Military Review

Warships. Cruisers. Neither steal nor guard

76

In the previous article about La Galissoniere I promised that I would be distracted by Italians. Yes, it will, because such a show, which unfolded in the confrontation between the two Mediterranean countries, France and Italy, can only be viewed in any way. So to facilitate comparisons and comparisons - links at the end of the article, and we rush into the arms of Regia Marina.


So, Reggia Marina, or the Royal Navy of Italy. The name is loud, but what is the name, the essence was so-so.

Now it is very difficult to say how the Italians were able to starve their fleet, especially not fighting in the First World War. But the fact is that, at the beginning of the war, they had 3 Quarto cruisers, 6 Nino Bixi units and 4 Trento cruisers, but by the end, two out of three Quatros remained relatively combat-ready. Well, the Germans and Austro-Hungarians “helped”, more precisely, 5 cruisers, which Italy received as trophies / reparations.

And in the end, the war ended, there are almost no cruisers, but then the French with their ambitions ...

Yes, the French issued. After all, it was they who invented the new class of ships, which later received the name of leaders.

Warships. Cruisers. Neither steal nor guard

It so happened that in the Mediterranean Sea there were only two decent maritime powers, Italy and France. And, of course, the confrontation immediately began. The French began it by building the cruisers of the Duguet Truen type already considered at our place. Nice ships, the amount of three units.

But then a second blow was dealt to the Italians in the form of leaders. The French leaders Jaguar, Lyon and Aigle had two virtues: they were able to catch up with any Italian destroyer and simply tear it to pieces with their artillery. And from light cruisers, leaders could trivially slip away, since speed allowed.

And the Italian admirals got the idea that it would be nice to adopt a class of scout cruisers that could be used as high-speed reconnaissance. These ships were supposed to confront the French leaders, not inferior to them in speed and superior in armament, of course. A sort of subclass of counter leaders.


In addition, it was planned to assign to these ships responsibilities for leading the destroyers, participating in blockade operations, guarding linear forces fleet, reconnaissance, patrol and patrol services.

At the same time, of course, ships should be excellent in terms of price / quality ratio so that they can be built with a larger number and a cheaper price.

What was the Italian style? Everyone immediately remembered the “sevens” and “Tashkent”. That's right, speed plus seaworthiness with defective booking and range.

It was under these performance characteristics that the development of scout cruisers began. Maximum speed, decent seaworthiness, strong weapons, everything else on a residual basis. That is, the speed is 37 knots, armament of 8 guns with a caliber of 152 mm, the rest as it turns out.

Initially, they wanted to build 6 cruisers, but then you know, it’s so difficult at all times to meet the budget ... Especially in a country like Italy, where everyone wants to live ...


In general, the budget mastered only 4 ships. All of them went into operation in 1931. Type received the name "Condottieri A".

Where does this name come from? Plunge into history middle ages. And there you can find out that “condottieres” (in Italian “condottieres”) come from the word “condotta”, that is, a contract of employment for military service. Condotta was entered into by the commune cities of Italy with the commanders of mercenary detachments who were hired to protect their safety. And the commander of such a detachment was called a condottiere.

The condottiere concluded contracts, and also received and distributed to his subordinates a fee called the “soldo”. So, in fact, the word "soldier" happened. In general, those were still guys. Corresponding to dashing times.

So, the condottieres commanded the soldiers. And the cruisers dominated the destroyers. Well, here the message is clear. Since this was the first and not the last series with a hint, it was called "Kondotieri A". The names of the ships were given in honor of the most famous representatives of this class.

"Alberico di Barbiano." In 1376, this signor founded the first Italian detachment of hired soldiers under the name "Italian company of St. George", at which he opened a military school. Many famous Italian condottiers came out of the military school of Alberico di Barbiano: Braccio di Montone, Muzio Attendolo.

"Alberto di Giussano" - in honor of the legendary condotier of the times of the Lombard League wars against Frederick Barbarossa in the XII century.

Bartolomeo Colleoni is an Italian condottiere who lived to be 15 years old in the 75th century.

“Giovanni di Medici” is the last great condottier, also known as Giovanni delle Bande Nere (“Giovanni with black stripes on the coat of arms”), he is also “Big Devil”, father of Cosimo I, Duke of Tuscany.

What kind of ships were they? And the ships were very difficult on the one hand and very simple on the other.


We take the project of the destroyer "Navigatori", extend the hull, put the power unit of the echelon type. Powerful. More powerful than the destroyer. The result is something so long, narrow, with predatory contours of the destroyer, but just as fragile. The case was really not very durable.

But in terms of armament they did not stint. Four classic Italian two-gun cruising towers with a pair of 152-mm guns of the 1926 model. Total 8 trunks of the main caliber. And the same drawback as on heavy cruisers - both barrels in one cradle, which predetermined a noticeable dispersion of shells.


An interesting move was the placement of the then fashionable spotter. The aircraft catapult was located in the nose, as well as on heavy cruisers of the Trento type. But, unlike the heavy cruiser, there was no place on the light cruiser in the bow. Therefore, the aircraft were placed in a hangar, which was equipped in the lower tier of the nasal superstructure, from where the seaplane was fed to the catapult on a half-tank by special rail tracks bypassing the towers on a trolley.


TTX of light cruisers of the Kondotieri A type:

Displacement:
- standard: 5184-5328 t;
- full: 7670-7908 t.

Length: 160 m / 169,3 m.
Width: 15,5 m
Draft: 5,4-5,95 m.

Booking:
- belt - 24 + 18 mm;
- traverses - 20 mm;
- deck - 20 mm;
- towers - 23 mm;
- cutting - 40 mm.

Engines: 2 ТЗ "Bellutstso", 2 coppers "Yarrow-Ansaldo", 95 000 hp
Speed: 36,5 knots.
Cruising range: 3 nautical miles at a speed of 800 knots.
Crew: 521 people.

Armament:
Main caliber: 4 × 2 - 152 mm / 53.
Flak:
- 3 × 2 - 100 mm / 47;
- 4 × 2 - 20 mm / 65;
- 4 × 2 - 13,2 mm machine guns.

