coast, a dozen Su-34s and a couple of Premieres will be able to close the zone. And they cost not even less than even the destroyer URO.
        1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 07 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          A dozen Su-34s will be shot down before reaching the line of missile launch.
  • WapentakeLokki 25 February 2020 22: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Nfl1.6
    The Union didn’t “pull” the “Union” - the war began. (1)
    I always affirm in THESE disputes - do not die Stalin in 53, the history of battleships in the world went a different way. (2).

    Well, on the way were LKr Stalingrad (~ 90% readiness) and these beauties could have survived the 90s .. (.. seen in Sevastopol in the 90s Kr like Kutuzov .. let the Light Kr but with art ...) ... and, by the way, warheads for ALL RCC OF..... not cumulative and not the fact that they are able to break through the armor belt of 150-200 mm ... (well, except that our Granite and then due to the mass) .. yes and cumulative warheads are not a panacea LK is not a tank ... so it’s really possible to fight with armor either in quantity (..strongly throw in anti-ship missiles .. until the XP is completely exhausted ..) or qualitatively (..special warhead ..) ....
    PS Now in MBT, a counter with ATGM systems of active counteraction against ATGMs is widely used (..type Arena, etc.) .. I wonder what kind of fleet .. good old Volcano from NATO and the General Staff we have ... but here’s the idea of ​​a counter blast or shrapnel in the way of anti-ship missiles .. although speed .. speeds + the mass of ATGM and anti-ship missiles are not comparable ...
  • Sergey Averchenkov 25 February 2020 22: 45 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The author, you don’t understand that after a strike by a battleship / not a battleship, a retaliatory strike will go through the United States. I do not understand you. The meaning of these battleships? Start a nuclear war? Similarly, I do not understand aircraft carriers ... a means of combating the Papuans? The aircraft carrier will not come to our shores at the distance of departure, they will be destroyed much earlier if our general staff is not stupid or the traitors are sitting.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The author, you don’t understand that after a strike by a battleship / not a battleship, the retaliatory strike will go through the United States.


      Why do you think so?
      1. Sergey Averchenkov 27 February 2020 15: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Open direct clash, do you think that could be otherwise? If you think so, then I would not want to see you on the General Staff.
        1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 19 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Read the military doctrine of the Russian Federation.
  • Romario_Argo 25 February 2020 23: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    USSR - 3 ("Sevastopol" / "Giulio Cesare", "October Revolution", "Novorossiysk").

    Giulio Cesare is the sunken Novorossiysk
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yes, it was sealed up.
  • Romario_Argo 25 February 2020 23: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Battleships as a class may still be reborn but with a different composition of weapons
    But such an armored belt will no longer be. structural protection and ceramic armor are now applied
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      See end of article.
  • fk7777777 25 February 2020 23: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Torpedoes, that's what determined, and yes missiles, and a mixture of rocket-topedo, torpedo-rockets, ...
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      strange point of view. But why didn’t the cruisers swept out the torpedoes?
  • Saxahorse 26 February 2020 00: 19 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Funny article. But the above has already been answered in essence. The battleships did not disappear, they became extinct like dinosaurs. Just at a certain stage of development, the technical solutions put into the idea of ​​the battleship ceased to be effective. Armor is ineffective against RCC. Large guns are inferior to bombs and missiles in attack efficiency. Therefore, they were no longer built and written off as the resources of those already built were developed.

    Well, the example of the reactivation of the battleships by Reagan had no sound military foundations. This is pure propaganda! Going to the new Crusade, we pulled an old but glorious sword from the closet! Shook off the dust. Admired. Put back into the closet. laughing
    1. mr.ZinGer 26 February 2020 08: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well said!
    2. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Just at a certain stage of development, the technical solutions put into the idea of ​​the battleship ceased to be effective. Armor is ineffective against RCC. Therefore, they were no longer built and written off as the resources of those already built were developed.


      Why didn’t they continue to build battleships without armor?

      Large guns are inferior to bombs and missiles in attack efficiency.


      Why did the USSR Navy return to 100-130 mm calibers? Khrushchev said that everything, the rocket era has begun? Even the ban was on the development of art installations over 76 mm. What are the leads, tell me.

      Therefore, they were no longer built and written off as the resources of those already built were developed.


      Why weren’t they written off IMMEDIATELY? This is the same money. If the ship is already ineffective, then it must be on needles, and do not spend money on maintenance. Everyone was one, they didn’t understand, but you understand something, right?
      1. bk0010 27 February 2020 17: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Why did the USSR Navy return to 100-130 mm calibers?
        130 mm is not a big gun. Large guns of battleships are effective only against battleships, against everything else 402 mm - a fierce overprice.
        1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The question is whether the enemy has artillery. So far, the USSR had 68bis, and 956 it was justified to have artillery with a longer firing range.
      2. Saxahorse 27 February 2020 22: 59 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Why didn’t they continue to build battleships without armor?

