Warships. Cruisers. Such ambiguous heroes


Preface on the comments in the previous article.


Dear readers and understanding!

I am really pleased that you read and understand. And you criticize, without it nowhere, I agree. In the last article, about Duge-Truen, they pointed out to me that everything comes out somewhat randomly. I do not agree. You will understand everything, just look at the ships of even different countries in the complex. And today, here you will understand the connection between Duget-Truen, Exeter and Leander. She is. For our today's hero just budged from the light heavy Exeter project.


Next in line we have British light cruisers of the Leander type.

In Russian transcription, for some reason, the type was voiced as “Linder”, but if you look at the legends and myths of Ancient Greece, the character Λέανδρος in the translation was called Leander. There was such a waterfowl sexy maniac loser.

After the end of the First World War, having rested and sharing the fruits of victory, the British seriously thought about modernization fleet.

To say that Britain had a shortage of light cruisers is impossible. There were enough ships. However, after the First World War it became clear that cruisers such as the Danae and Caledon, of course, would still serve, the only question was how effective. Older pre-war buildings are sadness at all.

I repeat, the British had enough ships, it was not difficult to keep a colony in check. And therefore, for new projects, designers were planted only in 1928, when the curse of the Washington Sea Treaty had already collapsed onto the decks.


It is not surprising that Washington freaks, “light heavy” “Exeter” and “York” were taken as the basis. And on the basis of their projects, they created a new ship, a light cruiser, a series of which was traditionally named after mythological heroes.

By the way, if interested, check out history Leander himself. I would not be very willing to serve on such a ship ... "What do you call a yacht ..."

"Leander" built 5 units. Leander, Orion, Achilles, Ajax, and Neptune. With Neptune it is not entirely logical, it is still the Greek Poseidon in Roman mythology. And, by the way, the only one who didn’t go for needles, but died in a minefield. "Greeks" quite normally reached the regular dismantling for metal.


What is the Leander in the history of British ships? This is the beginning of a great and spectacular journey. The cruiser, which became the first ship of a really new type.

First of all, the Leander became the first cruisers of modern design with multi-barrel turret artillery of the main caliber and aviation weapons that were laid down in the project.


The main emphasis in the design of the Leander was not on the power of weapons or the achievement of a high speed, but on increasing seaworthiness and cruising range.

The designers sought to make the cruiser a stable artillery platform, and they succeeded. The Leander generally looked more like squadron escort and work cruisers as part of units consisting of ships of different classes.

And there was another installation from the Admiralty. Two new light cruisers had to successfully withstand any one (even heavy) enemy cruiser. By the way, during the war this approach was fully justified during operations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The British fleet, according to calculations made after the First World War, needed 75 cruisers. 45 for the protection of maritime routes of trade and supply, 15 for the defense of the shores of Britain itself, 15 for operations in the Pacific.


The empire, although it was still strong, but the sunset was already not far off. Especially in terms of finance. Therefore, the first steps in creating a new cruising fleet were “light heavy” cruisers of the “Exeter” type, which turned out to be even smaller than the pure “Washington” cruisers and “Leander”, which became reduced likenesses of the “Exeter”.

In general - cheaper and more.

It’s a paradox, but Leander was an ideal solution on the topic of “How to Get Out of the Washington Agreements”. He had almost everything he needed for a ship designed to perform tasks such as patrolling, escorting and guarding.

The British managed to increase the power of the power plant, to finalize the reservation and aircraft weapons.


The armor was supposed to protect against 120-mm shells of destroyers at a distance of more than 35 cable, and from 152 mm shells of cruisers and battleships - at distances from 50 to 80 cable.

For autonomy of actions on communications, a second aircraft was added and the catapult was strengthened under the Fairy IMF biplane reconnaissance biplane.

A novelty in the air defense systems was the 12,7-mm Vickers Mk.III anti-aircraft machine guns. It was assumed that 102-mm guns would provide long-range air defense against torpedo bombers and bombers, and machine guns would successfully work against attack aircraft and dive bombers.

TTX ships were as follows:

Displacement.
Standard: 6985-7270 t, full: 8904-9189 t.
Length 159,1 / 169 m. Width 16,8-17 m. Draft 5,8-6 m.

Engines 4 TZ Parsons, 72 liters with.
Speed ​​32,5 knots.
Cruising range 5 730 nautical miles at 13 knots.

Crew 570 man.

Armament.
Main caliber: 4 × 2 - 152 mm / 50 Mk XXIII.
Auxiliary caliber: 4 × 2 - 102 mm / 45.
Anti-aircraft artillery: 3 × 4 Vickers machine guns 12,7 mm.
Mine-torpedo armament: 2 × 4 533-mm torpedo tubes.
Aviation group: 1 catapult, 1 seaplane.

Booking:
- belt: 76 mm;
- traverses: 32 mm;
- deck: 32 mm;
- cellars: up to 89 mm;
- towers: 25 mm;
- Barbets: 25 mm.

Of course, with the outbreak of World War II, the composition of weapons began to change.


The Leander in June 1941 broke up with the catapult, instead of which a 40-mm quad anti-aircraft machine from Vickers was installed. Then the catapult was returned, but 5 20 mm guns from the Erlikon were shoved across the ship. In mid-1942, a radar was installed on the ship, and at the beginning of 1943 the catapult and aircraft equipment were finally dismantled, adding four more 20-mm Oerlikon machine guns to the ship’s air defense.

In 1942, the Achilles lost all 102-mm universal guns, but several 20-mm machine guns were temporarily replaced to replace them. But during the modernization of 1943-1944, the cruiser received a whole battery of air defense:

- 4 paired 102-mm universal installations;
- 4 four-barreled 40-mm anti-aircraft guns;
- 5 twin and 6 single 20 mm Oerlikon submachine guns.

Like the Leander, a catapult and a damaged main-caliber tower were dismantled, radar and fighter guidance equipment were installed.

In the spring of 1941, Neptune received three additional 12,7 mm four machine guns, three single 40 mm anti-aircraft guns and a radar.

"Orion" in August 1941, too, lost aviation weapons, and in early 1942 all 12,7-mm machine guns. Instead, 2 quad Vickers 40mm anti-aircraft guns, 7x20mm Oerlikon submachine guns and a radar were installed.

“Ajax” first survived the replacement of a catapult with a longer one, in 1940 received its radar for detecting air targets, and in May 1941 the catapult, beam cranes and aircraft were completely removed. Instead, they have traditionally delivered a quad 40 mm machine gun from Vickers. In February 1942, another quad 40 mm machine gun and 6 single 20 mm machine guns from Erlikon were installed.

Enough overall? Of course not. But it was definitely more than nothing. And for the outbreak of war, at the time of 1941, pretty sane.


Just a few more words about the case. The hull had a half-tank design with the so-called "trawler" bow and cruise stern. A distinctive feature of the silhouette, which gives it uniqueness, is a wide and high chimney.

The case was divided into 15 compartments. The cruiser had one continuous deck - the upper one. The main deck was interrupted in the area of ​​boiler rooms, and the lower in the area of ​​engine rooms. All decks were waterproof. The decking was wooden, hardwood varieties of teak. The British had never had any problems with hardwood. Throughout the entire length of the hull there was a double bottom, in the cellar area - a triple bottom.