Mine-torpedo armament: 2 twin-tube 533-mm torpedo tubes.

Aviation group: 1 catapult, 2 seaplanes.

Ships could be used as mine loaders, a stockpile of 138 minutes, except for Alberto di Giussano.

In the late 1930s. all cruisers passed hull reinforcement after a series of damage in stormy weather. In 1938-1939 anti-aircraft weapons reinforced with 4 paired 20 mm machine guns.


In general, the hull of the new type of cruisers turned out to be disproportionately long. The ratio of body length to width exceeded 10: 1. The nose of the ship had an outdated already straight shape with a slightly protruding ram. The hull structure inherited from the destroyer turned out to be too light and fragile. I had to strengthen the hull with two longitudinal bulkheads along the entire length of the ship. Well, of course, there were 15 transverse bulkheads that divided the hull into 16 waterproof compartments.

Long and narrow cruisers could not be called stable artillery platforms. In stormy weather, the roll reached 30 °, which made controlling the ship and the life of personnel very difficult.

I had to work with the power plant, which was also facilitated to the maximum. The result was something powerful, but very fragile. Power plants were able to increase from 95 to 100 thousand horsepower, but it was a small compensation for fragility.


Lightweight, fast, strong cruiser - this is the dream of any admiral. The Kondotieri pleased their command because they set one record after another.

Alberto di Giussano - 38,5 knots.

Bartolomeo Colleone - 39,85 knots.

Giovanni della Bande Nere - 41,11 knots.

Alberico di Barbiano developed 42,05 knots in 32 minutes, with a maximum accelerated power of the machines of 123 hp.

It is appropriate to recall the Soviet (actually Italian) leader Tashkent, which, with a displacement twice as small as a cruiser of the Kondotieri A type, produced 43,5 knots.


The average speed of the Alberico di Barbiano was 39,6 knots. And at the time of commissioning, the cruiser became the fastest ship in its class in the world.

It is clear that Mussolini used this to propagate the successes of the fascist regime, but there was a slight scam. "Alberico di Barbiano" went on a record run, not having half the gun turrets, in addition, a lot of weapons and equipment were removed.

In real conditions, the Italian "champions" rarely squeezed more than 30 knots. The use of cars in the afterburner could lead to their failure, or simply to the destruction of the hull.

The case when ostentatious runs to set a record is one thing, but real combat operation is completely different. And the speed records set in ideal conditions could not help Kondotieri get away (or catch up) from the enemy, but the maximum lightening of the structure just greatly reduced combat capabilities. But about this practical part a bit later.

The Italian sailors themselves with subtle humor called their cruisers "Cartoons." From "Animated film" - "Cartoni animati". Cardboard, it’s in Russian, in Italian, in principle, the same thing means.

In general, the idea of ​​multi-layered reservations was both new and smart. The only question is implementation. And it was implemented in Italian. The armor belt was as indicated above. But 24 mm is in the middle part, in the extremities of 20 mm. And it was such vanadium armor, that is armor. And behind the armored belt was an 18-mm shatterproof bulkhead from conventional armor. On top of this magnificence, an armored deck of 20 mm thick was made of ordinary chromium-nickel steel.

The main caliber towers were protected by 23 mm thick armor.

The conning tower had an armor thickness of 40 mm, command-range posts were protected by 25 mm armor. This is somewhere in the middle between the cruiser and the destroyer.


The total booking weight on cruisers of the Alberico da Barbiano type was 531,8 tons, which was 11,5% of the standard displacement.

In general, the reservation was completely inadequate, as it was penetrated by 120-130 mm shells (GK destroyers of that time) at all real combat distances. It’s scary to even think about cruising calibers, but we will return to this.

With the artillery of the main caliber, Pinocchio’s adventure came out. The guns, as I said, were new. The manufacturer, the company "Ansaldo", tried and made a very decent gun, which produced a shell weighing 50 kg with an initial speed of 1000 m / s at a distance of 23-24 km. Gun rate - 4 rounds per minute.


Beautiful, is not it? But no.

To begin with, it turned out that the guns have a very small resource of barrels plus a decent dispersion of shells. I had to lighten the projectile to 47,5 kg, and reduce the initial speed to 850 m / s. This solved the wear problem, but the accuracy remained unsatisfactory.

The high dispersion of the shells was explained by two factors:

1. The trunks were located in one cradle and too close, the distance between them was only 75 cm. The shells fired in one gulp knocked each other off the trajectory with perturbed air flows.

2. I already wrote about this, the Italian industry was not famous for the accuracy of the manufacture of shells. Accordingly, the balanced shells did not fly the way the Italian gunners wanted, but in accordance with the laws of physics.

Alas, with the main caliber the light cruisers in Italy had the same problems as the heavy ones. These tiny towers literally squeezed into the guns were something.

We have repeatedly discussed the universal caliber, these are the well-known installations of General Minisini. This gun based on Skoda’s guns was outdated as early as World War I, but due to its low cost, it was useful for lack of fish.


These guns also served as Austro-Hungarians in the First World War, fought in the Italian Navy in the Second World War, and by the way, they were also noted in the Soviet one. 100 mm Minisini were mounted on our light cruisers Chervona Ukraine, Krasny Krym and Krasny Kavkaz.

The loading was a unitary cartridge, the guns were equipped with a rammer with pneumatic drive. The elevation angle is 45 °, the initial velocity of the projectile is 880 m / s, the firing range is 15 m. Two installations were placed side by side in the middle of the ship, the third closer to the stern.


In general, the guns did not meet modern requirements as air defense.

Short-range anti-aircraft artillery in general was a masterpiece on the theme "I blinded him from what was." Two 1915 Vickers-Terni anti-aircraft guns of 40 mm caliber. That is, yes, this is Pom-pom from Vickers, from which everyone really spat on all the fleets.


But the Italians went even further, they began to produce this monster under a license from Terni, and, in principle, all of it was nothing, but for some reason they made the power of the machine not tape, but store. That is, the Vickers QF Mark II was already rubbish, but here it also worsened. Bravissimo.

But these two units were installed on the sides of the conning tower, so as not to shoot down, so scare the pilot of an enemy aircraft.

