Warships. Cruisers. British Empire style throwing

Warships. Cruisers. British Empire style throwing

The bell of the naval agreement in Washington was also beaten by Britain. More precisely, according to the budget of the “Lady of the Seas”, it was no worse than the armor-piercing shells of German battleships and cruisers in the Battle of Jutland.


Having agreed with the rest of the participants, Britain began to build its heavy cruisers, and ... it became clear that this is a very expensive affair. The Hawkins turned out to be ships, to put it mildly, a little awkward, so the Admiralty quickly got rid of them and started история ships of the "County" type.

In general, these were three subtypes of ships, but the differences in designs were so minimal that they could be considered almost in bulk. And it turned out that all 13 heavy cruisers (type “Kent” - 7, type “London” - 4, type “Dorsetshire” - 2), although they were built, they cost so much that it became clear: for protection and protection trade communications of the colonies and the metropolis need something cheaper. Otherwise, the game will not be worth the candle.

So there were two "light heavy" cruisers such as the York, and then the British began to build at an accelerated socialist pace. flotilla light cruisers. In what, I must say, unlike the Germans, they were very successful, and at the beginning of World War II, Britain had 15 heavy and 49 light cruisers.

Solid, right? In general, the concept of the British fleet included 20 heavy and 70 light cruisers. This is for information.

We return to our heroes. “County” became a direct continuation of the Hawkins family, their tasks were about the same: search and trapping of enemy cruisers and admonishing them using the main caliber. And for auxiliary cruisers and other trifles there was an auxiliary caliber.


Naturally, raiding was not forbidden to British ships.

If you compare the “County” with contemporaries, you can see that in terms of speed, booking and air defense, these were not the best ships. But just a huge sailing range, powerful artillery weapons and excellent living conditions for the crews made these ships the best in the class precisely for solving such problems that were originally announced.

And if you do not pay attention to the rather old-fashioned look, which turned out thanks to three tall and thin chimneys and a very high side, then, in fact, the ships turned out to be what you need. Beautiful even.


And when it became clear that the seaworthiness is complete, it is not surprising that the main part of the service of these ships took place in the northern and polar waters, accompanied by Arctic convoys.

But at the time of the start of construction, being somewhat at a loss from the deed (all these maritime agreements and treaties), the British suddenly felt defenseless against a possible threat to their transport communications.

And after the commander of the Raleigh ditched the heavy cruiser entrusted to him on the stones, the number of sane heavy cruisers of the Hawkins type was reduced to four. And the light cruisers, remaining from the First World War, clearly did not meet modern requirements in terms of range and speed.

And the British rushed to build Washington cruisers.


Suffolk shipyard before launch

Naturally, these were supposed to be ships with a displacement of 10 tons, armed with 000 mm main guns, 203 mm anti-aircraft guns and 102 mm Vickers automatic cannons ("pom-pom").

The most debate was raised by the question of the number of guns in the towers of the Civil Code. One, two or three? Single-armed towers took up too much space, which prevented the deployment of a sufficient number of guns on ships, and it was difficult to use them all at once. It was well demonstrated by the operation of the Hawkins. Three-gun towers have not yet been completed structurally, because the golden mean was the placement of the main caliber in two-gun towers.


Thus, each cruiser had to carry eight 203-mm guns in four towers. In total, four projects were proposed for the trial of the Admiralty Commission, which differed from each other only in booking. There were boules designed to protect the ship from torpedoes and shells that fell below the waterline.

However, in reality, the reservation turned out to be insufficient. It was especially worth worrying about the sides in the area of ​​engine rooms and boiler rooms, where the ship could easily penetrate even destroyer guns. Horizontal booking was not very good either, since armor over the same compartments and shell cellars did not protect them from shells of 203 and 152 mm calibers. There were doubts that the armor was able to withstand the hit of medium-caliber bombs (could not stand it).

Therefore, the project “D” was recognized as the winner, which had relatively good protection of the cellars, capable of withstanding the impact of a 140 mm caliber projectile falling at an angle of 203 ° from a distance of about 10 miles. Otherwise, the armor could be criticized in accordance with the points listed above. The total mass of the armor of the cruiser project "D" was 745 tons.

But project “D” was not accepted, but was sent under the designation “X” for the next competition, where other projects were presented. For example, one of the projects (“Y”) was supposed to remove one of the aft towers, leaving only six main-caliber guns, but to equip the ships aviation. That is, instead of a tower, mount a catapult and place at least two hydroplanes on board. At the same time, increase ammunition from 130 to 150 shells per gun.

In general, if you look, the “light heavy” “York” and “Exeter” were just made for this project.


Heavy (or still light heavy?) Cruiser "York"

The Admiralty did not like all three proposed projects. Still, one had insufficient reservation, the second did not have the proper firepower, so the project was developed for construction, which was developed by Sir Eustache Tennyson d'Eincourt, one of the creators of the Hood battlecruiser.