        What for? Why is Arly Burke or USS Ohio (SSGN-726) worse?
        1. timokhin-aa 3 March 2020 13: 15 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You just understood the main message of the article. Not completely true.

          Ultimately, the battleship left because there were no tasks for which its construction would be justified. They could be solved by other forces, which in any case would have to have. And there was simply no room left for the battleship. It is not conceptually obsolete, if we talk about its hypothetical modern missile and artillery version, and those battleship models that served, remained in demand and useful for the very end, just after a certain moment it became possible to do without it. Moreover, it was better with him than without him, but it was no longer important. The expenditure of the enormous money that the construction of the battleship cost was not justified under the conditions when other forces could solve all its tasks. Often, solving is worse than a battleship. But then, it’s “shareware”.

          The battleship in the final version disappeared because it turned out to be too expensive and difficult to solve the tasks that it was intended to solve. While it was non-alternative as a tool, one country after another was invested in its possession. As soon as it became possible to do without him, everyone began to do without him. Save. And saved. This is the real reason, and not in aircraft carriers, atomic bombs, missiles, or something like that.

          We can safely say today that the battleships “died for natural reasons” - physically aged. And new ones did not appear because of the unjustifiably high price, laboriousness and resource-intensiveness of production, because all the tasks that they solved earlier could now be solved differently. Cheaper.
  • ANB
    ANB 26 February 2020 00: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Was in practice at Alexander Nevsky. The old man, but impressive. And this is just a cruiser.
    A friend midshipman witnessed the shelling of Beirut. Impressions remained for life. According to him, the funnels were from the stadium.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      With a house a couple of floors. There was no stadium.
  • Disorder 26 February 2020 02: 45 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Why, why? .... Their time has passed - from and disappeared. AUG forced them out.
    The air wing, even of piston engines, is several times greater than the battleship’s artillery.
  • pin_code 26 February 2020 06: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I’m probably a heretic, but ... no one has tested battleships in the battle with another fleet since WWII, so I’ll say this ... even now a well-armored ship, even with 12 "guns and good anti-aircraft defense, can compete with the AUG, only in its warrant to be your aircraft carrier air defense ... right now they will throw minuses, we are waiting ...
    1. tlauicol 26 February 2020 07: 27 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      You wrote a bunch of comments in the style of "battleship + aircraft carrier stronger than an aircraft carrier." Yes, they set up cons
  • Sasha_rulevoy 26 February 2020 07: 22 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    South Vietnam is a narrow strip of land along the sea and the bulk of its population lives in coastal areas. Vietnamese rebels also acted there. There, American troops fought against them. The attacks of the New Jersey began with attacks on the demilitarized zone, or rather, on the North Vietnamese troops present in it.


    Described in color, but unfortunately almost everything is exaggerated. A narrow strip, then it is narrow, but if you look at the map. The terrain is not so narrow. In general, in this completely narrow strip, the Viet Cong and the main forces of the NEA were hiding at the very western edge almost at the border with Laos and Cambodia. And in densely populated areas, if there were, then sabotage groups dressed as civilians. Just the pathos of all American films about Vietnam, where actions on the Lao border are not shown in the fact that the Americans could not distinguish the partisan from the civilian. What a battleship. If they were distinguished, they would have shot them without any battleships.

    In the future, the battleship as a "fire brigade" dangled along the coast either south or back north,


    As far as the map is attached, readers may think that the battleship dangled from the southernmost Vietnamese extremity to the DMZ. In fact, almost all the time he was in the DMZ area and fired at Vietnamese depots north of it. He was also called to shoot in the Da Nang area, but these were very rare and fleeting missions. But in the Da Nang area, he did not shoot at full depth, as in the figure. He shot at command posts of the VK if they were found very close to the shore. If he shoot 40 km deep, then the spread of shells would be such that his own would have got more than the Viet Cong.

    ... urgently destroying the Vietnamese units surrounding the Americans,


    Colorful, but this was not.

    destroying bunkers and fortifications in caves whose arches could not protect against 16 inch shells, field fortifications, warehouses, coastal batteries, trucks, and other rebel infrastructure.