Thank God, after the use of ships and military use in Spain, the 40 mm Vickers were removed and 20 mm twin Breda Mod.1935 units were installed instead. Four of them were placed on the ships - two in place of the Vickers on the sides of the wheelhouse and two on the aft superstructure.


I don’t even want to talk about heavy machine guns from “Bred”, everything was said about them a long time ago and by the Italians themselves.

In general, anti-aircraft defense is not about Italian ships, although it’s strange that it was not anti-aircraft defense that brought to the bottom of the cruiser.

Mine-torpedo weapons were also with tricks. In general, three of the four cruisers could easily put a minefield. For this, each of the ships had two rail tracks for mines.

Theoretically, each cruiser turned into a minzag could take on board 169 mines Bello or 157 Elia. Theoretically, this is because mines did not give the opportunity to shoot from the stern towers. Absolutely. Plus, it was virtually impossible to use torpedo tubes.

If to reduce the ammunition load of mines by half, that is, leave 92 Bello mines or 78 Elia mines, then the ship again became a cruiser and could use its weapons.

Aft were two Menon-type bombers. Ammunition: sixteen 100-kg and twenty-four 50-kg bombs.

The air group of each ship consisted of two seaplanes. At first it was CRDA Cant-25 AR, then they were replaced with Imam RO-43. In general, the replacement of "so-so" with "yes could have been worse."

According to the conditions for the crew, the cruiser was considered very unsuccessful. Still, the cruiser’s crew squeezed into the size of an overgrown leader is inconvenient.

How did you fight? In principle, like all Italian ships, that is, not very. And all perished.

The Alberico di Barbiano, the lead ship of the series, was laid down on April 16, 1928, launched on August 23, 1930, and entered service on June 9, 1931.


July 9, 1940 received a baptism of fire in battle at Calabria. The results of the application were so impressive that on September 1, 1940 was converted into a training vessel. However, the need forced, and on March 1, 1941 the cruiser was again put on full alert.

December 12, 1941, along with the cruiser "Alberto da Giussano" set off to transport fuel to the Italian and German troops in Africa. Despite the high speed of movement, both cruisers were discovered by British intelligence and 4 destroyers were sent to intercept them, three British ("Legion", "Sikh" and "Maori") and the Dutch "Isaac Svers".

The destroyers easily caught up with the cruiser and entered into battle with them, which went down in history as a battle at Cape Bon on December 13, 1941.

During the battle, Alberico di Barbiano received three torpedoes from the destroyers and sank as expected.

Alberto di Giussano. Laid on March 29, 1928, launched on April 27, 1930, entered into service on February 5, 1931.


He participated in various exercises of the Italian Navy as part of the 2nd squadron, and assisted the Spanish nationalists during the Civil War in Spain.

After the outbreak of World War II, he participated in the installation of minefields in August 1940 near Pantelleria, supplied convoys and transported troops to North Africa.

December 13, took part in the battle at Cape Bon, but unlike the "Alberico di Barbiano", the ship had only one torpedo. The ship caught fire and sank.

Bartolomeo Colleoni. Laid down on June 21, 1928, launched on December 21, 1931, entered into service on February 10, 1931.


Until November 1938 he served in the territorial waters of Italy, after which he went to the Far East together with the cruiser Raimondo Montecuccoli. December 23, 1938 "Bartolomeo Colleoni" arrived in Shanghai, where he remained until the outbreak of World War II, and then returned to Italy.

With the outbreak of World War II, he participated in the laying of mines in the Sicilian Canal and escorting convoys to North Africa.

July 17, 1940 "Bartolomeo Colleoni", accompanied by "Giovanni delle Bande Nere" went to the island of Leros, where there was a large group of British ships. On the night of July 19, the Italian squadron entered battle with the Australian light cruiser Sydney and five destroyers.

Sydney gunners hit a 152-mm shell in the engine room of an Italian cruiser, completely immobilizing it. The British destroyers Aileks and Hyperion sent 4 torpedoes to the cruiser, two hit the Bartolomeo Colleoni, after which the ship sank.

Giovanni delle Bande Nere. Laid down on October 31, 1928, launched on April 27, 1930, entered service in April 1931.


Initially served in the waters of Italy, during the Civil War in Spain, he assisted the troops of General Franco.

In June 1940, after the official entry of Italy into World War II, he set mines in the Strait of Sicily. Then he covered the convoys, en route to North Africa.

While escorting the Tripoli convoy Leros, Giovanni delle Bande Nere and Luigi Cadorna joined the battle at Cape Spada on July 17, 1940. The ship was damaged, having received 4 hits from the Sydney, but Italian gunners also damaged the Australian cruiser with return fire. Unlike Bartolomeo Colleoni, Giovanni delle Bande Nere was able to return to Tripoli.

From December 1940 to 1941, Giovanni delle Bande Nere performed assignments for the protection of convoys.

In June 1941, “Giovanni delle Bande Nere” and “Alberto da Giussano” erected a minefield near Tripoli, which in December 1941 came across the British “K” compound: the Neptune cruiser and the Kandahar destroyer sank, two more cruisers , Aurora and Penelope were injured.

A similar mine-laying operation was carried out in July 1941 in the Strait of Sicily.

In 1942, the "Giovanni delle Bande Nere" participated in the second battle in the Gulf of Sirte, where the cruiser Cleopatra was damaged by fire, disabling its entire radio navigation system and two gun turrets.

March 23, 1942 "Giovanni delle Bande Nere" fell into a storm, during which it was damaged. On the way to repair in La Spezia on April 1, 1942, the cruiser was torpedoed and sunk by the British submarine "Urge", which hit him with two torpedoes.

The Giovanni delle Bande Nere was the most productive of the four cruisers, having completed 15 missions during the war and traveled 35 miles with battles.


So, what can be said about the ships of the class "Condottieri A". Nothing good. Yes, beautiful ships, but when the Italians did not build beautiful ships? In fact, under-cruisers are more likely leaders on steroids.

Yes, it seems to be fast, but at the same time the cases are very fragile. The artillery is powerful, but ineffective. Very weak air defense, but it is even surprising that all four ships were sunk without the participation of aviation. But - ships of the weaker class. Just those who were supposed to hunt and destroy.