The main power plant consisted of four Parsons turbo-gear units and six three-collector steam Admiralty type boilers. The power plant provided cruisers with a maximum speed of 32 knots. During testing in December 1932, the Leander showed 32,45 knots. The power plants of the cruisers of the series have proven reliable and unpretentious in operation.

In general, the Leander became the last British cruisers to have a traditional linear layout of the power plant.


Cruising range was 5730 miles with a 13-knot course, 5100 miles with a 20-knot course, 30 miles could pass at a speed of 1910 knots of the cruiser. Some directories provide the cruising range of the cruisers of the series of 10 miles with a 300-nodal stroke.

The crew consisted of 570 sailors, but in wartime, mainly due to air defense calculations, the number was increased and reached 767 people on Neptune.

The ship reservation was an exact copy of the Exeter reservation scheme. The difference was in the thickness of the individual booking sections. There was no constructive anti-torpedo protection. The total weight of the Leander’s head armor was 871 tons (11,7% of the displacement), and for subsequent ships it increased to 882 tons.

The main caliber was represented by eight 152 mm BL 6 Mk XXIII guns mounted in four two-gun Mk XXI towers.

Warships. Cruisers. Such ambiguous heroes

All eight guns could participate in the airborne salvo, the elevation angle was 60 °, and the declination angle was -5 °.


The rate of fire of the guns was 8 rounds per minute (the figure is quite real), and the firing range was 22 m.

Ammunition consisted of 200 shells per gun. The shells were of two types, equally: semi-armor-piercing with a ballistic cap and high-explosive.


Anti-aircraft, and, by the way, universal artillery consisted of four 102-mm Mk V rapid-fire guns, which were mounted in single installations without shields on a platform around the chimney. These guns could be used against aircraft at an altitude of 8,5 km or against surface targets at a distance of 15 km. During modernization, these guns were replaced by four twin units of the same caliber of the Mk XVI guns.

About Vickers anti-aircraft machine guns, or nothing, or ... In general, the 13,2 mm quad mount did not show anything. Efficiency was close to zero, since the rate of fire left much to be desired.

The torpedo weapons were two four-tube torpedo 533-mm QR Mk VII vehicles. The ships had one apparatus for dropping depth charges and 15 depth charges Mk.VII.

Aviation weapons were. Dot. It was not for long, since one plane is not so much. At first, the ships received the Fairy Sea Fox, which were later replaced by the Valrus Supermarine. In general, these aircraft were too much about anything.


True, Ajax really successfully used its aircraft to adjust the shooting, but this was more likely the exception than the rule. And the appearance of radars in general completely destroyed seaplanes, as a class of weapons of ships. Therefore, from many cruisers, aircraft equipment was dismantled as unnecessary.


Churchill on Ajax

How did you fight? In general, like all British cruisers of that period. Engaged in everything and everywhere. Some were more fortunate, others less.


Leander. Probably lucky. On April 30, 1937, the cruiser was handed over to the New Zealand Navy. He participated in the defense of convoys in the Indian Ocean, and then as a part of allied forces ended up in the Mediterranean Sea. February 27, 1941 sank the Italian auxiliary cruiser "Ramb I". After it was again thrown to the east, and on July 13, 1943 in a battle near Fr. Kolombangara received a 610-mm torpedo from one of the Japanese destroyers.

The crew defended the ship, but a fat cross was put on combat readiness, and the Leander went for repairs, in which it stood until May 1944. After the repair, it was returned to the British Navy, was used as a training ship, and eventually ended his career on December 15, 1949, when it was sold for scrap.


"Achilles". The longest-living cruiser of this type. March 31, 1936 transferred to the New Zealand Navy. He participated in the battle at La Plata, where he received injuries that healed for more than two months. He further participated in the protection of communications in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. September 12, 1946 returned to the British Navy.

On July 5, 1948, the Achilles was transferred to the Indian Navy. The Hindus renamed the cruiser “Delhi”, and right up until 1957 the ship was the flagship of the Indian Navy. June 30, 1978 expelled from the fleet and sold for scrap.

"Neptune". He participated in the fighting in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Mediterranean Sea. June 28, 1940 co-authored the destruction of the Italian destroyer Espero. He died on December 19, 1941 in the Tripoli region as a result of a sea mine explosion. 766 crew members were killed.

"Orion". The main actions of the cruiser fell on the Mediterranean Sea. On June 28, 1940, along with Neptune, the Italian destroyer Espero was sunk. He participated in the battle at Cape Matapan, in the Cretan campaign. On May 29, 1941, it was badly damaged by the Luftwaffe dive bombers in the region of the island of Crete. Got two hits of 250 kg bombs spent almost a year in repair. Participated in Operation Overlord. Sold for scrap July 19, 1949.


Ajax. The most effective and perhaps the most famous ship of this type. He worked in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. A participant in the battle of La Plata, where he served as a target for artillery raiders "Admiral Count Spee." But it survived, even though the Germans finished it for half a year of repair.

On October 12, 1940, near the Cape Passero, a group of Italian ships (4 destroyers and 3 destroyers) attacked the Ajax. The British did not immediately find the Italian squad, or rather, they found it already when the shells of the destroyers were pounding the cruiser’s hull.

But the Ajax crew decided to accept the battle and coped with this task just fine. The calculations fired about 500 main-caliber shells and four torpedoes.

As a result, two destroyers of the Spika, Ariel, and Airone types went down. Then the British caught the courage butchered the destroyer Avieri, to which the shells turned the bow so far that the ship miraculously was able to return to the base. Dodging the torpedoes of the Italians, the Ajax further engaged in the destroyer Artillery, which he also very much picked up. Killed most of the crew and the commander of the flotilla captain Carlo Margottini. They tried to drag the Artillery in tow, but the next day the York cruiser came across the destroyer, which simply finished off the Italian ship with a torpedo.

This is not to say that the Italians could not do anything with the cruiser, but actually, they could have fought better. The destroyed radar, without which, I note, the British could easily do, and the destroyed bridge is not at all the price for three destroyed ships. Moreover, the repair of Ajax lasted only a month.

Further, the cruiser participated in the battle at Cape Matapan, in the Cretan campaign, in the campaign in Syria. There, on 1.01.1943/500/8, hot guys from the Luftwaffe treated the cruiser with a 1949 kg bomb, and the ship went on repair for a year. After the repair, Operation Overlord just arrived. November XNUMX, XNUMX sold for scrap.

In general, the life of the ships (except for Neptune) was a success. With special effects, as befits British warships.

In general, combat work can only be evaluated positively. Two sunken Italian destroyers, two destroyers, brought to the self-propelled heavy cruiser "Admiral Count Spee" - it seems to me. "Leandra" paid off with interest.

How can I evaluate the project?


In general, the Leander proved to be very decent ships on the one hand, but not as universal as the British would like. For the squadron service, they turned out to be somewhat large, for the leadership of the destroyers there was not enough speed and maneuverability, for operations in the ocean there was not enough sailing range.