Sir Eustache, who was clearly thinking in ships, suggested a very original thing: leave almost everything as it is, but change the following parameters:
- increase the power of cars by 5 hp;
- extend the housing by 100 cm;
- narrow the body by 20 cm;
- reduce the ammunition of each gun by 20 shells.

A ship with such parameters definitely became faster by 1,5-2 knots. And the released weight could be sent to strengthen the armor.

And with the armor, Sir Estash also treated very progressively.

Sensibly judging that she still could not save from large-caliber shells, the thickness of the side armor in the area of ​​the boiler rooms was reduced by half, making it 120-130 mm impermeable to shells.

But the horizontal armor above the boiler rooms and engine rooms (by 7 mm) and the vertical armor of artillery cellars (by 25 mm) were increased.

The estimated speed of the ships was estimated at 31,5 knots with a standard displacement and 30,5 knots with a full one.

In this form, all the relevant signatures were put on the project. The first ship of the series was called "Kent", according to it, as was customary, the whole type was also named. Naturally, these ships were considered heavy cruisers of the Washington class.

The Admiralty immediately expressed a desire to order at least 17 such cruisers. But the admirals had to be doused with cold water from the Thames, to be limited by budget.

So instead of 17 ships, five were ordered, and then the Australians came, who liked the ship, and ordered two more cruisers for themselves. Total - seven.

Kent, Berwick, Suffolk, Cornwall, Cumberland, Australia, and Canberra. The last two, of course, are Australian.


Berwick

The new cruisers were smooth-deck high-breasted ships with three tall tubes and two masts. Their standard displacement turned out to vary in the range of 13425–13630 tons. Normally, as I have already said, everyone was chemical.

The ships had the following sizes:
- the greatest length: 192,02–192,47 m;
- length between perpendiculars: 179,79-179,83 m;
- width: 18,6 m;
- draft at standard displacement: 4,72-4,92 m;
- draft with full displacement: 6,47-6,55 m.

Initially, they wanted to install tripod masts on ships, but for reasons of weight saving, they were replaced with lighter masts.

“Kent” became the only cruiser of this type to receive a stern gallery, like the battleships of that time. The gallery slightly increased the length of the ship, but after a while it was dismantled altogether.

In peacetime, the crews of cruisers were 679-685 people., At the flagship - 710-716 people.

These cruisers, having excellent seaworthiness, enjoyed considerable popularity both among officers and sailors of the Royal Navy. Ships were considered “dry” and comfortable for the crew, having very spacious and well-arranged rooms.

But for the command, the seaworthiness of cruisers, which suddenly turned out to be very stable artillery platforms, became a big plus.


"Australia"

The armor remained not the strongest side. The final booking option for engine rooms, main caliber towers and ammunition cellars was as follows:

- armoring in the area of ​​engine rooms - 25 mm;
- armored deck over engine rooms - 35 mm;
- armored deck over the steering device - 38 mm;
- armored bulkheads in the area of ​​engine rooms - 25 mm;
- Side armor and roofs of the GK towers - 25 mm;
- armored floors of the towers GK - 19 mm;
- barbety GK towers - mm 25;
- traverse cellars of the towers "B" and "X" - 76 mm;
- lateral traverse cellars of the towers "B" and "X" - 111 mm;
- traverse cellars of towers "A" and "Y" - 25 mm;
- side traverses of the cellars of guns 102 mm - 86 mm.

In general, as you can see, so-so. Not for nothing that these cruisers were universally called "tin cans" or simply "tins."

The power plants of the cruisers were different. The ships had four steam turbines with a capacity of 80.000 liters. with. rotating four screws. Cornwall, Cumberland, Kent, and Suffolk received Parsons turbines, the rest from Brown-Curtis.

The turbines were fed with steam from eight crude oil boilers. The smoke from the first boiler room burning in oil boilers was diverted to the front and middle chimneys, and the second to the middle and rear.

The pipes had to endure many improvements. When the tests revealed that the smoke from the low pipes completely obscures the battery of 102-mm anti-aircraft guns and the aft fire control post, they decided to extend the pipes. First they threw a meter on the Cumberland when they were convinced that it didn’t help, it was decided to extend two front pipes to 4,6 m, and then all three. On Australian cruisers they were lengthened even more - up to 5,5 m.

During sea trials, the cruiser series showed very good results. On average, the maximum design speed of 31,5 knots at standard displacement and 30,5 knots at full turned out to be more by a whole knot.

Later, during operation, the maximum speed briefly reached 31,5 knots, constant - 30,9 knots.

The oil reserve (3425–3460 tons) made it possible to make transitions of 13–300 miles with an economic course of 13 knots. At a speed of 700 knots, the cruising range decreased to 12 miles, at full speed (14 knots) - 10 - 400 miles, at 30,9 knots - 3 miles.

