Warships. Cruisers. Almost flawless chevalier

Warships. Cruisers. Almost flawless chevalier

The first half of the 20th century between the two wars is truly an interesting time from the point of view of marine engineering stories. When a turning point occurred in the minds of the designers, and then it was still reinforced by the Washington kick, then very interesting ships began to appear.


Although I still believe that, had it not been for Washington, our military history would have taken a completely different path. And perhaps this path would be more progressive than the one that we traveled, swam.

World War One died out. According to its results, France and Italy were in a very interesting position. Italy suddenly became a steep regional power after the collapse of Austria-Hungary, and France, on the contrary, fell to this level, since the British clearly commanded the Atlantic after the war and there was nothing for the French to catch there.

There remained the Mediterranean Sea, where both countries tried to realize their ambitions. Both countries did not succeed with the dreadnoughts and battlecruisers (in particular), and the fleets took a very original shape.

Both the French and Italians hastily set up a rather impressive number of destroyers, destroyer leaders, and destroyers. And since the ships built had to be fought, both sides came up with projects for light and fast cruisers with 150 mm artillery.

In the previous article, we examined the "Emil Bertin", which became a test ball for the French, and the Italians got the "Condottieri" project, which will be ahead of us.


"Emil Bertin"

Politically, all this looked very strange, because in the First World France and Italy were like allies, and in the Second ... In the Second World War, too, did not work out. Moreover, this confrontation looked very funny if it were not so sad. And, nevertheless, it (confrontation) gave rise to many beautiful and really good ships.

So we will start from the thirties, when they spat on battleships and battlecruisers, the French and Italians built very nice cruisers. And we’ll talk about the next step after Emil Bertin.

So, by the 30s of the last century, there was a picture: a fast and not very armored cruiser with 150-mm guns, capable of catching up with the destroyer and explaining the truth of life to it. Inexpensive, technological so that you can build in series. But the main thing is inexpensive.

The experiment with Emil Bertin, on the one hand, cannot be considered successful. On the other hand, light appeared at the French shipbuilders at the end of the tunnel, that is, they understood in which direction to move.

And as a result of this movement in the ranks of the French fleet 6 new cruisers of the La Galissonier type joined. We planned 7, but the Chateau Renault was not ordered, the Washington restrictions played a role.

What is La Galissoniere? This is Emil Bertin, who has passed through thoughtful work on bugs. We'll talk about TTX a little lower, but for now it’s worth noting that the cruisers turned out, and turned out even more powerful than the Italian. At least one trunk of the main caliber of the French was more, 9 against 8.


The series came out very patriotic, judging by how the names of the ships were chosen.

"La Gallisonier" - in honor of Roland-Michel Barren de La Galissoniere, winner of the Battle of Menorca in 1756. The battle was, so to speak, not entirely unambiguous, but it is believed that the British were hung in it.

"Jean de Vienne" - in honor of the admiral of France Jean de Vienne. The admiral was very restless, he fought his whole life against the whole world, he died in the battle of Nikopol (Bulgaria) in the battle with the Turks in 1396.

Georges Leig - in honor of a politician of the Third Republic

Moncalm - in memory of Louis Joseph de Montcalm-Gozon, Marquis de Saint-Veran, commander of the French troops in North America during the Seven Years War.

"Marseillaise" - clear, the anthem of France.

Gluar - “Glory.”

In general, it is very bright and patriotic, but let's see what the ships were like in terms of characteristics.

Displacement. Standard - 7600 “long” tons, full - 9100 dt. The ship is noticeably “thicker” than Emil Bertin.

Length 172 m. Width 17,48 m. Draft 5,1 - 5,35 m. That's just for the not deepest Mediterranean Sea, it turned out very well. It was possible to safely go even to the Adriatic, where the deep sea did not pamper.

Armor. It's luxurious here, the armor, unlike its predecessor, simply was. Good, bad - it WAS!

Belt - 105 mm.
Traverses - from 20 to 60 mm.
Deck - 38 mm.
Barbets - from 75 to 95 mm.
Towers - from 50 to 100 mm.
Chopping - from 50 to 95 mm.

Reservation is not anti-fragmentation, it could very well reflect a 120-130-mm destroyer shell, if you're lucky. Of course, it’s not good news that the figures, but not a complete absence, as in “Emil Bertin”, agree.

Engines 2 TZA from Parsons (classic), or exotic, but their own Rateau Bretagne. Both the first and second gave out about 84 liters. sec., which provided a speed of 000 knots. Let’s put it this way: not only excellent, but enough.

Cruising range of 7000 nautical miles cruising at 12 knots. For the Mediterranean - well, more than. Without refueling from Toulon to Latakia - completely.

The crew of 540 people. In wartime, with the increase in emergency teams and air defense crews - up to 675 people.

Armament.
The main caliber is 9 152 mm guns in three towers, two on the bow and one on the stern.


Auxiliary universal caliber - 8 universal 90-mm guns in four towers. Plus 4 coaxial machine gun mounts from "Hotchkiss" 13,2 mm caliber. As modest as that of Emil Bertin.


Mine-torpedo armament was represented by two twin-tube 550-mm torpedo tubes.

Aviation group - 1 catapult, 2 seaplanes. Aircraft could be taken up to 4, but in disassembled form.