    Well, where did the rebels get trucks, coastal batteries and field fortifications? All this was true, but not where the rebels were, but to the north of the DMZ. The communists regularly supplied their supplies through the DMZ, for which a network of warehouses and roads was built north of the DMZ. All this was covered with powerful air defense. So the thought came into someone’s bright mind - to crush air defense systems with a battleship, and then bomb everything with airplanes. To fight ships, the North Vietnamese built coastal batteries. That's with these batteries and air defense systems, in fact, and fought, “New Jersey”.

    More than once or twice, his fire unlocked the American units, literally burning the Vietnamese surrounding them from the face of the earth.


    There were no mention of any blocked American units in 1969. In the cities since the Theta, everything was calm. And in the forests, Americans have long switched to airmobile tactics. Arrived by helicopter, searched for the Viet Cong, shot, if found, flew back. How do you block them?

    Once the battleship sank a whole caravan of small cargo ships with supplies for the rebels.


    It was, but in the area of ​​DMZ. The participation of the battleship in events south of the DMZ can be considered symbolic.

    In general, it was the most successful artillery bombardment in recent history, the number of objects of the rebels, their positions, units of heavy weapons and equipment that died under the shells of "New Jersey" in the hundreds, ...


    Most likely exaggerated.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There were no mention of any blocked American units in 1969.


      Immediately and immediately Ocean view outpost.
      1. Sasha_rulevoy 27 February 2020 20: 17 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Six hours one platoon was "blocked"? Somehow too loud for "blocked."
  • Alex_59 26 February 2020 08: 02 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Battleships were killed precisely by aircraft carriers and anti-ship missiles. Well, the economy. Do not pull the owl on the globe.
    Simply speaking about the post-war fate of the battleships, it is necessary to compare not episodes of a separate combat use, but globally. Where and how much did the battleships use, and where and how much did the aircraft carriers use? If you compare this, it will become obvious that in the total amount of ammunition used, the proportion of battleships in comparison even with only carrier-based aviation will become negligible. And aircraft carriers never completely withdrawn as a class after WWII, and battleships - yes. And I must admit that even in known cases of the use of battleships they were used not because there are no other means that can solve the tasks, but because they are there and they need to be used somehow. For all countries except the United States and this was not the issue, they lacked battleships in principle. If the USSR had given 4 Iowa class battleships for free, then he too would have gladly used them, but not because the battleship cannot be dispensed with, but because if there is one, you must use it. Actually, that’s why they weren’t built - because all possible tasks with greater efficiency and flexibility were solved by other means, primarily aviation. The author described the weakness of WWII aviation against the battleships well, but did not say a word that some 20 years after WWII, the aircraft as a class of weapons changed radically, changing to a different qualitative state, while the battleship didn’t. Add to this the appearance of anti-ship missiles, and all the first Soviet anti-ship missiles had such monstrous dimensions and weight precisely because they carried warheads that guaranteed the piercing armor of the Iowa with a powerful back-off effect.
    What do we have in the end? A highly specialized expensive ship the size and security of which is reset by missile weapons to the level of a frigate, and the strike potential is limited to a radius of 30 km.
  • iury.vorgul 26 February 2020 09: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The battleships had to fight, however, again against the shore. “New Jersey” twice, on December 14, 1983 and February 8, 1984, fired from the main caliber guns at the positions of the Syrian army in Lebanon.
    And both times I drove him on a direction finder throughout the Mediterranean Sea.
    1. Vedzmin 26 February 2020 12: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But he fulfilled his task :) Despite the fact that you conducted it.
  • EvilLion 26 February 2020 09: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    259 American aircraft continuously attacked Japanese ships completely devoid of air cover.


    But nothing, that even if all these 259 aircraft were lost, it would still be completely justified in the destruction of the Musashi alone? It was possible not to scratch the destroyer too much, all the same 259 deck aircraft of the Second World War - this is much cheaper than the Musashi. Even modern corvettes manage to cost, like 1-2 squadrons of some Su-35, and airplanes since WWII have risen in price much more than ships.
  • Alexey RA 26 February 2020 11: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Should the Japanese commander Smoke go to the end, ignoring the losses and fierce resistance, it is not known how it would end. The battle near Samar Island showed that armored artillery ships are quite capable of inflicting losses on aircraft carriers, while ensuring the surprise of the attack.

    Aircraft carriers - Is it a 20-node escorted AB built on the basis of civilian vessels with air groups of 20-30 aircraft, moreover, imprisoned for PLO, air defense and coastal work (with the appropriate composition of the BC)? wink
    In some ways, an example of similar actions during the Second World War was the Battle of Guadalcanal, where the Japanese planned to land under the cover of artillery ships and lost in battle with American artillery ships - one particular aircraft could not stop them.