For that time - an excellent indicator.

weaponry


The GK artillery consisted of eight 203-mm Vickers Mk VIII guns of the 1923 model, located in four two-gun Mk I towers with a hydraulic drive.


Due to the achievement of the maximum elevation angle of the guns of 70 ° (instead of the specified 45 °), the main caliber of the cruisers could conduct anti-aircraft fire. Conditionally, since normal anti-aircraft fire required a rate of fire. But she did not shine. 4 rounds per minute. Excellent for a normal naval battle and about nothing in terms of anti-aircraft barrage.

The cruisers' guns pierced 10 mm armor at a distance of 000 m, and 150 mm at a distance of 20 m. Ammunition for each gun in peacetime amounted to 000 shells, in war - from 80 to 100.

Not far from the midship was the main anti-aircraft artillery platform with four Vickers Mk V 102-mm guns on the Mk III.


The first pair of these guns was located on both sides of the third chimney, the second - a few meters further to the stern. The ammunition per gun was 200 shells. In 1933, a third pair of the same guns was additionally installed on both sides of the first chimney on the Kent cruiser.

The planned armament of the cruisers with eight-gun pom-pom anti-aircraft guns did not take place, so I had to do with the installation of four 40 mm Vickers Mk II anti-aircraft guns. They were also placed in pairs on both sides of the platforms between the first and second pipes. Their ammunition was 1000 shells per gun.


The cruisers' armament also included four 47-mm (3-pound) Hotchkiss Mk II L40 salute guns and 8-12 7,62-mm Lewis machine guns.

There was also a traditionally strong torpedo weapon for British ships. Eight 533-mm torpedo tubes in two four-pipe QRII rotary launchers, first used on such large ships, were located on the main deck on both sides under the main anti-aircraft artillery platform.

The armament consisted of torpedoes Mk.V, which at a speed of 25 knots had a range of 12 m and a warhead weight of 800 kg. For the Australian cruisers used more modern torpedoes Mk.VII, which at a speed of 227 knots had a range of 35 15 m and 300 kg of explosives.

The project provided equipment for reloading the TA, but in fact it was not installed on any of the cruisers. That is, the ammunition consisted of eight torpedoes.


Aviation


As a result, they shoved it all the same. And all the cruisers received an SIIL (Slider MkII Light) light swivel catapult, behind the third chimney.

The seaplanes were first Fairey "Flycatcher", and then they were replaced by Hawker "Osprey".


Cranes located on the starboard side were used to lift the aircraft from the water and mount it on the catapult.

Of course, throughout the entire service of ships, weapons underwent various modernizations. This was especially true of anti-aircraft weapons. By the beginning of World War II, nevertheless, the old Vickers automatic guns had been replaced by “gun-pumps” of eight barrels, placing them on platforms on either side of the first chimney.


And on the roofs of the seaplane hangars, the 12,7 mm Vickers MkIII / MkI machine guns were registered.


Over time, torpedo tubes were dismantled on all ships.

Vickers' large-caliber machine guns were removed in 1942-1943 (only Cornwall and Canberra preserved them), and back in 1941 the armament of cruisers with single-barrel 20-mm Oerlikon MkIV anti-aircraft guns was launched. Since 1943, the same anti-aircraft guns were installed, but in a twin version, and in 1945 the number of Erlikons on ships already reached 12-18.

True, in the realities of that war it was still not enough. And after the Japanese pilots effortlessly got rid of the Cornwall and Dorsetshire, the armament of the ships was anti-aircraft weapons small caliber was still found to be unsatisfactory. The British began to dismantle useless airborne weapons, while increasing the number of anti-aircraft barrels.

By mid-1943, only cranes remained on the “Kentes” of aviation equipment, which now served to lift boats and powerboats.

Radar


The first Kent type cruiser on which radar equipment was installed was the Suffolk. In early 1941, a Type 279 airborne detection radar was mounted on it, the antennas of which were mounted on the tops of the masts. This radar, operating in the 7-meter range and put into service in 1940, paid for itself during the battle in the Danish Strait. It was Suffolk with the help of radar that discovered the dribbling Bismarck and brought everyone else to it.

The idea "went", and the cruisers began to receive radars type 281, 273, 284 and 285.


The combat use of Kent-class cruisers is worthy of a separate article, because our heroes were noted wherever possible. And the Atlantic, and the polar waters, and, naturally, the Pacific Ocean.

Speaking about the success or not of the battle path of the cruisers, let's say this: not bad.

Suffolk was damaged by direct hit of a 1000-kg bomb 17.04.1940/10/XNUMX, repair - XNUMX months.

"Kent" 17.09.1940/XNUMX/XNUMX received a German airborne aboard, the repair lasted almost a year.

"Cornwall" was sunk by Japanese carrier-based aircraft south of Ceylon 5.04.1942/XNUMX/XNUMX. The crew could not do anything with the Japanese bombers, even plainly dodge bombs, of which nine were hit on the cruiser.