About seaworthiness. The cruisers failed. They were all very moving and not subject to vibrations at high speeds, over 30 knots. All as one, the ships easily kept the estimated speed of 31 knots, but if you really need it, you could get more.

So, in tests, "La Galissoniere" issued 35,42 knots. “Marseillaise” - 34,98 knots, and the fastest was “Gluar”, which showed a maximum speed of 36,93 knots.


Tests confirmed the cruising range of the cruisers, all fit into the calculated data.

More about weapons.

The main caliber artillery was completely repeating the "Emil Bertin". 152,4 mm M1930 shell loading guns were located in towers of the "Marine-Omkur" type 1930 model.


Two towers were located in the bow of the cruisers, linearly elevated, the third in the stern. The bow towers had firing angles of 135 ° on board, the stern - 145 °.

The guns were placed in individual cradles and had vertical guidance angles from −7 ° to + 45 ° for the bow and stern towers and from −10 ° to + 45 ° for the elevated bow tower. The guns were loaded at an angle of inclination of the barrel from −5 ° to + 15 °.

Guiding the towers was carried out remotely, using electric drives. The practical rate of fire is 5-6 rounds per minute per barrel. The maximum rate of fire was shown by the “Gluar” at firing in 1938 - 9 rounds per minute on the barrel. Of course, the real combat rate of fire was much lower, in the region of 2-4 rounds per minute.

In general, in terms of the main caliber, everything was pretty confident and modern.

Flak. The same 90 mm M1926 guns as on the Emil Bertin with the same problems.


On the one hand, a semi-automatic shutter and an automatic rammer, which were unitary, theoretically gave a rate of fire up to 15 rounds per minute. However, at elevation angles of more than 60 °, loading problems started and the rate of fire dropped significantly. In general, as a means of air defense 90 mm universal guns were not very good.

But each cruiser carried eight of these guns in twin units, protected from fragments by shields of 5 mm thickness. Placed the installation is also not very successful. As the anti-mine caliber, the 90-mm guns were quite, but not very anti-aircraft, since practically the bow and stern of the ship were outside the firing zones.

Anti-aircraft fire control of 90-mm guns was carried out remotely, from two command-range posts. The shooting data was generated by two sets of 1930 anti-aircraft fire control devices using two 3-meter rangefinders. In practice, the system proved to be unreliable, and the shooting was carried out autonomously, which, as you know, did not add efficiency at all.

The only plus was the ability (theoretical) to fire 90 mm guns at two different targets or directions.

With small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, everything was still sad since Emil Bertin. The promised 37 mm automatic anti-aircraft gun was never mastered, so I had to plug the hole with the same 13,2 mm Hotchkisses.


And so, this machine gun was not a masterpiece armory thoughts, and with food from 30-cartridge stores, it was really terrible. But not for enemy pilots, but for their calculations. So four paired installations of these machine guns can not be considered a good solution, but alas, there was nothing else.

In general, at the beginning of the war, the air defense of cruisers could not even be considered satisfactory.

Armor. The numbers above are numbers, but the armor wasn’t just there, but by booking the “La Galissoniers” they could become standards in the class. The Germans were always famous for their smart booking location, the British tried to take thick. It turned out something in between, and it seems like they did not stint on steel, and placed it very smartly. The so-called practice of variable thickness played a role, making the cruiser very protected ships, while not greatly increasing the weight of the ship.

But, I repeat, unlike Emil Bertin, the builders were not greedy here, and as a result, the total weight of the armor was 1460 tons or 24% of the standard displacement of the ship.

The main armored belt was 105 mm thick, but 60 mm were made to the bottom. In the bow and stern, the width of the armored belt was reduced by 2 meters, but with the same thickness. Behind the armored belt on the sides were armored bulkheads with a thickness of 20 mm. These bulkheads served as anti-torpedo (weak) and anti-shatter protection.

On top of the citadel was closed from fragments of armored deck with a thickness of 38 mm.

The main caliber towers, unlike their predecessor, were very good. No wonder the mass of one tower "La Galissonier" weighed 172 tons, while the "Emil Bertin" - 112 tons.

The thickness of the frontal part of the tower was 100 mm, the side - 50 mm, the back - 40 mm, the roof had a thickness of 50 mm. The barbets of the towers were also well armored, above the deck the thickness of the armor was 95 mm, below the deck 70 mm.

The conning tower was also booked quite impressive. Again, in comparison with Emil Bertin, where the thickness of the cabin was as much as 20 mm. At La Galissonier, the cabin was protected along the perimeter with 95 mm armor, a roof of 50 mm, a floor of 25 mm.


The conning tower was connected to the central post by an armored passage with a wall thickness of 45 mm. Chimneys (26 mm), ventilation shafts (20 mm), and a steering machine (26 mm) were also protected.

Compared to Emil Bertin, a very good armored monster was obtained. Before the war, military experts saw the La Galissoniers as ideal light cruisers.


I must say, for their displacement, these were very balanced ships, very equally combining both combat and navigational qualities. But the main advantage was the price. For such a low cost, very worthy cruisers were obtained.

Of course, there were some shortcomings. There were two main, or rather, one and a half. Half can be considered the French Rato turbines, which were not reliable, respectively, the cruisers that were equipped with these turbines instead of the Parsons had problems with them.