Indeed, they could neither steal nor guard, they could do anything. And so they finished the service, in fact (except for the "Banda Nere") ingloriously.

But it was the first Italian pancake. Yes, he came out lumpy, but Emil Bertin didn’t shine with the French either. After these ships, the time came for another series of Kondotiers.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Warships. Cruisers. That's how it all started
Warships. Cruisers. Cardboard gold carrier of the Republic
Warships. Cruisers. Almost flawless chevalier
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 11 June 2020 07: 21 New
    +3
    Thank. Impressed by the speed characteristics. All the same, not a boat, but how I drove ...
    And also struck the workmanship of the case. Well, in the video. I live, I have never seen large vessels near, but on videos and photos I often noticed some sort of ... Patchwork, or what? It seems like a beautiful body from afar looks like a set of rectangles. And here - smoothly like that ...
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 11 June 2020 17: 34 New
      +4
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      It seems like a beautiful body from afar looks like a set of rectangles. And here - smoothly like that ...

      And this one looks like a set of rectangles: the question is in the distance ...
      Here is a piece of drawing for the "Bartolomeo Colleoni"
  2. Civil
    Civil 11 June 2020 07: 25 New
    +1
    Thanks to the author for remembering the Italian / Soviet leader "Tashkent", and the ships are really beautiful.
  3. Undecim
    Undecim 11 June 2020 08: 08 New
    11
    Yes, the French issued. After all, it was they who invented the new class of ships, which later received the name of leaders.
    Alas, but the class of ships called "leader" was invented not by the French, but by the British.

    Laid down in 1906, the British HMS Swift is the world's first leader-class destroyer, adapted to accommodate a flotilla commander with his own headquarters, and surpassing conventional destroyers in size, speed and weapons.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 11 June 2020 08: 27 New
      10
      But then a second blow was dealt to the Italians in the form of leaders.
      It was a return move to the construction of the Leone class leaders by the Italians. In the Italian Navy, they were called esploratori - scouts.

      With a total displacement of 2326 tons and a speed of 33 knots, the ship carried eight 120 mm guns
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 11 June 2020 09: 19 New
        14
        We take the project of the destroyer "Navigatori", extend the hull, put the power unit of the echelon type. Powerful. More powerful than the destroyer. The result is something so long, narrow, with predatory contours of the destroyer, but just as fragile. The case was really not very durable.
        Here the author fantasizes.
        First, the first Navigatori class destroyer, Alvise Da Mosto, was laid down in March 1931, and the first Alberto di Giussano class cruiser, in March 1928, three years earlier. Therefore, the project of the class Navigatori destroyer could not serve as the basis for the project of the class cruiser Alberto di Giussano.
        Secondly, the length of the destroyer hull is 107 meters, the cruiser's length is 170. The addition of 60% can hardly be called "lengthening".
        Engines: 2 ТЗ "Bellutstso", 2 coppers "Yarrow-Ansaldo", 95 000 hp
        There were 6 boilers.
        1. Liam
          Liam 11 June 2020 09: 40 New
          +6
          The author is in his usual element. Vinegret of Internet folklore seasoned with "sharp" arts of his own making.
          The English equivalent of these light Italian cruisers (and actually scouts) is the class Leander.
          The Condotieri class is the first step in the evolutionary line, which includes 4 more ship classes:
          Classe Alberto di Giussano:
          Alberto di Giussano
          Alberico from Barbiano
          Bartolomeo Colleoni
          Giovanni delle Bande Nere

          Classe Luigi Cadorna:
          Luigi Cadorna
          Armando diaz
          Classe Raimondo Montecuccoli:
          Raimondo Montecuccoli
          Muzio attendolo

          Classe Duca d'Aosta:
          Emanuele Filiberto Duca d'Aosta
          Eugene of Savoy

          Classe Duca degli Abruzzi:
          Luigi di Savoia Duca degli Abruzzi
          Giuseppe Garibaldi
          Naturally, each class had its own role and purpose, but for the holder of the fastest pen, VO is too difficult
        2. Undecim
          Undecim 11 June 2020 10: 41 New
          +4
          [i] Short-range anti-aircraft artillery in general was a masterpiece on the theme "I blinded it from what was." Two 1915 Vickers-Terni anti-aircraft guns of 40 mm caliber. In the photo in the article is not a single Italian 40-mm Vickers-Terni M1915, but the British quad 40-mm QF 2-pounder Vickers pom-pom Mk VII of the early thirties.
          The 40mm Vickers-Terni M1915 looks like this.
  4. saifiev rafael
    saifiev rafael 11 June 2020 08: 38 New
    +1
    Why is everyone so pom-pom pom? After all, it seems like an automatic machine with tape power, what is even better to wish for?
    1. CTABEP
      CTABEP 11 June 2020 09: 47 New
      +3
      Reliability and ballistics leave much to be desired.
    2. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 11 June 2020 10: 28 New
      +1
      Automatic, for its time (the end of the First World War) - cool!
      His pre-war reincarnations of the 30s also corresponded to their purpose - they provided close air defense with massing fire in a given sector. However, they were ineffective against diving bombers and top-troopers due to low guidance speeds.
      Reliability with the introduction of friable-link metal tape has increased. It is a pity that with the beginning of the war, the development with the compression of the sleeve on a new 1,25 "projectile weighing 0,45 kg with an initial speed of 880 m / s was abandoned.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 June 2020 10: 43 New
      +6
      Quote: Rafael Saifiev
      Why is everyone so pom-pom pom? After all, it seems like an automatic machine with tape power, what is even better to wish for?