"Canberra" was simply crushed by shells of Japanese cruisers in a battle near Fr. Savo 9.08.1942/7/XNUMX, the cruiser tried to save, but he sank after XNUMX hours.

But we will repeat separately about the battle path of the British heavy cruisers of the "Family" family, it’s worth it.


Regarding the work under the Washington Accords, I would like to say this. We can say that the “Kents” were the very first pancake that often comes out lumpy.

British designers and admirals really wanted to shove everything into 10 tons of displacement. Alas, many broke their brains on this, and the British were no exception. Therefore, as a result of throwing and compromises, they turned out just such ships.

The British began to build heavy cruisers designed to protect ocean communications, because they really did not want to repeat the economic blockade of the First World War.

It turned out that speed, reservation, and subsequently armament were sacrificed to the cruising range and seaworthiness.


Indeed, the seaworthiness of the County was more than excellent. They exceeded their numerous Japanese and American counterparts in range, not to mention Italian and French ships designed for service in a Mediterranean puddle. And as a result, the convoy service was completely successful. But the "County" and were imprisoned under it.

But according to other indicators, the “Counties” were in many ways inferior to the Washington cruisers of other countries.

Their speed of 31,5 knots was standard for the British fleet, but noticeably inferior to the speed of the early Italian, French and Japanese cruisers, reaching 34,5 (French Tourville and Japanese Aoba) and even 35,5 knots (Japanese Myoko "And Italian" Trento ").

Armor is generally life for a ship. 25-mm armor of the sides and towers of cruisers made their way not only with 152-mm shells of light cruisers, but also with 120-127-mm shells of destroyers. Well, really not serious.

Frankly anti-aircraft weapons were "Kent". Anti-aircraft artillery, initially insufficient, was repeatedly changed and supplemented in the process of service and modernization, but the cruisers did not receive a sufficient number of barrels. This was confirmed by the Japanese, drowning virtually without loss (3 aircraft - this is a laugh) two heavy cruisers Dorsetshire and Cornwall.

On the whole, the idea of ​​ocean defenders, capable of acting on maritime communications for a long time, was a success. The cruisers, capable of protecting and guarding convoys of transports and simply routes from enemy attacks, the British succeeded.

The sinking of the German Penguin raider by Cornwall is another confirmation of this.

But this turned out to be very highly specialized ships, and the British designers realized this very quickly. The subsequent subtypes of “County” became a kind of work on the bugs. How much this generally happened - we will analyze the next time.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. CTABEP 17 March 2020 18: 28 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Gorgeous. We look forward to continuing.
  2. ser56 17 March 2020 18: 39 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    not bad! Respect to the author! pictures are beautiful! it would be nice to have a drawing and section ... repeat Well, and item by article load ... hi
  3. Macsen_wledig 17 March 2020 19: 18 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Solid, right? In general, the concept of the British fleet provided for 20 heavy and 70 light cruisers. This is for information.

    For your information ...
    21.01.24/42/1925 Leopold Emery, First Lord of the Admiralty, announced the Cruiser program in the House of Commons, according to which it was planned to build 26 heavy cruisers, with the laying of the first eight cruisers in XNUMX.

    This radar, operating in the 7-meter range and put into service in 1940, paid for itself during the battle in the Danish Strait. It was Suffolk with the help of radar that discovered the dribbling Bismarck and brought everyone else to it.

    Materiel you don’t know from the word at all ... :)
    As of the end of May 1941, the Suffolk radar armament consisted of two type 279 OVC radars, one type 284 GK fire control radar and two type 285 UK fire control radars. To search for surface ships on the Suffolk, type 284 mounted radars were mounted on the dome of the bow KDP.
    Bismarck and Eugen were detected visually - type 284 radar simply "looked" at the sectors covered by fog, in the opposite direction from the Bismarck site. Type 279 did not work for scanning at all during the operation against Bismarck.
    1. Undecim 17 March 2020 20: 30 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      The author did not understand radar.
      The first Kent type cruiser on which radar equipment was installed was the Suffolk. In early 1941, a Type 279 airborne detection radar was mounted on it, the antennas of which were mounted on the tops of the masts. This radar, operating in the 7-meter range and put into service in 1940, paid for itself during the battle in the Danish Strait. It was Suffolk with the help of radar that discovered the dribbling Bismarck and brought everyone else to it.
      HMS SUFFOLK received Type 79Z airborne detection radar in September 1939.
      In December 1940, this radar was replaced by type 279. For the sake of accuracy, it is worth indicating that it had a wavelength of 7450 mm.
      In December 1940, type 284 and type 285 radars were also installed to control artillery fire.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Avior 17 March 2020 20: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In general, the problem of pre-war shipbuilding in underestimating the birthplace of aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons of ships
    Already during the war, they began to massively increase anti-aircraft weapons, especially small-caliber rapid-fire, but not only
  6. Rurikovich 17 March 2020 20: 15 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    "Canberra" was simply crushed by shells of Japanese cruisers in a battle near Fr. Savo 9.08.1942/7/XNUMX, the cruiser tried to save, but he sank after XNUMX hours.