There wasn’t (obviously) a displacement to install modernizations, additional systems and air defense barrels, which is why I had to constantly unscrew something from the ships.

On the other hand, French cruisers such as the Duguet-Truen, an article about which came out before this and aroused the righteous anger of readers, and the Italian Condottieri could not compare with the British.

With equality in the main caliber artillery, Italians and French were significantly inferior in booking, cruising range and seaworthiness. Perhaps the British air defense was stronger. And the speed of Italian ships, which became a visiting card, could not always be useful.

Even the German K-type cruisers that appeared later in time (and the Nuremberg too) had weaker armor and a lower range.


I note that in the conditions of the Mediterranean the sailing range was not particularly important, as well as seaworthiness, because the closed Mediterranean Sea is not the Sulawesi Sea or the Java Sea, is it?

But when we are talking about Japanese light cruisers such as the Kuma or Nagara, then we will compare them with the Leander, although they have not been seen at all.

If you look closely, then, despite the fact that the Leander didn’t turn out the way the Admiralty wanted to see them, the cruisers just turned out. These were really good ships, which their track record only confirms.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NF68 April 10 2020 18: 25 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    Novel. Where did this article come from?
    1. Alexey RA April 10 2020 20: 16 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      Quote: NF68
      Novel. Where did this article come from?

      Good question.
      Here is the article:
      On the other hand, French cruisers such as the Duguet-Truen, an article about which came out before this and aroused the righteous anger of readers, and the Italian Condottieri could not compare with the British.
      With equality in the main caliber artillery, Italians and French were significantly inferior in booking, cruising range and seaworthiness. Perhaps the British air defense was stronger. And the speed of Italian ships, which became a visiting card, could not always be useful.
      Even the German K-type cruisers that appeared later in time (and the Nuremberg too) had weaker armor and a lower range.

      And here is a quote from Patyanin’s work on “Linders” (chapter “General assessment of the project”):
      The French cruisers of the Duge-Truen type or the Italian Condottieri of the early series, while being equal in main artillery, were significantly inferior in armor, air defense, cruising range and seaworthiness, although on paper they had superior speed (not easily implemented in practice, as showed a sad example of "Colleoni"). The German light cruisers, starting with the K type and ending with the Nuremberg, were less protected, had less effective anti-aircraft long-range artillery and a shorter range.
      1. ser56 April 11 2020 20: 48 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        think plagiarism?
        1. NF68 April 12 2020 16: 53 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: ser56
          think plagiarism?


          It would be surprising if Roman had no plagiarism.
        2. Alexey RA April 14 2020 10: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: ser56
          think plagiarism?

  2. gabonskijfront April 10 2020 18: 33 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    I got acquainted with the story of Leander, I completely disagree with his characterization as “a sex maniac-loser.” At a certain age, when toastosterone went through the roof, I did monstrous things on the 9th floor on the balconies or riding between the wagons of the goodsman, easily, but it all depended only on me. And this was set up by his beloved sheep.
    1. Gato April 10 2020 18: 58 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      when the toastosterone went off scale, I did monstrous things on the 9th floor on the balconies or riding between the wagons of the goods

      No, the myth does not pull no Maximum - for police report
      1. mmaxx April 10 2020 19: 22 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        For the Greeks, all myths are pulled by a heavy household routine. Why are these children fooled? God forbid to dig.
        And nobody climbed to the 9th floor. Is only one person tore the lion's mouth.
        1. Gato April 10 2020 19: 28 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          one man tore the mouth of a lion

          Swam, we know (C). I saw in Kiev a sculptural composition, so to speak, based on motives. Only there Samson was blurt out from the Podolsk dentist:
          1. dumkopff April 11 2020 11: 41 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Samson is from the Jewish epic aka the Old Testament. The Greeks had Hercules.
          2. Arthur 85 April 11 2020 16: 16 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            On the contrary, there is the Samson shopping center, and the Kontraktovaya Ploshchad metro station (it can be seen that there was a bazaar, or an exchange). So in this subway were hanging advertising signs of this center, with Samson tearing the mouth of a lion, and the signature "waiting for you", or "we are glad to see you." I don’t remember, it was a long time ago. So neighing that even people began to shy.
  3. Rurikovich April 10 2020 19: 17 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    hi
    Criticism is criticism, but I personally criticized the general approach to describing the cycle. You can describe the logical development of the cruisers of one country, you can describe the development of a particular class in all countries based on a timeline. You can describe the ships of two warring countries hypothetically opposing each other in the same theater of war. Then the design decisions used to bring the performance characteristics of their ships in line with the needs of the admirals become clear.
    But what we see. More or less, we saw the development lines of Italian and Japanese heavy cruisers, began to watch English. But for some reason, it wasn’t until the end. (I wrote about this in my commentary on the article about Duguet-Truen).
    Now the author generally spread to the light cruisers, and even with an awesome time span for the described ships
    With equality in the main caliber artillery, Italians and French were significantly inferior in booking, sailing range and seaworthiness.

    The novel, Duguet-Truen, was founded in the 22nd year, Linder in the 30th! This is a whole generation for the fleet in development! And do not forget that the paddles measured something with pasta on the Mediterranean, and the British created their ships, rather as universal ones, for actions wherever the sun shines for their empire. Therefore, if we compare the British, then only with those who could hypothetically meet on their way. Now, if you described the confrontation between France and Italy, then it would become clear why the first custodians came out like this.
    Even the German K-type cruisers that appeared later in time (and the Nuremberg too) had weaker armor and a lower range.

    Roman, but didn’t you forget that the Germans had a limit of 6000 tons for displacement for light cruisers? But the Germans initially planned to meet with their opponents in the North Sea - the British, because of their weather conditions. But even the fact that they managed to shove 9 (!) 150mm guns into such a limitation, and even book 50 mm of armor makes them honor yes Yes, and their belt extended to 70% of the length of the body, and not only in the area of ​​the CTO, as the British. So not everything is so simple in such comparisons.
    So comparing the performance characteristics of various ships of the same class, it is worth remembering about:
    1. The tasks for which this or that cruiser is being designed
    2. Hypothetical opponents for this ship, which were considered during the design
    3. The amount of iron that the created should fit into.
    And if, personally, I’ll admit to the descriptions of one or another ship there are few nit-picking, and in the case, then the cycle still raises questions, and after today there are even more questions. request
    The material on "Linder" is set off, but there will be criticism, because so far there is no obvious logic ....
    C y hi smile
    1. Saxahorse April 10 2020 23: 35 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But even the fact that they managed to shove 9 (!) 150mm guns into such a restriction, and even book 50 mm of armor makes them honor. And their belt extended to 70% of the length of the hull, and not only in the KTO area, like the English.