      Ballistics let us down.
      Initial speed - 585 m / s (610 m / s in the Italian version). Effective firing range - 1100 m. For WWII it will still do, but for WWII a heavy MZA with an effective firing range like the "Erlikon" does not have a buzzing sound.
  5. ABC
    ABC 11 June 2020 08: 49 New
    +2
    Flowery playful presentation spoils the impression of the technical essence of the article. It is hard to get through these literary delights.
  6. Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 11 June 2020 09: 01 New
    0
    Thank you, Roman, for an interesting look at the Italian work from shipbuilding.
    For me, there are no cruisers from them at the level of World War II. However, this can be said about almost everything built before 1930.
    But for the Black Sea Fleet 1941 - 1942. they would be irreplaceable. Much more useful than the leader-hero "Tashkent" and galoshes like "Chervona Ukraine". It was necessary to buy in 1938 - 1939.
    The deal would be mutually beneficial: we got superleaders for the Black Sea Fleet, they - the complete series of "Leaders of Rome".
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 11 June 2020 17: 37 New
      +3
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      But for the Black Sea Fleet 1941 - 1942. they would be irreplaceable. Much more useful than the leader-hero "Tashkent" and galoshes like "Chervona Ukraine". It was necessary to buy in 1938 - 1939.

      How and by what would they be indispensable? :)

      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      we got super leaders for the Black Sea Fleet

      But why?
  7. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 11 June 2020 09: 16 New
    +7
    If three torpedoes hit the ship, even a heavy cruiser or battleship will go to the bottom (if you're lucky).
  8. Liam
    Liam 11 June 2020 09: 18 New
    +6
    Now it is very difficult to say how the Italians were able to starve their fleet, especially not fighting in the First World War. But the fact is that at the beginning of the war they had 3 Quarto cruisers, 6 Nino Bixi units and 4 Trento cruisers, but by the end, two out of three Quatros remained relatively combat-ready.

    The impression that the author is not particularly aware of what he writes
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 11 June 2020 13: 18 New
      +4
      The author is not that not very up to date, he is not up to date.
      "... at the beginning of the war they had 3 Cuarto-class cruisers, 6 Nino Bixi-class units and 4 Trento-class cruisers."
      There were two Trento-class cruisers in the Italian fleet. Moreover, they were built in 1925-1929.
      3 Quarto cruisers Quarto class cruisers were .... alone. The other two were Nino Bixio classes. Two more were Campania classes.
      1. Liam
        Liam 11 June 2020 14: 47 New
        +2
        That's right, especially if you take into account that these ships did not go according to the class of Cruisers, but were numbered as

        Esploratori:

        3 classe Mirabello;
        2 classe Nino Bixio;
        1 Quarto;
        1 Libia (coloniale);
        4 classe Aquila;
        3 classe Poerio;
        2 classe agordat.

        And the class Cruisers were:

        2 incrociatori corazzati classe san giorgio
        3 incrociatori corazzati classe Giuseppe Garibaldi
        2 incrociatori corazzati classe Vettor Pisani
        2 incrociatori corazzati classe pisa
        2 incrociatori leggeri classe basilicata
        Ariete torpediniere piemonte
      2. Undecim
        Undecim 11 June 2020 16: 51 New
        +5
        Some kind of quiet man, proceeding from the well-known substance, carefully promoted all the comments. Turns out I have fans.
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 11 June 2020 17: 37 New
      +4
      Quote: Liam
      The impression that the author is not particularly aware of what he writes

      Did you just notice that? :)
  9. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 11 June 2020 09: 43 New
    +4
    but for some reason they made the power of the machine not tape, but store. That is, the Vickers QF Mark II was already rubbish, but here it also worsened. Bravissimo.

    Maybe the Italians didn’t worsen the transition to store food, but improved the reliability of supply of ammunition? And then a canvas tape is clearly not the best option, especially in the 30s.
    1. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 11 June 2020 10: 18 New
      +3
      Exactly!
      Refusal of tapes was caused by constant jamming of tarpaulin tapes in the receiver. The reason is that what is good on land is trouble in the sea! The damned swell! The transition to a metal link tape improved the situation somewhat, but the scattered links also happened to cause delays.
      Of course, the transition to stores somewhat reduced the overall rate of fire, but only without taking into account delays when shooting with tape.
  10. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 11 June 2020 13: 14 New
    +3
    Funny little article. The name of the author (if it is in real life) is justified. Type - a figlar ...
  11. bubalik
    bubalik 11 June 2020 17: 03 New
    +3
    On April 1, 1942, the cruiser was torpedoed and sunk by the British submarine Urge, which hit it with two torpedoes.
    ,, like that, two torpedoes and all. 381 people died.
    HMS Urge also torpedoed large targets, the battleship Vittorio Veneto, on December 14, 1941. Battle boat.
    April 27, 1942 the submarine HMS Urge went to Alexandria (Egypt), near Malta, the submarine came across an underwater mine. On board were 32 crew members, 11 British Navy sailors (passengers), as well as a war correspondent. The remains were found in the fall of 2019.
  12. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 11 June 2020 17: 31 New
    +4
    It so happened that in the Mediterranean Sea there were only two decent maritime powers, Italy and France.

    Britain left the Mediterranean Sea? :)

    Everyone immediately remembered the “sevens” and “Tashkent”. That's right, speed plus seaworthiness with defective booking and range.

    Of course, I understand that some people have designed armored leaders, but to indicate the absence of booking an armor as "inferiority" is a VERY rich imagination ...

    The destroyers easily caught up with the cruiser and entered into battle with them, which went down in history as a battle at Cape Bon on December 13, 1941.

    Let me remind you one more "battle" - the first battle at Savo on August 8-9, 1942 ...
    In general, the author, as usual, is joking. :)
  13. ser56
    ser56 11 June 2020 20: 55 New
    0
    Thank! interestingly, it is well shown that a warship must be balanced in terms of characteristics ... hi
  14. WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 11 June 2020 21: 28 New
    0
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    But for the Black Sea Fleet 1941 - 1942. they would be irreplaceable. Much more useful than the leader-hero "Tashkent" and galoshes like "Chervona Ukraine". It was necessary to buy in 1938 - 1939.

    How and by what would they be indispensable? :)

    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    we got super leaders for the Black Sea Fleet

    But why?