The second problem was air defense. The inability to install normal anti-aircraft guns made the cruiser virtually defenseless in the near air defense zone. Any more or less serious air attack could be fatal for ships.

It can be said that La Galissonieres were lucky, and they did not have to meet with real air attacks in the initial period of the war. And those who survived this period, after modernization received quite decent “Erlikons” and “Bofors”, which made the air defense of ships more or less acceptable.

Six cruisers entered the war. But there was a date that divided the ships into two parts. On November 27, 1942, in the fire and flame went to the bottom of La Galissonier, Jean de Vienne and Marseillaise, whose crews complied with the order to destroy the ships so that the Germans would not get them.


Heroic, but very inglorious death.


And La Galissonier was sunk twice.


After the surrender of France, “La Galissonier” as part of the 3rd cruiser division was included in the “Compound of the High Seas”, formed on September 25, 1940 from the most combat-ready ships of the fleet and based on Toulon and the Mediterranean. The activity of this compound was extremely limited due to lack of fuel.

November 27, 1942 “La Galissoniere” was in Toulon, at dock number 3. The ship had an incomplete crew, but the rest of the crew managed to flood the cruiser right in the dock.


Despite the fact that the Germans declared all French ships confiscated, Italians were able to take part of the ships under their control, inspect and proceed with the rise.

The Italians were strong in lifting and repairing ships. The La Galissoniere, which was raised on March 9, 1943, was among those suitable for lifting. The cruiser was to be transferred to Italy for repair and restoration, the date of departure was called July 11, 1943. However, thanks to the frank sabotage of the French dockers, the ship was never able to go to sea. September 9, 1943 Italy entered into a truce with the Allies, but the ships still remained in Toulon.

On August 31, 1944, the La Galissonier was sunk during a raid by American B-25 bombers and sank at a depth of 10 m.


In 1945, “La Galissoniere” was raised, but recognized as unsuitable for restoration. On December 13, 1946, the cruiser was expelled from the fleet and dismantled in 1956.

"Jean de Vienne."


November 27, 1942 "Jean de Vienne" was in Toulon, in dock number 1. The crew flooded his ship right in the dock, where he sat almost on an even keel. They also had to blow up the ship, but something did not grow together.

It is clear that the Italians raised such a gift in the first place. The cruiser was raised on February 18, 1943 and he was also to be sent to Italy. However, the cruiser in Toulon left sabotage until August 24, 1943, when two bombs from American bombers sent him to the bottom of the harbor.

On November 27, 1945, the cruiser was raised, on December 13, 1946, the cruiser was expelled from the fleet, and in 1948 its remains were sold for scrap.

The Marseillaise.


On November 27, 1942, the Marseillaise was in Toulon. Having received the command to destroy the ship, the crew activated the subversive charges that destroyed the ship.

The remains of the ship were raised after the war and in 1946 sent for scrapping.

"Georges Leig."


He escaped death in Toulon, leaving together with the Gluar and Moncalm in Dakar. The British tried to put a paw on the ships, sending a detachment of ships to intercept. The Georges Leig and Moncalm broke through, with the Leig commanders planting two shells in the Australian heavy cruiser Australia. The Gluar was brought down by domestic turbines, and he returned to Casablanca.

September 23-25, 1940 "Georges Leig" participated in the defense of Dakar against the British fleet. Together with Moncalm, he maneuvered on the outer raid of Dakar, firing at British ships. On September 24, Georges Leig made two hits with the main caliber in the battleship Barham, but did not cause serious damage.

In 1941-42, the cruiser patrolled in the Mediterranean Sea, as part of the French squadron, based on Dakar. He mastered the profession of a gold carrier, transporting about 100 tons of French gold from Dakar to Casablanca.


In 1943, after France spoke on the Allied side, the cruiser went to Philadelphia, where the catapult, hangars, aircraft were dismantled, and instead installed anti-aircraft installations of 20 and 37 mm.

The cruiser patrolled in the Atlantic, opposing German submarines and raiders, supported the landing of the Allied forces in Normandy, in September 1944 the cruiser again began to be based on Toulon.

The last battle in World War II was the artillery support of the landing in the area of ​​Genoa in March 1945.

After the war ended, the cruiser took part in hostilities more than once. After modernization in Casablanca in 1946, Georges Leig, together with Moncalm, took part in the fighting in Indochina in 1954.

And in 1956, in the Suez crisis, as part of a group of French ships, it provided fire support to Israeli troops operating in the Gaza Strip.

December 17, 1959 the cruiser Georges Leig was expelled from the fleet and sold for scrap.

Gluar.


At the time of the surrender of France from the war, the Gluard was in Algeria. In June 1940, the ship returned to Toulon. In September, he participated in an attempt to break into the Atlantic, opposing the attempt to capture ships by the British.

Due to a turbine breakdown, the cruiser did not get to the designated point Libreville, but was forced to return to Casablanca, where it was being repaired until March 1941, after which it moved to Dakar.

During the spring and autumn of 1941, the Gluar took part in a number of convoy operations of the French fleet in the Atlantic. Subsequently, due to lack of fuel, ships based in Dakar rarely went to sea for a long time, but in March-April 1942 the Gluar transported 75 tons of gold from Dakar to Casablanca.