    The Canberra was first awarded two torpedoes, and only then a portion of shells ...
    Their standard displacement turned out to be in the range of 13425–13630 tons.

    Complete, Roman, COMPLETE!
    In principle, a plus, for a brief overview, it’s a completely normal article, although not without descriptions and errors of a reference nature (we write off in a hurry and carelessness when editing) smile

    According to the conclusions - I completely agree with the author. The English heavy cruiser was created for escort service and the fight against enemy raiders (which, as the British suggested from the experience of the WWII, could be either light cruisers or armed merchants). Then their cruiser FULLY answered the tasks for which it was intended.
    Formally, the British fell into the Washington trap "thanks to" their own "hooks", but what happened to be shoved into the 10000 standard fully met the requirements. 8 "inches would have completely coped with the hypothetical 6" art of hypothetical raiders at great distances, and then their cardboard armor was justified. Awesome sailing range with excellent seaworthiness leveled the usual 30 nodal speed for cruisers of the time (English), but it is enough for capture of raiders (protection against them). Penguin and Atlantis examples yes
    The weakness of anti-aircraft weapons corresponded to the lack of naval aviation of their opponents in European waters. But the use of ships "for other purposes" led to the results that are known - death from aircraft and from torpedoes with shells of the Japanese "cruiser killers". And wonder why this happens request smile
    My opinion is quite adequate ships for the tasks for which they were intended - escort service on communications hi
    1. unknown 17 March 2020 22: 09 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      During WWII, cases of chases in which it was necessary to go at speeds of more than 32 knots are extremely rare.
      Japanese cruisers at their "super speed" never went. Italian "Zary" in real life went 29-30 knots. The destroyers in full load did not go more than 31-32 knots, but what if the excitement?
      So, the British did not chase the excess speed correctly. Enough to remember. that the Italians and the French were able to create the most protected heavy cruisers only significantly saving on the mass of KTU.
    2. Comrade 18 March 2020 04: 16 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Rurikovich
      “Canberra” at first was awarded two torpedoes, and only then a portion of shells ..

      HMS Exeter has a similar situation.
      First, on February 27, 1942 at 16:35 a Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedo hit the cruiser (the weight of the warhead was 490 kg), fortunately for the British, it did not explode.
      Three minutes later, the ship received an 8 '' shell from the Haguro cruiser, which exploded in the aft boiler room, resulting in the failure of six boilers and killing 14 people. Cruiser speed dropped to five knots.
      Then, on March 1, 1942, at about 11:20 in the Exeter, it again received 8 '', again exploded in the boiler room. On a lost ship, the Japanese fired eighteen torpedoes, two of which hit the target on the starboard side. Having received two through holes, the cruiser quickly leaned over and sank.
      The image obtained by examining the remains of the cruiser by an international group of divers gives an idea of ​​the places where the torpedoes hit.
  7. Potter 17 March 2020 20: 42 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    The English Washington cruiser is a good sailing cruiser with cardboard armor. On a formal basis, they are classified as heavy, but in fact they were not. Washington, and only. Full-fledged heavy cruisers were made without restrictions by the Americans - the Baltimore type, and the Germans, Prince Eugen. The Japanese deceived everyone and exceeded the standard displacement by 30%, and got good ships. Italians too, but it turned out worse. Well, in general, each country understood its own heavy cruiser in its own way, the USSR built Kronstadt in 41000 tons with 9 twelve inches.
    1. unknown 17 March 2020 22: 24 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The first full-fledged heavy American cruisers are of the New Orleans type.
      Japanese heavy cruisers were not bad, but at what cost? Overly powerful and bulky KTU, five towers in the diametrical plane, long length ("New Orleans" thirty meters shorter), weak body, critical overload, poor seaworthiness, disgusting stability.
      And while completely inadequate horizontal protection. Strangely enough, but according to the analysis of military operations at sea, some researchers came to the conclusion that the priority of horizontal protection and the unnecessary protection of vertical for the class of cruisers.
      You can’t remember armored cruisers here. Perhaps the use of a karapas armor deck, at a new technical level, would allow a compromise to be found between the mass of armor and the security of the cruisers.
      1. Victor Leningradets 18 March 2020 15: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        All "ten-thousand-year-olds" with eight-inches are a dead end branch of a light cruiser. In addition to the narrow task of fighting with light cruisers of the second rank (6-8 thousand tons, 6 - 9 six-inch ones) and raiders, they are not very suitable for cruising service.
  8. Potter 17 March 2020 21: 37 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The British, moreover, were virtually the only gentlemen who strictly adhered to all the restrictions of the Washington Accords. In the class of heavy cruisers, the Americans did not go too far beyond the limits, but even before the Baltimore they managed to make more balanced TKr with good armor protection. Probably due to the higher development of technology - lighter molders and boilers, electric welding, aluminum paints and so on. And the British received both flawed Washington cruisers and castrated battleships of the King type, with 14 '' artillery, while everyone was building more powerful ships.
    Thanks to Roman also for the beautiful photos! The British loved to photograph their ships in the harbor of Valletta in Malta!
    1. unknown 17 March 2020 22: 27 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      The Bismarck carried 8 * 380mm guns. Projectile weight - 800 kg.
      "King" carried 10 * 356mm guns. The mass of the projectile is 720 kg.
      To fight the German battleships is enough.
  9. Macsen_wledig 17 March 2020 22: 33 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: ignoto
    To fight the German battleships is enough.