    ..and why, in general, all the light forces of the Navy of the Red Army were built with an emphasis on speed. (.. remember Leaders like Leningrad ...) .. such a fetish was before WW II .. quickly even faster .. (that on land BT tanks .. that there are G-5 gliders on the sea ... that the EM project is 7 and 7 bis ..) .. well, what can I say .. well, except ... Klyachko's words ... not everyone can look into the future ... our Admirals didn’t shmogli ... and ... our little brothers sailors. had what they had on .. this and fought .. as they could .. well, and the Black Sea Fleet specifically showed that EM without air defense standards .. feed for Luft ... (. and the backlash cannot be compared with the US Air Force ... which was successfully multiplied by 0 Japanese who had similar air defense ..) alas ..
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 11 June 2020 21: 46 New
      +4
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      ..and why, in general, all the light forces of the Navy of the Red Army were built with an emphasis on speed. (.. remember Leaders like Leningrad ...).

      Kamrad, you probably did not understand me.
      The question is, why "condottieri" at the Black Sea Fleet ... What would they do there?

      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      . well and the Black Sea Fleet showed specifically that EM without air defense standards .. feed for Backlash ...

      Specifically, ALL WWII showed that any ship (and not just a Soviet one) without normal air defense is feed for aviation ...
      1. Liam
        Liam 11 June 2020 22: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Specifically, ALL WWII showed that any ship (and not just a Soviet one) without normal air defense is feed for aviation

        Strictly speaking, WWII showed that any ship with any air defense feed for aviation. Besides those cases when the air defense of the ship is carried out by aviation)
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 11 June 2020 22: 19 New
          +3
          Quote: Liam
          Strictly speaking, WWII showed that any ship with any air defense feed for aviation.

          The question is purely theoretical ... :)
          Although I would be interested to look at the "mirror version" of the last Yamato campaign performed by "Iowa".

          Quote: Liam
          Except in those cases when the air defense of the ship is carried out by aviation)

          In general, I agree, However, not all had "task forces".
          1. Liam
            Liam 11 June 2020 22: 47 New
            +3
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            on the "mirror version" of the last trip "Yamato" performed by "Iowa".

            Would end exactly the same ceteris paribus

            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            However, not everyone had task forces.

            Since then, nothing has changed much. Any modern ship will be sunk by aviation regardless of the level of equipment with its own air defense. Moreover, it will sink even faster and with fewer aircraft compared to WWII
  15. unknown
    unknown 12 June 2020 05: 52 New
    +1
    In the comments to the article about "La Galissoniere" I have already written, and I will repeat here, that the booking scheme for "Condottieri" types A and B is not optimal. Why, with such a thickness, divide the vertical armor into two barriers?
    Perhaps, if the Italians returned to the reservation scheme of armored cruisers, then the security of the first two series of their light cruisers increased.
    Instead of thin, and even spaced vertical barriers, and a thin horizontal deck, there is one CAROPAS deck, which will take on the role of both horizontal and vertical protection.
    The mass of the horizontal and vertical armor of the Barbiano-class cruisers was 531,8 tons.
    And this, excluding booking towers.
    And, for example, the mass of armor on the cruiser Askold was 705 tons.
    The difference is not so big.
    Italians could well be loaded.
    At the same time, the thickness of the horizontal part of the carp of the armored cruiser is 40 mm, and the bevels are 75-100 mm.
    Of course, the theoretical Karapas of Italians would have other dimensions, but even Karapas with a horizontal thickness of 40 mm and bevels would significantly increase the security of KTU.
    The same "La Galissonniere" had a 38 mm thick deck.
    Namely, the fatal hit in the KTU became the reason for the loss of the move of one of the Italian "condottieri" of the first series, which contributed to his subsequent death.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 12 June 2020 23: 41 New
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      the booking scheme for "condottieri" types A and B is not optimal. Why, with such a thickness, divide the vertical armor into two barriers?

      Armor with a thickness of 20 mm is purely anti-fragmentation. To do this, and smashed, a landmine is undermined on the first line, the second catches the fragments.
      1. unknown
        unknown 13 June 2020 01: 44 New
        0
        Thats exactly what I mean.
        We did not choose the optimal booking scheme based on an incorrectly developed concept.
        But, even in this concept, carapace included in the calculation of the strength of the hull would allow to increase the real speed.
  16. MrFox
    MrFox 12 June 2020 14: 06 New
    0
    Cruisers and not cruisers ... hatches - hatches, water jargon ...
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 12 June 2020 14: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: MrFox
      Cruisers and not cruisers ...

      The spelling dictionary allows both spellings. :)
      1. unknown
        unknown 13 June 2020 01: 39 New
        0
        I agree. But, some, intellectually gifted, and coffee wanted a middle kind ...
        Initially, all the same, cruisers are more correct for the plural.
        Great and powerful Russian language ...
  17. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 12 June 2020 19: 09 New
    0
    Normal such cruisers, in the style of hypertrophied superiority of some characteristics over others lol A typical approach of countries that did not have solid combat experience. We multiply by the limitations, we get, well, ships very dubious in combat qualities. Excellent speed on paper, ultra-lightweight housing, which by no means gives advantages in providing unsinkability. Powerful stealing on paper. If you can still fight with the close location of the trunks in one cradle, for example, either using single-gun salvos (although shooting is done), or practicing salvos with a delay of one of the trunks, then the general misfortune of the entire Italian fleet with the quality of ammunition generally reduces the efforts of pasta to positive battle outcome to zero request
    But everything rests on speed, which automatically affects the weight of KTU, which leads to weakening of other positions. Voila smile But almost the same British "Aurors" carried 70mm armor belts, albeit only during the KO and MO, but the chances of not falling victim to the loss of speed due to the shells of the destroyers were much higher than the Italians.
    Personally, my conclusions - cruisers, limited in everything, are in any case flawed, because the combat value of these is doubtful in clashes with an uncouth-handed enemy. smile hi
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 12 June 2020 20: 46 New
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But almost the same British "Aurors" carried 70mm armor belts, albeit only during the KO and MO, but the chances of not falling victim to the loss of speed due to the shells of the destroyers were much higher than the Italians.