In September 1942, the cruiser took part in the rescue of the crew and passengers of the British liner Laconia, sunk by a German submarine. During the search operation, the Gluar took on board, and then delivered 1041 people to Casablanca.

Since the beginning of 1943, the cruiser participated in patrol operations in the Central Atlantic. During 1943, the "Gluar" made 9 ocean voyages for this purpose. He visited modernization at the end of 1943 in New York. The modernization was similar to that carried out at Georges Leigue - the aircraft equipment was removed, the small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery was installed.


In February 1944, the Gluar appeared in the Mediterranean Sea, where it provided fire support to the British ground forces fighting at Anzio in Italy. After landing, the cruiser transported British troops from North Africa to Naples.

In August 1944, the Gluard took part in the landing of the Allies in southern France, supporting fire landing operations.

The combat service of the cruiser ended in 1955, and in 1958 it was sold for scrap.

Moncalm.


With the outbreak of World War II, Moncalm became part of the Raider formation, based on Brest, which was involved in escorting convoys and hunting for German raiders. As part of the compound, he participated in the escort of two convoys and chased the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau in the North Sea.

In 1940 he covered the evacuation of the Allies from Norway.

Returning back, he made the transition to Dakar, since by that time Brest was in the hands of the Germans. He took part in the defense of Dakar from the British fleet.

In 1943, it underwent modernization in Philadelphia, after which, as part of an allied formation, it participated in landing operations in Corsica, in southern France and Normandy.


After the end of World War II, he participated in the 1954 war in Indochina, and suppressed anti-French riots in Algeria in 1957.

It was used by the Navy until the end of 1969 and in May 1970 ended its journey, was sold for scrap.

As you can see, those ships that did not come under destruction in Toulon lived a rather long and meaningful life. Moreover, not as training ships, floating barracks or targets, but as full-fledged (well, almost full-fledged) warships.

It is clear that in the 60s these cruisers, even equipped with modern radars, could be used exclusively against the countries of the third or fourth world. But they were used, which testifies to their quite decent combat potential.

Of course, everything is known by comparison, and therefore in one of the following materials we will deal precisely with the comparison of cruisers of the La Galissonier type with their direct competitors. That is, with the Italian cruisers of the Kondotieri type A, B and C.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 June 2020 05: 21 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6

    So we will start from the thirties, when they spat on battleships and battlecruisers, the French and Italians built very nice cruisers. And we’ll talk about the next step after Emil Bertin.

    None of them spit, but someone got out as best he could because of the Washington Accords!
    Regards, Kote!
    1. Civil 2 June 2020 07: 35 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Our analogue is the project 26 of the Kirov type, according to the Italian project
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 June 2020 09: 50 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Projects 26 and 26bis can be considered analogues of La Galissoniere with a great stretch.
        Still, Kirov was planned in our niche for heavy cruisers. Main artillery 180mm instead of 152mm. Again, “180” is not “203”! So which side to pull the blanket !!! If to "203", then the only heavy cruiser of the USSR in 1941 is the unfinished Petropavlovsk (former German Luttsov).
        At 41, he sincerely thanked his creators from a single main-caliber tower and a pair of 105mm guns. A number of Authors consider him the only heavy cruiser of the USSR flooded during the war. Although the paradox is that, in the first place, he did not sink, but sat down on the ground near the mooring wall of the shipyard, and the second he was not introduced into the combat structure of the fleet. Even after it was raised from the ground.
        But on the other hand, even the real author of the article, alas, this allowed two units of the cruisers of the Soviet Union (paired with Chervona Ukraine) to be entered in the column of losses at sea. Although a number of progressive comrades are still being pushed here, Kirov exploded in a mine after May 9, 1945 and destroyed Sevastopol on the slipway.
        Statistics is such a thing. There was one confirmed loss in the class of cruisers, it became - 2, I mixed up to want it can be 4!
        Regards, Kote!
        1. Alexey RA 2 June 2020 15: 32 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Projects 26 and 26bis can be considered analogues of La Galissoniere with a great stretch.
          Still, Kirov was planned in our niche for heavy cruisers.

          More precisely, Kirov was planned in the niche "the largest pot of the RKKF" - within the framework of the Small Fleet. But during its construction, the pony chain changed once again, now to the "Big Fleet" - and line 26, etc., was interrupted. Instead, they began to build the traditional 6 "KRL, designed for action with the support of" very large pots. "
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          At 41, he sincerely thanked his creators from a single main-caliber tower and a pair of 105mm guns.

          There were two towers of the Civil Code. But the 105-mm anti-aircraft guns were not on the ship - only a 37-mm twin semiautomatic device and a 20-mm MZA.
          ... by the beginning of World War II, the heavy cruiser was only 70% ready, and most of the equipment was missing. The guns were available only in the bow and stern lowered towers set with the ship; In addition, several light anti-aircraft guns arrived from Germany (1 paired 37 mm gun and eight 20 mm guns were installed).
          1. Macsen_wledig 2 June 2020 19: 06 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            But during its construction, the pony chain changed once again, now to the "Big Fleet" - and line 26, etc., was interrupted.