    Taking into account the British approach, having a 2: 1 power ratio in your favor, of course, that 2 LKs is enough to “stumble” one ... :)
  10. ABM
    ABM 17 March 2020 22: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I read it with pleasure. Straight, Marine collection from the Model Designer
  11. Saxahorse 17 March 2020 23: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I liked the article and the photos are wonderful. Thanks to the author!

    The only question arose about the reservation. All the same, the information flashed that the armor belt of 25 mm only Canberra received. The rest of the cities seemed to be more decent.
  12. Engineer 18 March 2020 10: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Each county ship cost half the king size LC. Given inflation, more than half. At the same time, in a combat collision, it was weaker than almost any foreign counterpart. The result was an extremely expensive (but almost everyone has it) communications guard, that is, a second-line ship. This is despite the fact that German cruising war plans were buried when it became impossible to base heavy ships in France. It turns out that they were preparing for a cruising war on communications, which in reality happened in a very docked form
    For the squadron service is rather weak. Realization of the 2 to 1 advantage as the British loved was far from always possible.
    A comparison of the combat service of light and heavy cruisers in Britain says that the former were what is called on the cutting edge and achieved much greater success.
    1. Victor Leningradets 18 March 2020 15: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Germany has nothing to do with it. She was crushed by Versailles.
      These cruisers - a product of geopolitics - the confrontation of the three strongest sea powers in the twenties of the twentieth century.
  13. voyaka uh 18 March 2020 11: 59 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Everything is in such an ironic style.
    Meanwhile, these cruisers participated in fierce battles of unexpected intensity
    and scope. Bigger battles than in the Pacific Ocean in World War II were not at all
    human history. Killed tens of thousands of sailors.
    1. Rakovor 19 March 2020 07: 08 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      And Skomorokhov always writes in this style. For him, war is such a "fun" with many comic situations. Already jars sometimes.
  14. Victor Leningradets 18 March 2020 13: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Thank you so much, Roman!
    It is important where this "convoy destination" came from.
    It is important to note that in the 20s of the twentieth century, the possibility of a war between the USA and Great Britain on the Canadian border and, well, on the ocean expanses was seriously considered. So the Lords decided that the only chance in this war was the rapid transfer of British troops with experience of war to the North American theater and ensuring their uninterrupted supply. The purpose of the operation was not a complete occupation, but the destruction of US military bases and military industry.
    The US leadership reasonably believed that the United States was the only winner in the First World War, and since it was not possible to impose the rest of the "Pax Americana", at least Canada should be tidied up. At the same time, the position of Japan, clearly striving for hegemony in Southeast Asia, and more recently having allied relations with Britain, caused concern.
    Japan, in turn, sought to expand its sphere of influence at the expense of the Far Eastern colonies of European countries, and with a successful set of circumstances, the United States.
    It was in this tangle of cobra, rattlesnake and Japanese mummy that the appearance of the national cruisers of these three countries was born.
  15. Romka47 18 March 2020 15: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Thank you Roman hi I have been waiting for this article for a long time
  16. Looking for 18 March 2020 16: 55 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    "Naturally, these ships were considered heavy cruisers of the Washington class." Oil is oil. Author. What do you pay for the number of words? The Washington type of cruiser already implied armament of 203 mm. And only that which automatically classified the cruiser as heavy. Or maybe the author will give an example, at least one example of a “Washington class light cruiser” An absurd expression. Is it not so?
  17. Macsen_wledig 18 March 2020 18: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Seeker
    An absurd expression. Is not it?

    If anything, the Washington Treaty does not have the word “cruiser” at all. Especially the "heavy cruiser"
    Article XI
    No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers. Vessels not specifically built as fighting ships nor taken in time of peace under government control for fighting purposes, which are employed on fleet duties or as troop transports or in some other way for the purpose of assisting in the prosecution of hostilities otherwise than as fighting ships , shall not be within the limitations of this Article.

    Article XII
    No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers, hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a caliber in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres).