      I want to draw the attention of the respected Rurikovich that armor 50 mm thick is designed to protect a maximum of 100-105 mm guns. Well, or from 120 mm but very far away. The minimum protection from 6 "is 76 mm. And also of course from afar. :)

      It is easy to see that the Germans counted their NRL type KRL only on protection from destroyers and other trifles, unlike the British with their Linders. Although I personally really like this series of German light cruisers. :)
      1. Rurikovich April 11 2020 08: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The Germans sacrificed protection for the sake of armament, because all the same 6000 tons. request
        Booking Karlsruhe
        The board covered itself with a 50 mm belt, starting in front of the bow and ending behind the aft towers. Behind the belt there was a 15-mm anti-fragmentation bulkhead, from which a 10-mm bevel went down. From the bow and stern the belt was closed with 70-mm traverses. In the middle of the belt but at a height a flat 20-mm armored deck rested. Over the cellars, its thickness increased to 40 mm. The barbets of the main-caliber towers and the frontal part of the towers were 30 mm thick, the roof and side armor were 20 mm. Conning tower: frontal reservation 100 mm, side 50 mm, roof 30 mm.

        The thickness of the cruiser’s side armor belt was 70 mm (maximum), the thickness of the armored deck was 20 mm, and the thickness of the armored deck was 40 mm above the main caliber ammunition.

        Moreover, the next Leipzig and Nuremberg already received a belt installed with an outward inclination of 18 degrees, which at the estimated distance of battle in the conditions of the North Sea increased projectile resistance.
        And in total with the bevels of the deck the same "Nuremberg" received the same 75 mm - 50 mm + 25 bevels

        hi
        1. Saxahorse April 11 2020 23: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          And in total with the bevels of the deck the same "Nuremberg" received the same 75 mm - 50 mm + 25 bevels

          Alas, booking 50 + 25 is still not 75 homogeneous armor. An example of this is the same Spee (since the beauties of Ajax and Achilles were remembered). Having in theory 100 + 40 mm side, Spee got through penetration with the first hit of 203 mm Exeter shell. Although in theory it should hold.

          Although of course there is a version that in fact Spee had exactly the same board as the other Deutschlands, 50-80 mm, and supposedly reinforced to 100 mm, he only became in the statements of the German press. Then it’s understandable why 8 "is right through him ..
          1. Rurikovich April 12 2020 09: 40 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            As far as I know, in theory, the thickness of the armor should correspond to the caliber of the GK guns wink Therefore, the theory is that an armor-piercing projectile with a caliber of 203 mm should pierce anything thinner than 203 mm what Because it is not surprising that a 203 mm shell pierced 100 mm of armor request
            An indirect confirmation of this point of view is the recollection of the artillery officer "Admiral Graf Spee" Razenac about the battle of La Plata. He writes that the Exeter shell pierced 140 mm of armor and exploded on the armored deck, which just corresponds to the 100 mm belt and the 40 mm upper bulkhead.

            In total, the projectile generally pierced 140mm of armor. There are differences in the thickness of the German armor. Some write that the belt was 80 mm, others - that 100 mm. But if we take into account the fact that the displacement of "Count Spee" was 1700 tons more than the displacement of "Deutschland", then recent German historians are inclined to believe that the thickness of the side armor was still 100 mm. Moreover, the total weight of the armor on the “Deutschland” was 700 tons, but on the “Spee graph” it is already 3000 tons, 25% of the displacement.
            Although it was a spit 203 mm shell.
            in booking 50 + 25 it is still not 75 homogeneous armor.

            I do not agree. the whole point is WHAT they will shoot at you. If you are armor-piercing, then there is no difference, homogeneous armor or spaced. A high-explosive shell gets a solid barrier. Why did the Germans get carried away by diffused defenses? Because they understood that the fragments and products of the projectile explosion constituted a danger to the interior. So if you can’t put adequate protection on the ship against armor-piercing shells due to displacement restrictions, it makes sense to protect the ship from at least high-explosive ones. Because on the Germans the total area of ​​protection is much larger than on the British "comrades", who have a short continuous belt only against the CTO, and box-shaped protection of the cellars. Therefore, a high-explosive shell (albeit a large caliber, but a high-explosive one) practically disabled the Exeter with its fragments.
            Therefore, it didn’t matter what kind of armor stood in the way of a 203 mm armor-piercing projectile in a battle near La Plata - he would have shot it anyway.
            But the protection of the same “Nuremberg” against 120-152 mm HEs increased the likelihood of survival due to the larger booking area hi
            1. Macsen_wledig April 12 2020 14: 59 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Rurikovich
              But the protection of the same “Nuremberg” against 120-152 mm HEs increased the likelihood of survival due to the larger booking area

              In general, the Germans after shooting armor Wh shells 15 cm Spgr. L / 4,5 Kz (m.Hb) found that 50-mm armor at distances above 5 km with a land mine simply does not break through.
              1. Saxahorse April 12 2020 22: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                In general, the Germans after shooting armor Wh shells 15 cm Spgr. L / 4,5 Kz (m.Hb) found that 50-mm armor at distances above 5 km with a land mine simply does not break through.

                Very interesting and I would like an adequate link in confirmation!

                Since it was the Germans, according to the results of the WWII, who claimed that the minimum penetration of a shell was about half the caliber. Which is very similar to the truth both in the available penetration tables and in the design of ships with a 76 mm belt as minimally sufficient against 6 "shells.
                1. Macsen_wledig April 12 2020 22: 19 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Very interesting and I would like an adequate link in confirmation!

                  Page from Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschosswahl. Heft a - Textband


                  Rissfrei - "no cracks."
                  1. Saxahorse April 12 2020 22: 26 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And ?? In which column do you need to see the answer?
                    1. Macsen_wledig April 12 2020 22: 39 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      In the cap horizontally - the thickness of the armor ...
                      Left speed - shells at a distance
                      Actually, you can see that at a distance of 64 hectometers 50 mm Wh is no longer breaking through a 150 mm landmine. At a distance of 45 gm, a landmine can break a 300 mm hole. If we compare the data on 40 mm and 60 mm armor, then it turns out that a 50 mm plate ceases to break through at a distance of 50-55 hectometers.
                      1. Saxahorse April 13 2020 23: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        If we compare the data on 40 mm and 60 mm armor, then it turns out that a 50 mm plate ceases to break through at a distance of 50-55 hectometers.

                        This plate is rather aimed at indicating the size of the breach and not at all on the assessment of the resistance of the armor from a distance. Note that the 76 mm plate in this plate is considered unavailable at all.

                        But in Linder there were not only landmines, but also semi-armor-piercing. Specifically for them 6 "/ 50 (15.2 cm) BL, breaking through with CPC for 12,500 yards (11,430 m) - 3" (76 mm). And at the distance you mentioned, 7,500 yards (6,860 m) - 3.5 in (89 mm).

                        As you can see, the British, their beloved Common, calmly pierce not only the Nuremberg, but also the Deutschlands with their traverses of 60 mm and dubious sides.
                      2. Macsen_wledig April 14 2020 18: 41 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Note that the 76 mm plate in this plate is considered unavailable at all.

                        What's the problem? The Germans built this table according to the results of field shooting of armored plates ...

                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        But in Linder there were not only landmines, but also semi-armor-piercing.