            Error ...
            Within the framework of the program of "large marine shipbuilding" of 1936, it was planned to build 15 KRL pr.26.

            Quote: Alexey RA
            Instead, they began to build the traditional 6 "KRL, designed for action with the support of" very large pots. "

            Etc. 68 appeared due to the signing of the Anglo-Soviet naval treaty of the 37th year.
            If it were not for its "KRL of 7500 tons," as many as 5 units would have been built.
          2. Kote Pan Kokhanka 4 June 2020 07: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Stepanov’s.
            On the ship were installed towers "A" and "D" of the main caliber, but the guns were only in the tower "D".

            hi
            1. Alexey RA 4 June 2020 08: 53 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Stepanov’s.
              On the ship were installed towers "A" and "D" of the main caliber, but the guns were only in the tower "D".

              Everything would be fine, but there are photographs of the Luttsov towing to Leningrad - and they clearly show that the guns are in the A tower. smile

              And there is also a photo of “Petropavlovsk” in Leningrad during the blockade - and they show that the tower “D” acquired a couple of trunks, and the tower “A” lost one trunk.

              1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 4 June 2020 09: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Thank you.
                About damage, one 203mm trunk, read it! In the evening I’ll come to the village and search through the directories.
                1. Alexey RA 4 June 2020 09: 02 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  About damage, one 203mm trunk, read it!

                  I met two options for the causes of damage: a factory defect in the barrel itself (shell) and a shell rupture in the barrel when firing.
                  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 4 June 2020 09: 04 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    One does not exclude the other. The first could be a consequence of the second!
                    1. Sergey M. Karasev 4 June 2020 13: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Then the second m. consequence of the first.
                  2. Macsen_wledig 4 June 2020 19: 01 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    I met two options for the causes of damage: a factory defect in the barrel itself (shell) and a shell rupture in the barrel when firing.

                    According to Platonov at 09:10 on September 11, 1941 during firing, a shell burst in the barrel channel of the left gun.
                2. Macsen_wledig 4 June 2020 18: 58 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Thank you.
                  About damage, one 203mm trunk, read it! In the evening I’ll come to the village and search through the directories.

                  From the report on the condition of the cruiser Tallinn in July 1945.
                  The towers No. 1 and No. 4 of the main (203 mm) caliber with swinging parts and trunks were installed and mounted. Towers No. 2 and No. 3 are mounted without swinging parts and trunks that were not received from the supplier.
                  ....
                  The body of the guns of the tower number 1 failed (exploded during firing). The remaining three gun bodies have wear - about 90%.
                3. yehat2 18 June 2020 15: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  this is where such villages are found, in which the library of marine directories? wink
        2. Hog
          Hog 2 June 2020 16: 05 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Projects 26 and 26bis can be considered analogues of La Galissoniere with a great stretch.

          Why, in the Soviet classification, they were light, but Pr.69 with a 305mm main gun should have become heavy.
  2. really 2 June 2020 06: 29 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    America's theme not disclosed
  3. Rurikovich 2 June 2020 07: 02 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    In principle, that pasta, that paddling, they were able to build ships of the type. But here .... lol .
    And now nitpicking ... A photo of the starboard side of an Italian battleship of the Littorio type is very "appropriate" in an article about French light cruisers. lol
    And the second one. If you take the bookmarks by years and design decisions, then Kondotieri A and B are compared with Dugue Truen and Bertin. And the “Galisoniers” are compared with the “Montecuccoli”, “Savoy” and the Italian cherry on the cake from the light cruisers “Garibaldi”
    Article plus. Will be for the development of victims of the exam smile hi
    1. Comrade 2 June 2020 17: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And now nitpicking ... A photo of the starboard side of an Italian battleship of the Littorio type is very "appropriate" in an article about French light cruisers.

      This is the corporate identity of this author - to insert images of ships about which there is not a word about in the article.
  4. Senior seaman 2 June 2020 09: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    But the main advantage was the price.

    Is it possible to voice the amount?
    preferably in comparison with classmates.
    1. Engineer 2 June 2020 11: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      200 million francs in armament (la Galissoniere)
      In dollars we calculate here
      https://anaga.ru/analytcal-info/2/5.htm
      Depending on the year, the spread is 8-12 million dollars
      Linder estimated value of 1. 6 million feet 8 million dollars
      Southampton 2.2 million feet - $ 11 million

      The cheapest cruisers are sort of like the Italians. By memory
      The Americans have a total overprice

      By the way, Galissoniere is almost twice as expensive as the Dougé-Truen
  5. Vlad Malkin 2 June 2020 11: 58 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The cruisers were good!
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 June 2020 13: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Vlad Malkin
      The cruisers were good!

      Yeah, especially at the beginning of World War II, before the first meeting with squadrons of torpedo bombers or dive-bombers. However, this is the misfortune of all of them modern.
      1. Octopus 2 June 2020 13: 20 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The air defense of the same Brooklyn is no better.
        1. Alexey RA 2 June 2020 16: 10 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Octopus
          The air defense of the same Brooklyn is no better.