      Cellars "aretyuz" also had box-type booking 51 ... 76 mm.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 June 2020 08: 54 New
        0
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Cellars

        "Thanks to" the Washington Treaty, the local booking of the cellars appeared, for the cruisers sacrificed protection to other characteristics. Consequently, it was difficult to establish a full-fledged belt or deck to protect against shells of the enemy of its own caliber, so they came to the conclusion that they would give the ship a chance not to go to the bottom from shells even from destroyers, booking at least the cellars and from the larger side of the power plant. because it is no longer possible to provide unsinkability and invulnerability with an adequate armor belt and deck. request
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 13 June 2020 10: 12 New
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          So they came to the point that to give the ship a chance not to go to the bottom of the shells even of destroyers, booking at least cellars from the larger side of the power plant, because it is no longer possible to ensure unsinkability and invulnerability with an adequate armor belt and deck.

          I absolutely agree, but 3 "in the area of ​​the cellars is still better than 18 ... 20 + 18 mm when the armor is" smeared "all over the board ... :)
        2. unknown
          unknown 13 June 2020 21: 35 New
          0
          Again, the question arises about the reservation scheme.
          The return of karapas was just asking itself.
          Not only on the lungs, but primarily on heavy cruisers.
          For example, on the French "Suffrenes".
          The last two cruisers of this type had an internal belt, and already a pretty decent mass of armor.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 14 June 2020 11: 34 New
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            The return of karapas was just asking itself.

            The effectiveness on cruisers, as such, is not proven: There were no hits on the "hippers", which showed how the carapace works.
            1. unknown
              unknown 15 June 2020 21: 07 New
              0
              But, I did not mean ships with an onboard belt, but ships with an internal one.
              Replace them with the inner belt and deck on a single deck.
    2. unknown
      unknown 13 June 2020 02: 00 New
      0
      The British are enviable shipbuilders.
      Although, they also had attempts to create something like a "Japanese miracle".
      I have repeatedly, in the comments to many articles, pointed out that cruisers of the Asama type are extremely unsuccessful ships. In real operation, they showed a speed not exceeding (four Englishmen), inferior (German), and significantly inferior (French) to modern battleships. That is, these are neither cruisers in terms of speed, nor battleships of the second rank, but rather the third.

      In the comments to the article about the La Galissonniere-class cruisers, I compared the Frenchman with the Colony-class cruisers. The British tried to "shove the unproductive." The attempt was not entirely successful.
      And the French managed to create the perfect light cruiser in a fairly limited displacement.
      If the British did not try to squeeze the "Town" type to 8000 tons (in real life 8800 tons), but took the "Argentina" as a basis, increasing its displacement, it would have been better. And cheaper.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 June 2020 08: 31 New
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        In the comments to the article about the La Galissonniere-class cruisers, I compared the Frenchman with the Colony-class cruisers. The British tried to "shove the unproductive." The attempt was not entirely successful.

        what
        The appearance of ships of the "Colony" type was one of the consequences of the London conference of 1936, which limited the displacement of newly built cruisers to 8000 tons. Under these requirements, the project of the "Southampton" -class cruiser was redesigned, resulting in a compact "Fiji", in which due to a dense layout, it was possible to reduce the length of the hull by more than 10 m. The use of a lower power plant and lighter booking made it possible to retain the same armament as that of the prototype, and the use of a transom stern made it possible to avoid a strong drop in speed (only half a knot). The belt along the waterline, although it became somewhat thinner, due to the shorter hull length reached the end towers of the main battery, and the thickness of the armored deck even increased. A return to simpler vertical tubes and masts became a characteristic feature of these ships.

        Their main drawback - the low metacentric height - created serious problems during the modernization of wartime - to place numerous anti-aircraft weapons and electronic equipment on the main part of the cruisers of this type at the end of the war one of the GK towers had to be removed.

        The same victims of restrictions wink
        If until the 20s shipbuilders were limited by economic opportunities, technical, Wishlist of admirals, the Washington and London treaties also made a political component. yes request As a result, if you put a big and fat one on the restrictions, then you can create quite adequate, relatively balanced and protected ships ("Zara"), if you do not put a bolt on everything, but slightly perverted with weight characteristics and without casualties, then you got good ships in restrictions ("Algeria")
        smile
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 13 June 2020 10: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          As a result, if you put big and fat on the restrictions, you can create quite adequate, relatively balanced and protected ships ("Zara"),

          Now there is a little substitution of concepts ... :)
          If we put on restrictions, then we get "Kronstadt", "Alaska" and other B-65.
          In the case of Zara, restrictions still played a role: whatever one may say, the ship at least should look 10000 tons ...
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 13 June 2020 13: 02 New
            0
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            at least it should look at 10000 tons ...

            Can not argue smile But the question is, how biased were the control of the implementation of the clauses of the Treaty by the participating countries wink Therefore, one can say one thing and do another. repeat
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 13 June 2020 14: 05 New
              0
              Quote: Rurikovich
              But the question is, how biased were the control of the implementation of the clauses of the Treaty by the participating countries

              And the question is not bias. It's more a matter of faith ... :)
              Actually, this is what the countries were supposed to provide to each other (from the Anglo-Soviet treaty of the 37th year).

              But the agreement says nowhere that, conditionally, the naval attache John Smith can freely appear at the shipyard and take measurements to verify the declared characteristics ...
              In addition, all sorts of, so to speak, "oops" are possible, as happened with the "Scharnhorsts", which the Germans themselves unwillingly overloaded by 6000 tons ...
          2. unknown
            unknown 13 June 2020 21: 38 New
            0
            For example, Japanese heavy cruisers, starting with the "Mioko" type, or German heavy cruisers.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 14 June 2020 11: 16 New
              0
              Quote: ignoto
              or German heavy cruisers.

              The Germans didn’t sign Washington, in fact they didn’t care about the restrictions. They were limited only by the Versailles agreements. Another thing is that "thanks" to an agreement with the British in 35, they were allowed to build 5 Washington-type cruisers with a total displacement of 51000 tons. Therefore, they had to be perverted only because of the type of fear of violating the provisions of the Treaty. They were forced this type of ship by convention request
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 14 June 2020 11: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Rurikovich

                The Germans did not sign Washington; in fact, they did not care about the restrictions.