    Hehehehe ... actually, on Guadalcanal, artillery battles took place precisely because of the presence of the aircraft that stopped them. The Japanese tried with all their might at night to disable the American airfield, which prevented their fleet from operating during the day. And the Americans, respectively, defended this airfield. In fact, in the first half of the campaign, the Japanese fleet dominated the sea at night, during the day - the fleet and the US Army.
    If you take November 13-15.11.1942, XNUMX, then the Japanese did not plan to land. The Japanese were planning to land reinforcements and deliver heavy weapons and ammunition. The ambush was that the transports did not have time to unload during the night and leave the Yankee coastal aviation radius. And daytime unloading at the current American airfield was impossible - the Yankees simply drowned or damaged everything they found.
    It was to suppress American aviation at least for a day that the night raid of Japanese artillery ships was planned. Which, as a result, twice ran into the Yankees' ships - beginning on the cruiser Scott, and then on the battleships Lee.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Which, as a result, twice ran into the Yankees' ships - beginning on the cruiser Scott, and then on the battleships Lee.

      Well, that talked.
  • Pacifist 26 February 2020 11: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Many thanks to the author! I love such articles. The point of view is presented reasonably and holistically. You can argue with the details, but in general everything is clear. good
  • Vedzmin 26 February 2020 12: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I liked the article, thanks to the author! I think that there are some of the most furious topics for the male near-historical and near-war debate: how to use two-handed swords and flambergs, the effectiveness of heavy knight cavalry, the “inevitable” death of aircraft carriers in the modern war, well, the effectiveness of battleships in the Second World War and after is covered in the article. The author very interestingly developed his thoughts. Well, we have where to break the spears;)
  • irontom 26 February 2020 13: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To begin with, in the United States at the end of WWII, guided missile-bomb weapons were developed, despite the shortcomings, some samples had time to be used, they showed sufficient effectiveness.
    It
    - GB guided bombs
    - homing bomb ASM-N-2 "Bat"
    - Planning bomb “Gargoyle”
    - guided aerial bomb VB-1 AZON
    it’s another matter that there were no worthy goals for them, so they suppressed “Bat” with every little thing.
    VB-1 AZON - all bridges were converted in Burma.
  • Selevc 26 February 2020 13: 38 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The article is utter nonsense - from the category "We were on the moon and that's it !!!" The author is a prisoner of faith in battleships and that’s it - reasonable arguments are all being swept away !!!
    The author constantly confuses the war and the police operation - comparing the 2nd World War with the wars in Korea and Vietnam is simply stupid !!! Successful strategic use of battleships against equal opponent not since the Battle of Jutland !!! There is not a single vivid example of the fact that the actions of battleships somehow radically affect the course of the entire military operation! How to use battleships effectively in addition to the ancient tactics of linear battle is still unknown !!! Examples of successful use of aviation against battleships are just mass !!!

    The use of battleships after the 2nd World War in the form of museums, targets for training firing or a mobile platform for missiles (artillery) is obvious !!! So an aircraft carrier is just an airfield - the same floating platform but only for aviation ...

    Discussions about the ineffective bombing of aviation and the great power of naval artillery battleships are simply rubbish !!! Watching how to bomb !!! It is refuted by the facts - flaming Dresden and Hiroshima and an elementary comparison of the range of naval artillery and carrier-based aviation !!!

    The battleships were indeed used even after the 2nd World War until the 1st Desert Storm but with the same success it was possible to launch rockets from any large surface ship ... The battleship was remade because it was simpler and cheaper ...
    1. Selevc 26 February 2020 14: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And yet - in general, the effectiveness of battleships as a kind of weaponry for countries such as Russia is very doubtful !!! In the 20th century, in the course of world conflicts, Russia and Germany with one construction of huge ships of the class cruiser and battleship themselves struck their own military-industrial complex more powerful than enemy bombs !!! At the turning point of the 1st World War, it turned out that there was not enough steel for the front, there was not enough capacity of the plants to provide advanced - and how many of these resources were swollen in offshore construction it was too late to consider !!!
      I think this is a victory of the Anglo-American diplomacy of the early 20th century - the Powers of the Sea pulled the Sushi Powers into the dreadnought race !!! And it ended with revolutions in the latter and their falling into chaos !!! And as a result of defeat !!!