          Duc ... if you look closely at prewar Air defense of the Yankees, it turns out that even the Japanese have it better (at least on the "big pots").
          However, what else to expect from people who have been doing ship MZA for ten years and brought it to a series only by the time it was decided to switch to “bofors”. smile
          1. Octopus 2 June 2020 18: 45 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            American anti-aircraft guns made a lasting impression on me howitzers, which including just on Brooklyn and stood. This is not as cool as the English anti-aircraft mortars, but also great.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            at least on "big pots"

            Design air defense Caroline, in addition to 127/38, consisted of 4 pianos and 18 machine guns. All with manual control. That is, on one side, Carolina's capabilities were the same as KRL Dido of the same bookmark year 37, if not less.
            1. Alexey RA 2 June 2020 19: 32 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              The American anti-aircraft howitzers made a lasting impression on me, including the ones that stood on Brooklyn.

              5 "/ 25? Wow ... an anti-aircraft gun with a 25-caliber barrel is something with something.
              Quote: Octopus
              Design air defense Caroline, in addition to 127/38, consisted of 4 pianos and 18 machine guns. All with manual control. That is, on one side, Carolina's capabilities were the same as KRL Dido of the same bookmark year 37, if not less.

              And this is only by design.
              But in fact, the US industry, well-equipped and staffed with trained personnel, was not able to enter the ship’s MZA. And at the same Pearl Harbor Eight in the nests of the 28-mm MZA ancient 3 "anti-aircraft guns nested.
              And it turned out that in fact all the air defense of a standard LC is 5 "anti-aircraft howitzers, 3" anti-aircraft guns of the PMV and 0.5 " Ma deuce John Mozesovich. smile
              1. Octopus 2 June 2020 19: 55 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And the same Pearl Harbor Eight

                The Pearl Harbor Eight is generally a song of course. On paper, the half-first sea power of the world, in fact there is only one shame. It is not the advanced air defense that inspires most of all, but the fullBB GK ammunition.

                I would be ready to support the conspiracy theorists that the cunning Roosevelt drowned unnecessary trash on purpose. If I didn’t know what the Americans all it was something like this.
                1. Macsen_wledig 2 June 2020 21: 36 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  It is not the advanced air defense that inspires most of all, but the fullBB GK ammunition.

                  Severe Americans planned to fight on a knightly - only with LC.
                  It was the "wretched" Germans or the Soviets who understood that anything could be and were stocked with shells of all possible types for the GK guns in all classes. :)
                  1. Octopus 2 June 2020 22: 34 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                    Severe Americans planned to fight on a knightly - only with LC

                    Even a little sorry that did not work. LongLance just for this case and did.
                    1. Macsen_wledig 2 June 2020 22: 48 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Even a little sorry that did not work. LongLance just for this case and did.

                      The most interesting thing is that in this case you can even name a specific switchman - Yamamoto Isoroku. :)
                      1. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 09: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        The most interesting thing is that in this case you can even name a specific switchman - Yamamoto Isoroku. :)

                        So in 1941, anyway, without options: what is attacking Yamamoto Isoroku Pearl Harbor, what is not attacking - there will still be no battle between the main forces. You remember the pre-war Pacific Fleet plans - the Philippines surrender to the Japanese, the Asian fleet will not receive reinforcements, at the first stage only cruisers fight with AB (hit-and-run) and submarines (unlimited submarine warfare). And only to achieve a decisive advantage, the main forces of the fleet are advanced, EMNIP, to the Mariana Islands to start frog jumping with the lure of the Japanese fleet for a general battle. Given the readiness of the Marine Corps, this will not be earlier than the end of 1942. And there, the Posturingites with the Clevelands and Fletchers will arrive in time.
                      2. Macsen_wledig 3 June 2020 18: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        So in 1941, anyway, without options:

                        Who knows...
                        Plans are valid until the first contact with the enemy ... (c)
                      3. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 18: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Who knows...
                        Plans are valid until the first contact with the enemy ... (c)

                        It depends on whom.
                        In the USA, the pre-war WPO-46 was carried out practically without deviations, with the exception of the forced diversion to the Philippines (thanks to MacArthur). smile
                      4. Macsen_wledig 3 June 2020 19: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        It depends on whom.

                        There are two sides. :)
        2. Engineer 3 June 2020 16: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          5 "/ 25? Wow ... an anti-aircraft gun with a 25-caliber barrel is something with something.

          If you believe this little book, then this is at least a good anti-aircraft gun.
          http://wunderwafe.ru/WeaponBook/USA_BB_2/10.htm
          1. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 18: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Engineer
            If you believe this little book, then this is at least a good anti-aircraft gun.
            http://wunderwafe.ru/WeaponBook/USA_BB_2/10.htm

            Yep ... anti-aircraft a gun with an initial projectile speed of 657 m / s. This is not treated by any SUAO.
            Even her contemporary - British 4.7 "/ 40 (12 cm) Mark VIII - and even that could stretch 749 m / s.
            1. Engineer 3 June 2020 19: 23 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I'm not ready and I do not want to prove the steepness of this anti-aircraft gun.
              But nonetheless
              Nevada. 7.12.41/XNUMX/XNUMX
              The battleship’s anti-aircraft battery opened fire in the very first minutes of the attack, with 127 mm guns being shot down by 1 or 2 torpedo bombers