                        And who is arguing? The conversation was about breaking through a land mine. :)
                      3. Saxahorse April 14 2020 21: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        And who is arguing? The conversation was about breaking through a land mine. :)

                        They convinced :) Apparently there were also shells that could not penetrate 6400 mm of armor at 50 meters. :)
        2. Saxahorse April 12 2020 22: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          As far as I know, in theory, the thickness of the armor should correspond to the caliber of the GK guns

          As far as I remember, the same Germans spoke of half a caliber as the minimum penetration of any projectile. Remember the classics? "shrapnel to strike" as armor-piercing. And it really works. By the way, modern anti-tank mines with an "impact core" are designed on the same principle.

          Quote: Rurikovich
          . There are differences in the thickness of the German armor. Some write that the belt was 80 mm, others - that 100 mm.

          The problem is that the increase in armor announced in the press is not confirmed by the drawings. No roofing felts of actual drawings were found, roofing felts so it was an empty word and remained. In general, the real thickness of the Spee armor is documented, for some reason it is not confirmed. All info from Berlin newspapers.

          Quote: Rurikovich
          WHAT they will shoot at you. If armor-piercing, then there is no difference, homogeneous armor or spaced. A high-explosive shell gets a solid barrier.

          Again, very controversial. A solid barrier of spaced armor is obtained if the shell is purely high explosive with an instant fuse. On the first obstacle, the fuse fires and then the second armor catches the fragments working as anti-torpedo protection.

          However, many, when firing at armored ships, use a fuse with a slowdown. And the British with their half-armor-piercing shell for all occasions definitely used such a fuse. Well, Exeter did shoot at the "pocket battleship" with armor piercing. In any case, I remember so.
          1. Macsen_wledig April 12 2020 22: 30 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Saxahorse
            The problem is that the increase in armor announced in the press is not confirmed by the drawings. No roofing felts of actual drawings were found, roofing felts so it was an empty word and remained. In general, the real thickness of the Spee armor is documented, for some reason it is not confirmed. All info from Berlin newspapers.

            Whitley in his work on German LC claims about 100 mm.
            Breyer generally draws 80 mm across the entire height, to the upper deck.
            If you compare the photos of all three, I would still be inclined to 100 mm.
            1. Rurikovich April 12 2020 23: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              If you compare the photos of all three, I would still be inclined to 100 mm.

              By the way, I do too. This is evidenced by a decent increase in the total weight of the “Count Spee” armor from the entire series (see above)
              1. Saxahorse April 13 2020 23: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Rurikovich
                This is evidenced by a decent increase in the total weight of the “Count Spee” armor from the entire series (see above)

                There is a slippery moment. There is a feeling that 100 mm were invented just from this, supposedly increasing the weight of the armor. But it was not clear how it was distributed and how. Why, for example, when talking about 100 mm of side armor, the traverses indicate the same 60 mm, although this is clearly not enough against 6 "?

                Again, the Deutschland armor was variable in length 50-80 and Spee did not explain this point in any way, although it would not have been possible to simply hang thousands of tons at the end without making changes to the power elements. In general, something has been changed there, and what exactly is not clear. Not the fact that it is the armor.
                1. Macsen_wledig April 14 2020 18: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Why, for example, when talking about 100 mm of side armor, the crossbars indicate the same 60 mm, although this is clearly not enough against 6 "?

                  "Pickpockets" are generally atypical for the Germans ships and booking them is strange.
                  In fact, before reaching the traverse, the projectile still has to pierce the 20 mm Wh of the nose section of the belt.

                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Again, the Deutschlands armor was variable in length 50-80

                  The belt at “Deutschland” and “Sheer” was variable in height.
                  In "Deutschland" the top row of plates had a thickness of 80 mm, the bottom - 50 mm
                  The “Sheer” - on the contrary: the upper one was 50 mm thick, the lower one was 80 mm thick.

                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  In general, something has been changed there, and what exactly is not clear. Not the fact that it is the armor.

                  Armor. This is clearly visible in the photo.
          2. Rurikovich April 12 2020 23: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Saxahorse
            However, many, when firing at armored ships, use a fuse with a slowdown

            Such shells, by the way, crawled out to the side of the Japanese in the battle with the South Dakota, when their high-explosive cruiser shells with a delay simply flashed unarmored battleship add-ons to take off, minimizing overall damage. than through holes in add-ons.
            The same example is illustrative in the battle of La Plata.
            The British throughout the battle used only armor-piercing shells with a slowdown type SRVS (Common Pointed, Ballistic Cap - semi-armor-piercing, with a light tip to improve ballistics), with the exception of a few high-explosive (NOT). If for the 8-inch caliber this choice had a certain sense (which confirmed one of the hits), then in the case of 6-inch it would be much better to use 51-kg HE shells without slowing down. Most of the shells, without significant damage passing through the voluminous “tower” and the superstructure in the middle of the hull, would have caused fires, the failure of almost unarmored 150-mm and 105-mm guns and, most importantly, numerous communication cables. As will be noted, even a small concussion from unexploded ordnance led to rather unpleasant consequences; in the event of a full blast, the situation for the Germans could be much worse. The key to the British’s irrational behavior lies in the fact that at the beginning of the war they practically did not have high-explosive shells of instant action in the ammunition, which turned out to be in the hands of the raider.

            The same is true for the Germans. They were armed with armor-piercing, high-explosive with slowdown and high-explosive with instant action 283-mm shells. And if a high-explosive with deceleration flashed the Exeter forecastle through without a break, then the usual high-explosive that hit the bow of an elevated tower caused the greatest damage. So it's not so simple smile hi
  • mmaxx April 10 2020 19: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In St. Petersburg, the TsVMM has the Linder model. Does anyone know how she got there? He was presented to our delegation. The British offered to build us such a cruiser?
    I will call it traditionally. Like in English. How these Greek names are truly read is generally a question. And the cruiser is named by the English in English: "Orion" - "Orion", "Achilles" - "Akilez"
  • Gato April 10 2020 19: 21 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I would not be very willing to serve on such a ship ... "What do you call a yacht ..."

    The British generally with the names of the ships were big entertainers. For example, HMS Zubian:
    The ship was built in a very unusual way, namely by connecting heavily damaged hulls of two other destroyers of the same type - “Zulu” (Zulus), which lost stern near Dunkirk as a result of a mine explosion on November 8, 1916, and “Nubian” (Nubian), torpedoed by a German destroyer on the night of October 26-27 of the same year in a battle near Folkston.
    (C) Pedivicia
    It is interesting what the ship received in a similar way from, for example, HMS Hermione and HMS Aphrodite would be called repeat
    1. Kostya Lavinyukov April 10 2020 23: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Can you throw off any information about this fight?
  • Macsen_wledig April 10 2020 19: 42 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    It’s a paradox, but Leander was an ideal solution on the topic of “How to Get Out of the Washington Agreements”.

    From London ... From London.

    The casing had a half-barrel design with called a "trawler" nose and cruising stern.

    If you want to know what the "trawler nose" looks like on a cruiser, look here



    Even the German K-type cruisers that appeared later in time (and the Nuremberg too) had weaker armor and a lower range.

    An extra 1000 tons of standard displacement is an extra 1000 tons ...

    But when we are talking about Japanese light cruisers such as the Kuma or Nagara, then we will compare them with the Leander, although they have not been seen at all.

    But nothing that generations are a little different ...