    The division of cruisers into caliber classes took place in the London Treaty
    Article 15
    For the purpose of this Part III the definition of the cruiser and destroyer categories shall be as follows:
    Cruisers
    Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships or aircraft carriers, the standard displacement of which exceeds 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm) gauge.
    The cruiser category is divided into two sub-categories, as follows:
    (a) Cruisers carrying a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) gauge;
    (b) Cruisers carrying a gun not above 6.1 inch (155 mm) caliber.
  18. Macsen_wledig 18 March 2020 18: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    It is important to note that in the 20s of the twentieth century, the possibility of a war between the USA and Great Britain on the Canadian border and, well, on the ocean expanses was seriously considered.

    Where can I read about it?
    1. Victor Leningradets 19 March 2020 10: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To familiarize yourself with the question about the Red Plan and, accordingly, Plan No. 1, you can read: https://sergpodzoro.livejournal.com/327510.html
      Sorry, a working link could not be inserted.
  19. Macsen_wledig 18 March 2020 18: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Saxahorse

    The only question arose about the reservation. All the same, the information flashed that the armor belt of 25 mm only Canberra received. The rest of the cities seemed to be more decent.

    A bit wrong.
    Initially, all “counties” had almost no booking for MKU - 25 mm did not count.
    In the 34th year, the British developed a project for the modernization of the "Kent", which, among other things, included the installation of a 114-mm armor belt, covering the compartments of the MKU and auxiliary mechanisms.
    "Canberra" was the only "county" of the 1st series not modernized ...
  20. Macsen_wledig 18 March 2020 18: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ABM
    I read it with pleasure. Straight, Marine collection from the Model Designer

    Not ... Until Volodya Kofman still grow and grow ...
  21. Macsen_wledig 18 March 2020 18: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    unsuitable for cruising service.

    And what do you mean by the term "cruising service"?
  22. Macsen_wledig 18 March 2020 19: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Rurikovich
    The Canberra was first awarded two torpedoes, and only then a portion of shells ...

    Interestingly, the British themselves thought so
    Twenty seven possibly more Direct Hits 5-inch possibly 5,5-inch mixed delay and direct action fuzed Shell

    Without torpedo hits ...
    1. Comrade 19 March 2020 05: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      Without torpedo hits.

      According to Dr. K. Clarke's "Remembering 1942: The Loss of HMAS Canberra," there is every reason to believe that the cruiser was hit on the starboard side of the torpedo of the American destroyer Bagley, trying to get into the Japanese, without taking into account the intricate maneuvering Canberra. "
      "There are good grounds for suspecting that she had been inadvertently struck on her starboard side by a torpedo fired by an American destroyer, Bagley, which was also attempting to engage the Japanese but had failed to take account of the evasive manoeuvres by Canberra. "
  23. Ryaruav 19 March 2020 10: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    cardboard booking, in the battle with Count spee, the main damage was caused by splinters of 283 mm German shells
  24. Macsen_wledig 19 March 2020 18: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    To familiarize yourself with the question about the Red Plan and, accordingly, Plan No. 1, you can read

    Thank. There is a question: to what extent was Britain proper, since Canada has been a de facto independent state since 1867.
  25. Macsen_wledig 19 March 2020 18: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Comrade
    According to Dr. K. Clarke's "Remembering 1942: The Loss of HMAS Canberra," there is every reason to believe that the cruiser was hit on the starboard side of the torpedo of the American destroyer Bagley, trying to get into the Japanese, without taking into account the intricate maneuvering Canberra. "

    There is such a version, however, official British sources like
    Battle Summary Number 21: Naval Operations at the Landings in Southern Solomon Islands
    or
    HM Ships Damaged or Sunk by Enemy Action 3rd Sept, 1939 to 2nd Sept, 1945.
    torpedo hits are not mentioned.
    How did not find them and Ballard.
    1. Comrade 20 March 2020 02: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      official british type sources
      Battle Summary Number 21: Naval Operations at the Landings in Southern Solomon Islands
      or
      HM Ships Damaged or Sunk by Enemy Action 3rd Sept, 1939 to 2nd Sept, 1945.
      torpedo hits are not mentioned.

      This issue needs further study. The Naval Histirical Society of Australia found information that
      "
      The battered Canberra was later sent to the bottom by 263 five-inch shells and at least five torpedoes.
      . "
      Why not assume that the sources you’re talking about are hit by enemy shells, and the site is about shells and torpedoes that the American destroyers finished off the cruiser after they removed the crew from it?
      There is a photo on the Internet in which there are two "Americans" next to the Canberra.
      I do not insist on anything, this is just my hypothesis, which can be either refuted or supported by information from American sources.

      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      How Ballard Did Not Find Them

      The ship rests on an even keel, the image clearly shows how much the cruiser hull plunged into silt.