              Pennsylvania
              The command understood what could happen when any aircraft appeared above the base, and issued a corresponding warning to the fleet; however, as soon as the planes appeared over the base, Pennsylvania anti-aircraft crews were among the first to fire, and in a matter of minutes almost all the planes were shot down
              .
              How true is this?
    2. yehat2 18 June 2020 15: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      why take a steam bath if the USA could promptly carry out modernization, which they did
      not only with Brooklya, but even with the French battleship.
  • Igor Gul 2 June 2020 12: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, the coloring of the "Gluar" - you can "break" your eyes)
    1. dgonni 2 June 2020 13: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The usual masking color, to make it difficult to determine the elements of movement by the enemy!
      1. AK1972 2 June 2020 14: 27 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Perhaps this is correct in marine slang (I’m not good at it), but it was “based on Brest” and “based on Toulon” somehow hurt your eyes.
        1. dgonni 2 June 2020 14: 43 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          That is, the Mooreans have a lot of specific terminology. They have the same railing :). On a thread in the Crimea, during training flights, the voice in the dynamics of RP. Comrade officers, please move away from the rails. Moscow business travelers and land pilots, zero reaction and stand further leaning on them. I repeat the roar of RP for land, comrade officers, move away from the railing :)
          1. AK1972 2 June 2020 15: 17 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: dgonni
            The same railings they have a leer

            This is true. For example, a bucket is for some reason called a sawn-off shotgun, not to mention commings, skerts, ends and lines. And last year, when Navy Day was celebrated with friends of the Navy, I found out that their miners and torpedoes are called Romanians, and there are 11 versions of this name, but helicopter maintenance techniques in general are frail Romanians. But still, in my opinion, "based on ..." more correctly than "based on ..."
      2. Looking for 2 June 2020 15: 31 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Just to blurt out. To show yourself a connoisseur. Well, give an example of this type of coloring, the benefit in the network you can find photos of ALL !! LARGE WARSHIPS!
        1. Alexey RA 2 June 2020 15: 38 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Seeker
          Just to blurt out. To show yourself a connoisseur. Well, give an example of this type of coloring, the benefit in the network you can find photos of ALL !! LARGE WARSHIPS!

          I immediately recall the "Argus".
          1. yehat2 18 June 2020 15: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This type of coloring was developed by the British for the Baltic and Northeast Atlantic.
            I first saw him on the gunboat Gray Goose.
        2. Alexey RA 2 June 2020 15: 54 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          However, a pure “zebra” was soon replaced by more conservative versions of the dazzle camouflage. Here is "Lady Sarah" in war paint: smile
  • Looking for 2 June 2020 15: 26 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    . "Both countries didn’t have a problem with dreadnoughts and battlecruisers (in particular)," The USSR didn’t have a problem with dreadnoughts. And Italy and France were fine. Especially considering their potential. DUNKERK. RICHELLIER .ROMA - the latest modern battleships.
    1. deddem 3 June 2020 11: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Dunkirk, after all, is a compromise nedolinkor.
      And problematic: in the opinion of his captain, the artillery was buggy (especially universal), and the nasal tip was lightened to such an extent that on a ship in fresh weather it was scary to go against the wave.
      1. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 15: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: deddem
        And problematic: in the opinion of his captain, the artillery was buggy (especially universal), and the nasal tip was lightened to such an extent that on a ship in fresh weather it was scary to go against the wave.

        Rodney and King George V look at Dunkirk with understanding. smile
        1. Macsen_wledig 3 June 2020 18: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Rodney and King George V look at Dunkirk with understanding. smile

          This "Rodney" looks with understanding, and "King George" just squeezes the rags and runs with cuts to the nearest garbage sleeve ... :)
          1. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 19: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            This "Rodney" looks with understanding, and "King George" just squeezes the rags and runs with cuts to the nearest garbage sleeve ... :)

            C'mon, “Rodney” with his GK also had fun - “Nelson” only in 1934 was able to give 16 volleys of GK without breakdowns and delays. And finally the towers were completed only by 1939.
            The British tower designers, of course, annealed the nipadezzi - they included supporting (horizontal) rollers in the project, and forgotten the vertical (from lateral displacement when turning the towers on the pitching). And I had to put them already on the "live" LC. And they set 50 different locks only in the gun loading system. belay

            The funny thing is that, having already had the sad experience of more than a decade of refining fundamentally new three-gun towers, the British designers for the “King” began to make a fundamentally new four-gun tower. And they got the same result again. Poor Prince, in his first battle on some salvos, had only two operational guns. smile
            1. Macsen_wledig 3 June 2020 20: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Come on

              It was necessary to clarify that I was talking about seaworthiness. :)

              Quote: Alexey RA
              Poor Prince, in his first battle on some salvos, had only two operational guns.

              Sometimes one at a time ... :)
  • Macsen_wledig 2 June 2020 18: 51 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    He wrote and wrote a comment, but because of a glitch, everything got bogged down. :(
    I will not rewrite - in a nutshell: the author, as usual, in places burns with napalm ...

    Z.Y. Maybe it is for the better, because the author still does not return to his opus.
  • ser56 2 June 2020 21: 19 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Beautiful ships and silhouette like ave. 26 bully
  • fa2998 3 June 2020 18: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    hi And what is there in the photo? W from the GK tower, next to it is a three-gun tower, and single universals 5 on board?
    1. Macsen_wledig 3 June 2020 19: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      This is the author, he decided that to demonstrate the 90-mm universal caliber and “Littorio” come down ...
      The caliber is the same. :)
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Rurikovich 3 June 2020 20: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: fa2998
      From the GK tower, next to it is a three-gun tower, and single 5 uni-hangers on board?