    Threat. And why amphions are not described?
    1. unknown April 12 2020 07: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The problem of the German light cruisers was seaworthiness. More precisely, its complete absence.
      And not to say that the matter is insufficient displacement. The British believed that the minimum displacement of the cruiser for action in the ocean should not be lower than 6000 tons. You can’t recall our armored cruiser RJV, and the positive ratings that they deserved from the Japanese.
      The British, in a slightly smaller displacement, built a series of cruisers such as the Arethusa. With seaworthiness there were no problems. Armament, but weaker. Six 6 "in three towers. But, on the basis of this type, they built the Argentina cruiser for Argentina. They increased the standard displacement to 6500 tons. The Germans have the same displacement. They increased their armament to nine 6". There were no problems with seaworthiness.
      I already read somewhere that the Germans allegedly lost the ability to design ships.
      They didn’t lose anything. In practice, ships of all classes of the Germans were notable for insufficient seaworthiness. They designed ships for operation in the North Sea. Therefore, the Germans were not able to design ships for operations in the oceans.
      1. Macsen_wledig April 12 2020 14: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The problem of the German light cruisers was seaworthiness. More precisely, its complete absence.

        The problem of KRL was not seaworthiness, but the initial weakness of the hull, the design of which was sacrificed to strengthen armament ...
        For this reason, the Germans conceived a large-scale modernization of the KRL type K, which only Karlsruhe managed to pass before WWII.
  • Alexey RA April 10 2020 20: 13 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The Leander generally looked more like squadron escort and work cruisers as part of units consisting of ships of different classes.

    And what else should he be, if the design of the new RRL RN began from TK to squadron cruiser?
    At the beginning of 1928, the Naval Planning Committee, under the leadership of the First Sea Lord, Admiral C. Madden, began to develop the so-called "cruising policy." With a significant number of ships of this class, the Royal Navy lacked modern light cruisers suitable for squadron service. According to existing views, 22-knots. the fleet needed a reconnaissance capable of developing 30,5 knots. at full load and having good maneuverability for leading destroyers. Analysis of the use of ships of the types “Town”, “Aretyusa”, “C” and “D” showed that to provide 27-knots. at a speed of 4–5 point waves, a displacement of at least 6000 tons is needed. The proposal to increase it to 8000 tons was rejected, because the Admiralty did not want to provoke other countries to build such large light cruisers.
    © S.V.Patyanin. Cruisers of the Linder and Sydney type.
  • Bormanxnumx April 10 2020 21: 54 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3

    About Vickers anti-aircraft machine guns, or nothing, or ... In general, the 13,2 mm quad mount did not show anything. Efficiency was close to zero, since the rate of fire left much to be desired.

    There were four Vickers .50 Mark llls, 12.7mm caliber. The novel, in the pursuit of ornate phrases, "buries" the technical component of the articles.
  • 27091965 April 10 2020 22: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s a paradox, but Leander was an ideal solution on the topic of “How to Get Out of the Washington Agreements”. He had almost everything he needed for a ship designed to perform tasks such as patrolling, escorting and guarding.


    Each country had its own opinion on this matter, in the USA they worked out such a cruiser with a displacement of 7000-8000 tons, with an armored belt of 102 mm and 8 guns. They came to the conclusion that for tasks in the American sense that they define a cruiser with 152 mm guns, it is not suitable.
  • Saxahorse April 10 2020 23: 43 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    I liked the article very much. Good ships, good old days. Names of ships well known in WWII battles. Tube such an article turned out. It was really nice to read. Thanks to the author!

    I would only like to wish the author to refrain from trying to introduce his own, invented names instead of the generally accepted ones in Russian. I'm certainly talking about “Leander” :) The names Ajax or Achilles are well known to almost everyone, but the word “Leander” evokes associations at best with some kind of house plant :) Well, Russians do not know such a Greek hero (and thank God).

    Well, and besides, everyone who is looking for information on cruisers like "Linder" in Google will not find this article. It's a pity.
  • Clone April 11 2020 01: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But in vain the artillery cruisers were expelled from circulation ... however, like the battleships. In certain conditions and at certain distances. Purely into space ... this is from the position of a land amateur. Well, I like battleships ... repeat
    1. Arthur 85 April 11 2020 18: 42 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Yeah. Also like an amateur. As I understand it, the fleet’s task is to provide the army’s flank from the sea ... with a 127 mm cannon? Or a million dollar rockets? Or air defense as many as 96 missiles on Orlan, about the rest there is nothing to remember? Or having landed a dozen light tanks of this army for destruction? Well, only aircraft carriers can still do something, but their “stripped-down” planes in battle with a normal aviation regiment have a bit of a coat ...
      1. Usher April 11 2020 19: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The fleet's task is to prevent landing on its territory. The basis of the world's economy, shipping, respectively, to drown merchant ships and protect their ships. Also seek and destroy in case of war enemy ballistic missile launchers and protect your own.
        1. Arthur 85 April 11 2020 21: 40 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Here you have to write an entire article in response. Well, landing, if you do not consider the seizure of particularly important objects (which do not need to be built on the shore), these are suicide bombers. The basis of the modern, not very smart division of labor is actually shipping. But this is not critical. I think that once every 20 can be reduced, with a reasonable organization. Closing countries and protectionism will lead to this. Ballistic missile launchers - submarines - generally make sense only when they dominate the water area. As I wrote somewhere: either the Caspian Sea or this costly stupidity should be left to the USA - they have a lot of money.
          1. Usher April 12 2020 09: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Ballistic missile launchers - submarines - generally make sense only when dominating in the water area

            That is, you want to say that the SSBNs are not needed? Maybe you think that nuclear weapons are not needed? And do you think the USA has absolute dominance at sea and there are no places in the oceans where the SSBNs could hide?
            1. ser56 April 12 2020 14: 39 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: Usher
              That is, you want to say that the SSBNs are not needed

              yes, from about the time of 667BDR, when they began to put de facto intercontinental missiles ... request
              Quote: Usher
              Maybe you think that nuclear weapons are not needed?

              But for you, SSBNs are the only carriers of nuclear warheads?

              Quote: Usher
              Do you think the United States has absolute dominance at sea and there are no places in the oceans where the SSBNs could hide?

              this has already been discussed in articles earlier - if you do not cover the positions of your SSBNs - then you have no guarantee that they will not be destroyed ... request
              1. Usher April 14 2020 04: 12 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I ask again the SSBNs are not needed? And what is the main advantage of the SSBN over other nuclear weapons carriers?
                1. ser56 April 14 2020 13: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Usher
                  I ask again the SSBNs are not needed?

                  not needed for 3 reasons:
                  1) roads
                  2) are uncontrollably vulnerable on the BS, and the moment of preparation for the volley is easily recorded,
                  3) require the diversion of the forces of the fleet to protect them, i.e. the fleet obviously goes over to the defense
                  1. Usher April 14 2020 16: 41 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Are you seriously? Which roads? The whole strength of the SSBN is in stealth. How is it registered? Fifth point? You are the only one so smart, and everyone in the world is stupid and continues to build SSBNs. That’s what they said about guns on planes, that’s what they say and they say about tanks. But only reality alone, and wishful thinking, is a disease, not opinion or criticism. You are rowing in a pile, a surface fleet is needed for defense, and not for aggression.
                    1. Arthur 85 April 14 2020 17: 28 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And they said so about battleships, before the Second World War ... That is, on the contrary, they did not speak. And they said that they were the main striking force of the fleets. After all, hundreds of admirals and many general staffs could not be mistaken? ... By the way, what is the sacred meaning of the gun on the fighter?
                      1. ser56 April 14 2020 17: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Arthur 85
                        After all, hundreds of admirals and many general staffs could not be mistaken?