      Could, under such circumstances, Ballard robots in principle detect a torpedo hole or holes, regardless of whether it (they) are there or not?
  26. Macsen_wledig 19 March 2020 18: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Ryaruav
    cardboard booking, in the battle with Count spee, the main damage was caused by splinters of 283 mm German shells

    Seven direct hits of semi-armor-piercing and armor-piercing shells at Exeter.
  27. tima_ga 19 March 2020 21: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is intelligible and interesting, I look forward to new articles. Thanks to the author more!
  28. Macsen_wledig 20 March 2020 19: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Comrade
    This issue needs further study.

    I completely agree, although taking into account the 80-year-old prescription of the issue, it is hardly possible to clarify something exactly.

    Quote: Comrade
    I do not insist on anything, this is just my hypothesis, which can be either refuted or supported by information from American sources.

    In the American "Battle experience Solomone islands actions" from March 1943 it says that "Canberra" still received a torpedo from the Japanese in KO. But, unfortunately, they do not write how they finished “Canberra”.
    In the Battle Summary, when describing the cruiser’s sinking, nothing was said about the shelling with EM, it was mentioned that Selfridge just fired a volley of 4 torpedoes with magnetic detonators: three went under the hull and did not explode, the fourth exploded under the stem. OK. 0700 cruiser sank

    Quote: Comrade
    Could, under such circumstances, Ballard robots in principle detect a torpedo hole or holes, regardless of whether it (they) are there or not?

    From finishing definitely not, from the “longlens” - had to: “spears” very well deformed the body.
    As for the Bagley torpedoes, I still think the question will remain open forever ...
    1. Comrade 21 March 2020 04: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      taking into account the 80-year-old question, it is unlikely that something can be clarified accurately.

      We will try.

      1) Found a mention of a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the death of the Canberra cruiser, carried out by a commission in Sydney. Based on a survey of crew members and verification of their testimonies, they concluded that there was no Japanese torpedo hit, and the roll of the ship, clearly visible in the photographs, was the result of a hit of an 8 '' armor-piercing projectile.

      In the American "Battle experience Solomone islands actions" from March 1943 it says that "Canberra" still received a torpedo from the Japanese in KO. But, unfortunately, they do not write how they finished “Canberra”.
      In the Battle Summary, nothing is said about the shelling of the cruiser about the shelling with EM

      2) Something I Found (The Battle of Savo Island August 9th, 1942 Strategical and Tactical Analysis).
      From the text it follows that the mention of two torpedo hits received by the Canberra cruiser has a basis. The cruiser really got two torpedoes - with Selfridge (DD-357) (did not find time) and with Ellet (DD-398) in 07:56 or a little later.

      0640. By this time, the CANBERRA's list had increased to about twenty degrees to starboard, and she was still fiercely on fire amidships.
      The PATTERSON and BLUE departed at about 0645 to Transport Area XRAY where they later delivered the CANBERRA's personnel to the BARNETT and the FULLER, respectively.
      Meanwhile, at 0640, the SELFRIDGE had arrived in the vicinity of the abandoned CANBERRA. At 0650, she received orders from CTF 62 to sink the CANBERRA. ** At 0710, she opened fire on the CANBERRA - expending 263 rounds of 5-inch common projectiles and four torpedoes. The number of shell hits made is not known, but one of the four torpedoes hit. The other three passed under the CANBERRA without exploding.
      At the time the SELFRIDGE was firing into the CANBERRA, the Commanding Officer, ELLET arrived in the area. Noting the SELFRIDGE firing, he concluded that the CANBERRA was a disabled Japanese cruiser, closed at full speed, and opened fire at 5000 yards, scoring several hits. However he was immediately informed by COMDESRON FOUR that his target was the CANBERRA. He therefore at 0743, ceased firing after expending 106 rounds of 5-inch ammunition.
      At 0747, as the CANBERRA had not sunk, COMDESRON FOUR directed the Ellet to complete the job. She then, at 0756, from close range, fired one torpedo into the starboard side of the CANBERRA under the bridge and observed the CANBERRA sink at 0800
  29. Macsen_wledig 21 March 2020 11: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Comrade
    2) Something I Found (The Battle of Savo Island August 9th, 1942 Strategical and Tactical Analysis).

    It's funny how British and American sources differ.
    It would seem allies, events in one place, a lot of witnesses ...

    Z.Y. I somehow forgot about the "Analysis". :) It's time to organize the "archive".
  30. Angelo Provolone April 9 2020 09: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Information is not enough.
    Zhukov tells more interestingly.
    many similar videos
  31. Arthur 85 5 June 2020 22: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But I’m wondering: now, the military mars with the EDB disappeared before Tsushima, radars appeared in the 30s to raise flag signals, probably, a bamboo fishing rod would be enough ... But what about the devil on the mast cruiser? Okay, one - for the "crow's nest", and why the second? Yes, three-legged? That was?