      It’s stupid to just compare the thickness of the battleship’s armor, the caliber of artillery with their modern surface counterparts ... Since there are vivid examples when the British disrupted the entire course of the German naval operation — not by drowning the vessel but simply by disabling it or disrupting the operation of its control systems .. Swordfish plywood slow-moving biplanes successfully attacked Bismarck - they didn’t drown him, but completely disrupted his course and frustrated the entire fascist military operation ... Count Spee’s command was deceived by British radio misinformation and, as a result, complete disruption of the operation and the death of the ship ...
      That is, we can say that battleships are beautiful and powerful under ideal battle conditions for them, and when the conditions change quickly - they become floating troughs - either drown by their own teams or shot by the enemy as targets ...))
      1. Selevc 26 February 2020 16: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Anglo-Americans are generally masters of a pragmatic approach to war and all kinds of weapons ... They just figured out how long it would be to build a missile cruiser from scratch, or build, for example, in Saudi Arabia, a base for launching cruise missiles and decided that it was easiest to remake the old cruise missiles as a mobile base trough times of the 2nd world !!!
        And what: the armored deck is a ready launch pad for launching missiles, the battleship rooms are spacious for electronics and much more, the towers are suitable for installing communications and tracking equipment, you can store rockets in the powder cellars and protected compartments of the battleship ... The old battleship is already on 80% created a modern missile cruiser ... The capitalists save - this is obvious))
    2. Sasha_rulevoy 26 February 2020 19: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Selevc
      Discussions about the ineffective bombing of aviation and the great power of naval artillery battleships are simply rubbish !!!


      Georges Blonte in the book “The Odyssey of the Enterprise Aircraft Carrier” (in the original “Le survivant du Pacifique”) has such a moment, they say, at first they thought that the old slow-moving battleships with 14 inches would be engaged in landing support on the islands. there’s nothing to do. Meanwhile, attack aircraft carriers will chase the Japanese somewhere around the ocean, solve some of their problems. But life has made corrections to these intentions. But life has made its own corrections. Big losses on Tarava forced the Americans to engage attack aircraft carriers along with ecort AB and along with all the battleships. And this is understandable. The most massive aerial bomb is 500 pounds, 227 kg, explosives are usually half the weight of ABs — that is, 110 kg. And the weight of explosives in the heaviest 16 dm projectile is 69 kg. And the plane throws a bomb much more accurately.

      And as for the support of its infantry, when it has already landed, here, all the more, apart from aviation, everyone else has nothing to do. Japanese firing points were usually very well camouflaged. The Americans stumbled upon them when they were already shooting at point blank range. The Marines crawled away. Then one daredevil crept closer and threw a lighted smoke bomb with yellow smoke so that it fell as close to the bunker as possible. Then they all went further away and lit green smoke bombs above their heads. The approaching “Helldiver” perfectly saw both the target and the shape of the front edge. And light the checkers against the battleship, do not light where you can distinguish them from his bridge.
  • Demagogue 26 February 2020 16: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Hog
    40km if yes. Most RCCs are subsonic. EW + jamming.
    So the task is to drown the ship (which itself is also stealth) or to shoot down a couple of radar antennas and not the fact that they are most needed.


    Brahmos has up to 3 swings above the water. It’s quite fast.
    Having knocked down the antenna, the air defense system is withdrawn from the game. Anti-aircraft artillery fires quickly, but not for long. And then everything, shoot as you want. Though throwing bombs.
  • Scaffold 27 February 2020 01: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    kamikaze had heavy steel engines

    Heavy steel engines? wassat
  • Pavel57 27 February 2020 11: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The issue of cost remains one of the main. Battleships are a very expensive pleasure with limited utility.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 February 2020 15: 18 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Let's just say it is too expensive even for its great utility. This ruined them.
  • 5-9
    5-9 27 February 2020 14: 28 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    From 406-mm high ballistics to shoot at partisans in earthen burrows and small cargo ships ... amers' love for this (from a gun on sparrows) was embodied in UAS for Zamvolt for a million dollars apiece .... well, is it really not clear that the old there are free battleships, there are a lot of shells for them, a resource of guns - what for are they needed in 1968? ... that’s why they pounded ...
  • Demagogue 27 February 2020 15: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Simulation of battles in the 70s showed that by firing ships of anti-ship missiles, approaching, they launched the remnants of missiles, and then guns. Therefore, in the Navy appeared 130-mm guns.


    And then boarding? Frankly, little is real. Because confrontation is unrealistic Kug. Aug against Kug yes, but there all the aircraft will quickly decide. Aug versus Aug is already harder. There cr from ships will intensify the blows. But everything will be decided by air superiority of one of the parties.
    1. bk0010 27 February 2020 17: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Demagogue
      And then boarding? Frankly, little is real
      It is quite real: Arly Burke and Ticonderoga had anti-ship weapons (after removing the anti-ship Tomahawk) for many years there was only a 127-mm gun.