                        generals and admirals are preparing for the past war ... request
                    2. ser56 April 14 2020 17: 37 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Usher
                      Are you seriously?

                      absolutely!
                      Quote: Usher
                      Which roads?

                      project 955, add the contents of the infrastructure (port, arsenals, supply vessels, subsequent disposal of the reactor compartment, etc.), fleet forces to protect them request
                      Quote: Usher
                      How is it registered? Fifth point

                      Well, if your priest is so sensitive - these are your problems ... bully
                      and Gus on the US nuclear submarine ... hi
                      Quote: Usher
                      You are the only one so smart, and everyone in the world is stupid and continues to build SSBNs.

                      1) I'm really smart and able to think, but here you are - alas ... request
                      2) each country has its own situation, it is not necessary to copy other people's approaches, but it made it difficult for you ... hi
                      Quote: Usher
                      You are rowing in a pile, a surface fleet is needed for defense, and not for aggression.

                      actually the main guard is the nuclear submarine of project 885 hi
            2. Arthur 85 April 12 2020 17: 44 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              In general, Sergey replied below, there is almost nothing to add, except what I would have formulated: they will almost certainly be destroyed when trying to leave the base, and if you shoot from the pier, so why not put this "rocket banquet" just on a concrete foundation on land? It will be much cheaper.
              1. Alexey RA April 13 2020 16: 48 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Arthur 85
                In general, Sergey replied below, there is almost nothing to add, except what I would have formulated: they will almost certainly be destroyed when trying to leave the base, and if you shoot from the pier, so why not put this "rocket banquet" just on a concrete foundation on land? It will be much cheaper.

                Or just order shelves for PGRK instead of the SSBN. Which in which case, scatter around the position area "by installments." smile
              2. ser56 April 14 2020 13: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Arthur 85
                and if you shoot from the pier

                will they give?
                1. Arthur 85 April 14 2020 14: 04 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Well, the Navy will cover the Tomahawks from the strike, I think, it will be able to defend the air defense of the ships that are there. Plus, there is also (I hope) coastal and anti-submarine aviation, which will not allow the enemy to act so freely. But before the approach of warheads from ICBMs, there will be 20-25 minutes. So, if no one spills anything anywhere, then they will be in time.
                  1. ser56 April 14 2020 14: 26 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Arthur 85
                    here before the approach of warheads from ICBMs, 20-25 minutes will be

                    and what prevents us from fitting the Ohio-class submarines to Kamchatka / Norway by reducing their flight time?
                    1. Arthur 85 April 14 2020 14: 35 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And that means putting the boats in danger. And by the way, I’m not sure that this will greatly reduce flight time. After all, this Trident should still go into the “near space”, and from there hit the RGCh (I'm not sure that they will divorce in the atmosphere at all, and will not fly randomly somersaults). That is, to describe a colossal “candle”, and spend most of the time just on the ascent, and not on the atmospheric flight (however, maybe I'm wrong).
                      1. ser56 April 14 2020 15: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Arthur 85
                        Incidentally, I’m not sure that this will greatly reduce flight time.

                        see the mid 80s and our submarines in the Sargasov Sea ... hi The trajectories are different, if not at maximum range ...
                        Quote: Arthur 85
                        And that means putting the boats in danger.

                        in what? their fleet is stronger, the first blow ...
                      2. Arthur 85 April 14 2020 15: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Maybe I could be wrong. But the more dangerous for us.
            3. Usher April 14 2020 16: 43 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              stop Are you seriously? Gone from this, and you offer back? For this there is a Strategic Missile Forces. It is the triad that gives general stability. You think very narrowly, or rather childish.
          2. Alexey RA April 13 2020 16: 43 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Usher
            And do you think the USA has absolute dominance at sea and there are no places in the oceans where the SSBNs could hide?

            The United States has absolute dominance at sea in the areas where its SSBNs are deployed and deployed. And therefore, it is not difficult for them to secretly withdraw SSBNs into the position area.
            For our Navy, problems begin as soon as the SSBN leaves the base. IAD died, PLO aviation - 7-8 vehicles throughout the country, ICAPL combat-ready can be counted on the fingers of one hand. How to cover all “Boreas” and “loaves” at the same Pacific Fleet with one ICAPL — one General Staff of the Navy knows.
            1. ser56 April 14 2020 13: 59 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              ak at the same Pacific Fleet of one ICAPL to cover all the Boreas and loaves - one General Staff of the Navy knows.

              alas, I think it continues to drag the financial blanket onto the fleet - they give money well for the strategists, but nobody thinks about the application ... and then there will be nobody and nobody to punish ... am
  • Macsen_wledig April 11 2020 11: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Saxahorse
    It is easy to see that the Germans counted their NRL type KRL only on protection from destroyers and other trifles, unlike the British with their Linders. Although I personally really like this series of German light cruisers. :)

    The Germans believed that the “Linder” will begin to punch the “Nuremberg” directly aboard starting with 80 cable, they themselves will be able to start punching the “Linder” starting with 61 cable.
    Combat instructions recommended the Germans to fight at distances of 70-80 cable.
    1. Saxahorse April 11 2020 23: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      Combat instructions recommended the Germans to fight at distances of 70-80 cable.

      In order to fight at 70 kbl, you need to have some sort of speed advantage to choose a distance. But in fact, Linder is a little faster, 32.5 knots versus 32 for Germans.

      But the Germans immediately had two towers of the three behind, they knew in advance that they would have to flee :)
      1. Macsen_wledig April 12 2020 14: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Saxahorse
        In order to fight at 70 kbl, you need to have some sort of speed advantage to choose a distance.

        Well ... I would not mind, but OKM in 1940 thought otherwise. :)

        Quote: Saxahorse
        But the Germans immediately had two towers of the three behind, they knew in advance that they would have to flee :)

        Actually, this is due to weight savings ... :)
  • Macsen_wledig April 11 2020 11: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
    Can you throw off any information about this fight?