      Comments must be carefully read - this is the Italian battleship type "Littorio" wink smile
      1. fa2998 3 June 2020 20: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Actually, the article is written without comment. And if I were one of the first to write, or should I wait until the evening, what did all other readers explain to me? So the reproach to the author is true.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • unknown 6 June 2020 07: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Our author is inconsistent and not planned.
    Perhaps in one of the following articles he will compare the Frenchman with a vis-a-vis, or perhaps he will not.
    Compare the Frenchman with the first six Italians is not correct at all.
    Not only that, they actually belong to different generations, so Italians are much easier.
    But, since the author suggests such a comparison ...
    The armament is approximately equivalent, the Frenchman’s advantage in one weapon is hardly a decisive “golden hit”.
    The speed is about the same. The main problem of Italians is a weak body, it was he who imposed a limit on the maximum operating speed.
    On booking, the Frenchman’s unequivocal superiority: 1350 tons of armor versus 575 tons. But, and its standard displacement is much larger.
    Perhaps, applying a different reservation scheme: instead of a belt, which was even divided into two barriers, and a deck - a carpass deck, Italians could improve the protection of the first six.
  • unknown 6 June 2020 07: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is most correct to compare the Frenchman with the type of "Montecucoli".
    The standard displacement is very close: French - standard 7600 tons, Italians - 7431 tons.
    The armament of Italians has not changed, approximate parity.
    The speed of Italians is greater, but not critical.
    The mass of the reservation: the Frenchman-1460 tons (in the previous post mistakenly indicated 1350 tons), Italians - 1368-1376 tons. Booking the Frenchman is more rational.
    In the next pair, the Italians still increased the standard displacement: 8450t. and 8748 tons
    The booking mass has increased: 1684 tons and 1752 tons. This is more than that of the Frenchman, but the Frenchman is superior to this pair in terms of security.
    Which once again emphasizes that the reservation scheme, and the ship itself is designed more rationally.
  • unknown 6 June 2020 08: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If the author suggested comparing the Frenchman with the Kondotieri of the C series, whose standard displacement has gone far beyond 8000 tons, then another counterpart suggests itself for comparison.
    Oddly enough, these are British Colony-type cruisers and their two sequels.
    Initially, the design standard displacement for the Fiji type cruisers was 8170 tons.
    At the same time, the side belt had, although a smaller, but still acceptable thickness. Deck armor is thicker.
    The mass of armor is 1290 tons. The speed is slightly less, but sufficient.
    But, most importantly, the weapons are stronger: 12 guns of the main caliber against 9.
    The British designed the "miracle."
    In practice, the "miracle" turned out to be "Japanese."
    The actual standard displacement of ships of this type ranged from 8530 tons to 8821 tons.
    More precisely, the “miracle” turned out to be “almost Japanese.” Having much more experience in designing, the British avoided additional work to strengthen the hull, the construction of the bulb.
    But, the metacentric height was low, and there was practically no stock of displacement.
    In the second series of “colonies”, the British increased the width of the hull, and most importantly, abandoned one tower of the main caliber. The standard displacement is 8530 tons. The mass of the reservation has not changed.
    On the third series, the ships of the Svitshur type, the British once again increased the hull width, the main armament - 9 * 6 ", the mass of armor unchanged. Standard displacement from 8800 tons to 9066 tons.
    Of course, the British had better air defense than the French initially.
    But, the air defense of the French cruisers who underwent re-equipment in the United States was significantly strengthened.
    The total displacement of the French cruisers by the end of the war reached 10850 tons, which approximately corresponded to the total displacement of the “colonies” of the second series, and was less than that of the “colonies” of the third series.
    Cruisers such as "La Galissonier" were really perfect Chevalier.
    They were better designed not only than Italians, but also the British.
  • unknown 6 June 2020 08: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    By the beginning of WWII, everyone had problems with naval MZA.
    But everyone has different ones.
    The British had an automatic ship MZA.
    Installations are heavy, dimensional, with an obsolete gun part. But there was. Installations in their number exceeded the "bofors" until the end of the war.
    The Italians had a 37 mm WATER-COOLED assault rifle, and it was installed on ships.
    Later, it was replaced by a more advanced model.
    The Germans did not have a 37 mm naval assault rifle. Only semi-automatic machines.
    The Americans had a 28 mm ship machine gun. And hit some ships.
    Japanese with might and main used a ship 25 mm machine gun.
    The most advanced MZA shipboard systems were among the Dutch.
    Even among the Poles, 40mm bofors were installed on destroyers of the Thunder type.
    The Swedes used ship "bofors" of two calibers: 40 mm and 25 mm.
    The French did not have time before the start of WWII to bring 37 mm machine guns. Two types.
    It is strange that they did not use 25mm machine guns as ship.
    They had such a machine gun. This is Hotchkiss, which the Japanese also licensed.
    Such a machine gun was clearly better than 37 mm semiautomatic machines and heavy machine guns.