    What kind of battle are you talking about?
  • Ryaruav April 11 2020 12: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I am a supporter of saying things in the language of the manufacturer, if the English speak Landon, where did London come from? Not all people will understand that the cruiser Agex is an ajax and blunders if the translation is not correct above the roof
  • mmaxx April 11 2020 17: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And more.
    The film "The Battle of La Plata." The Indian cruiser Delhi (formerly Akilez) played the cruiser Akilez. You can look at him in live filming.
    Well, there are other characters there.
  • Usher April 11 2020 19: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Very good cruisers. Harmonious
  • ser56 April 11 2020 20: 48 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    informative! good photos! good
    if you write about Belfast - I have personal photos - climbed it last year - I can throw it off ... hi
  • Vladislav 73 April 12 2020 18: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Novel! And the article about "Improved Linder (well, or Leander)" will be? Someone knows, someone not, surely many will be interested. good Yes, and the history of the service, for example - the battle of “Sydney” with “Cormoran”, or how to “dunker” to drown a full-fledged cruiser is worth what! what Best regards hi
    1. Macsen_wledig April 12 2020 18: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Vladislav 73
      Yes, and the history of the service, for example - the battle of “Sydney” with “Cormoran”, or how to “dunker” to drown a full-fledged cruiser is worth what!

      In this case, you can simply convey "fiery greetings" to Captain Burnett, who probably forgot that there is a war, but Detmers also turned out to be a difficult ten ...
      1. Vladislav 73 April 12 2020 19: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, it’s direct according to Sun Tzu: “Beat the enemy where he does not fight.” Well, as for me, an interesting, revealing battle! hi
        1. Macsen_wledig April 12 2020 19: 40 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Vladislav 73
          Well, as for me, an interesting, revealing battle!

          Rather, an exception to the rule, if you recall the sinking of the "Penguin" or "Atlantis" ...
          1. Vladislav 73 April 12 2020 20: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Any exception to the rules of topics is interesting and that is an exception. Detmers did not miss the only chance, but Captain Burnett ... "showed criminal negligence" as follows from the report of the commission. However, everyone has the right to their point of view. hi
          2. Santa Fe April 13 2020 11: 59 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            Quote: Vladislav 73
            Well, as for me, an interesting, revealing battle!

            Rather, an exception to the rule, if you recall the sinking of the "Penguin" or "Atlantis" ...

            “The battle showed what skill the enemy ships change their appearance and what dilemma the captain of the cruiser has to face trying to expose him. The danger the cruiser is exposed to when approaching such a ship too close and from a direction convenient for gun and torpedo fire is obvious - the raider always has the tactical advantage of surprise, ”recalled the captain Roskill, commander of the cruiser Cornwall, who managed to figure out with great luck and destroy a similar raider “Penguin”. At the same time, at some point, the cruiser himself was in the balance of death: one of the six-inch Penguin shells interrupted his steering.

            Cornwall saved only his 203 mm artillery
            1. Macsen_wledig April 13 2020 18: 54 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Santa Fe
              At the same time, at some point, the cruiser himself was in the balance of death: one of the six-inch Penguin shells interrupted his steering.

              Can someone lie as an eyewitness?
              We look at page 61 in the manual of the Admiralty GB4273 (52). HM Ships Damaged or Sunk by Enemy Action 3rd Sept, 1939 to 2nd Sept, 1945.
              The cruiser Cornwall, May 8, 1941.
              The nature of the damage: two direct hits by shells with instant fuses.
              Repair Time: 1 месяц
              Brief description of damage and conclusions made: Cornwall sustained damage from two direct hits above the waterline in a battle with an enemy raider. A hole in the casing of the right bot in the region of 75-77 frames, between the lower deck and the deck of the platform. The casing is damaged in the section 77-79 frames and minor damage caused to the internal structures. A hole in the side skin on the starboard side is 130-131 frames 3 feet below the upper deck. Slight damage to internal structures above the waterline, minor damage from fragments. Damaged one ring of the main section [probably the ring power trunk - MW] and some communication cables and SUAO cables.
              Fighting - not reduced.


              In the original, there is nothing like "steering gear" - there is no "steering gear" ...
              1. Santa Fe April 14 2020 04: 18 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                In the original, there is nothing like "steering gear" - there is no "steering gear" ...

                There is another description

                “Due to mechanical failures, Cornwall did not return fire for two minutes and often fired at shells fired at high speed before firing two salvos from the front 8-inch towers. The front steering gear of Cornwall was disabled by a 5,9-inch shell hit , and after some getting out of control, the steering gear was used after. "

                https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/12th-of-april-today-in-naval-history-naval-maritime-events-in-history.2104/page-182
                (this fragment is closer to the middle of the page)
                1. Macsen_wledig April 14 2020 19: 06 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  There is another description

                  On Wikipedia? :)

                  It seems to me that if a hit would cause one or another damage to the steering, this would be noted in the directory: an extraordinary event and affecting the combat effectiveness of the ship.
    2. Santa Fe April 13 2020 11: 42 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      or as a "shopkeeper"

      the plot of this tale is more prosaic. “Cormoran” was a real floating citadel, with a trained team and an insane amount of weapons on board. Such a corsair was in no way inferior in terms of firepower and most characteristics to warships. Otherwise, how could he sink the Australian cruiser?

      Unrecognizable able to change their appearance and fight in any of the climatic zones. With every possible equipment, from sledges and skis to tropical uniforms and trinkets for the inhabitants of the Pacific Islands. Disguised guns, fake sides and cargo arrows. Banners of all states of the world. Torpedo boats and aircraft. With artillery and mine-torpedo armament, communications, everything necessary for active military operations, conducting insidious "radio games" and secretive reconnaissance.

      Both the Atlantic and the Pacific and Indian Oceans absorbed the reflections of the panic QQQ radio signal, which the radio operator’s hand hastily knocked out in a radio room smashed by the raider’s fire. They absorbed this in blood and flesh, the dead hulls of hundreds of ships that fell victim to unknown ships. Those who come “from nowhere” and those who go “nowhere”.

      Technical description allows counting raiders a separate class of warships combining the qualities of artillery cruisers, destroyers, and naval bases for supplying submarines and mine-layer loaders
      With the full use of the surprise factor

      "Merchants of death"!
      1. Macsen_wledig April 13 2020 18: 59 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        "Merchants of death"!

        How much pathos ...
        If the Hilfcruiser were such a child prodigy, then why didn’t they break the backbone of British shipping?
        1. Santa Fe April 14 2020 04: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          If the Hilfcruiser were such a child prodigy, then why didn’t they break the backbone of British shipping?

          Where is kriegsmarin and where is british shipping
          Are the scales comparable?
          1. Macsen_wledig April 14 2020 19: 07 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            If the Hilfcruiser were such a child prodigy, then why didn’t they break the backbone of British shipping?

            Where is kriegsmarin and where is british shipping
            Are the scales comparable?

            Then why so much pathos in your previous post? :)
  • Potter April 14 2020 21: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    . Collection of pearls. Roman Skomorokhov is steadily lowering the level of Military Review into the Mariana Trench.
  • Alexey Petrovichev April 16 2020 09: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    An article for gamers from World of Washington.
  • EvilLion April 16 2020 13: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And let's compare weapons with even smaller owls. cruisers of projects 26 and 26 bis. tongue
    1. Macsen_wledig April 16 2020 18: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      And let's compare weapons with even smaller displacement owls. cruisers of projects 26 and 26 bis. tongue

      Etc. 26 - 7750-7850 standard
      Etc. 26 bis - approx. 8050 standard
      Linder - 7000-7200 standard
      So who is there less? :)
  • Grossvater April 27 2020 20: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And what kind of machine guns are these, 13,2 mm, on English ships?