                They did not sign, but as you noted below, they nevertheless entered the London-Washington system, de facto, the agreement of the 35th year ...
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 14 June 2020 12: 00 New
                  0
                  The Anglo-German naval agreement of the 35th year allowed the Germans to legally build ships over 10000 tons.
                  The agreement stipulated the tonnage, but not the class of ships, as a result of which Germany received a legitimate opportunity to build ships of any class, including battleships and heavy cruisers

                  they didn’t get in there, but they stuck them lol
                  By agreement, the Germans could build five "Washington" cruisers with a total displacement of 51000 "long" so.

                  And if we discard the imposed framework of "Washington", then the Scharnhorst, designed "thanks to" the policy against the French "Dunkirk", became a real heavy cruiser. After all, it was planned as an improved Deutschland, but Aloizych appointed the frogs as an enemy.
                  But because of the caliber, the Scharnhorstas are not rivals to real battleships a la 356mm +. Formally, these are the fighters of the very "Washingtonians" with hypertrafied armor for this function (again, due to the confrontation with 330mm shells of "Dunkirk")
                  But here the opportunity to build battleships appears and the Germans agree with the bonus in the form of five "Washingtonians". As a result, real heavy cruisers migrated to the class of battleships (battlecruisers), and three "hippers" arrived in the "victims of restrictions" regiment smile
                  1. Rurikovich
                    Rurikovich 14 June 2020 12: 19 New
                    0
                    I will add
                    German engineers faced the same problem that plagued their colleagues in other countries a few years ago. Eight 203-mm guns, a speed of 32 knots and a fuel supply of 12000 miles at a 15-knot speed had to fit into the same 9000-10000 tons. The task turned out to be more than difficult, since the Germans, who traditionally preferred well-protected ships, wanted to have armor, as minimum equivalent to 120mm belt and 80mm deck of French "Algerie"

                    It soon became clear that miracles do not happen, and some combat elements would have to be waived. Initially, they turned to lowering the caliber of the guns. But the installation of 12 150-mm guns instead of 8 203-mm gave a weight saving at best 550 tons, while the heavy cruiser immediately ceased to be "heavy", losing noticeably in armor penetration. Then they tried to find a solution in an intermediate, 190-mm caliber. In May 1934, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of Raeder, at which the advantages and disadvantages of the 190mm and 203mm calibers were thoroughly discussed. The chairman himself put an end to the disputes, noting that the savings in weight on 8 guns and their ammunition would be less than 100 tons with a smaller caliber, while the future belongs to eight-inch guns.

                    After this meeting, the pace of development noticeably accelerated, although with a careful approach, German designers became more and more convinced of what their colleagues from other countries had already reconciled with: the impossibility of combining the desired protection, speed and armament within 10 thousand tons. Formally, Germany is not was the object of the limitations of the Washington Conference, but only insofar as it was squeezed by the much more rigid framework of Versailles, therefore, in her "fantasies" she could exceed the 10-thousandth limit as easily as the 6-thousand one, but at the same time the question of cost arose. In addition, Hitler, who had just come to power, wanted to look respectable, and his plans at one time even included Germany's joining the international maritime agreements, Washington and London, but only as a full member. Due to such a complex set of circumstances, the project officially remained "10 tons", and initially this limit was not supposed to be exceeded.

                    As an example of the destructiveness of restrictive measures request
                  2. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 14 June 2020 12: 33 New
                    0
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    And if we discard the imposed framework of "Washington", then the Scharnhorst, designed "thanks to" the policy against the French "Dunkirk", became a real heavy cruiser. After all, it was planned as an improved Deutschland, but Aloizych appointed the frogs as an enemy.

                    It seems to me that you are confusing two projects: embedded armadillos D and E and battleships D and E pledged after confirmation of the contract of the 35th year ...
                    1. Rurikovich
                      Rurikovich 14 June 2020 13: 34 New
                      0
                      These are the same ships. Originally laid out as "improved Deutschland"
                      When Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, he made it clear to Admiral Raeder that he did not intend, like Admiral von Tirpitz, to build his naval policy on a direct challenge to British naval power, but considered it more important to oppose the French shipbuilding programs. He allowed the construction of the 4th and 5th armored ships of the "Deutschland" type, designated "D" and "E", but only with enhanced protection while maintaining the displacement limit of 19 tons and armament from two three-gun 000-mm towers. At a conference in June, such a project with a 283 mm belt, 220 - 70 mm main and 80 - 35 mm upper armored decks became the subject of detailed discussion. In particular, it was proposed to increase the main battery ammunition to 50 - 150 shells per gun, to place the auxiliary 160-mm battery in four twin towers for better supply of ammunition and to protect the servants, and to strengthen the heavy anti-aircraft gun from three 150-mm barrels on the Deutschland to four or up to three doubles with an increase in ammunition up to 88 rounds per barrel. The torpedo tubes were retained. New ships were made 200 meters longer than "Deutschland", draft increased to 5 - 7m. One of them should have been equipped as the flagship of the fleet, and the question of the choice of the power plant remained open, since the tests of "Deutschland" had already shown the disadvantages of diesel engines (noise and vibration).

                      A year has passed ...
                      In 1934, France announced the laying of a second Dunkerque-class battle cruiser, the Straßburg, and an urgent response was needed. Hitler gave the go-ahead for the addition of a third tower and an increase in displacement to 26 tons. The construction of the battleships was stopped on July 000, and the designers began redesigning, which, according to the most optimistic estimates, could not have been completed before October 5. The new requirements included a 1935-knot continuous speed and a 28-knot full speed, protection of the citadel from 30-mm guns in the range of 330 - 15 m, anti-fragmentation protection of the extremities, three main battery towers (one in the bow and two in the stern), four 000 - gun 20 mm in the absence of torpedo tubes. At the same time, for the first time, a proposal was made to envisage in the project the possibility, after the completion of the construction, of replacing the 000-gun 2-mm turrets with twin 150-mm or 3-mm caliber. Soon, the defensive position of the main battery towers was abandoned, preferring the more familiar scheme with two towers in the nose. As for the mechanisms, the sympathy was in favor of turbines and high-temperature boilers, since only such a power plant could provide a speed of 283 knots.

                      This is how the design concept for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was born. The new ships were not the successors of the excellent German battlecruisers of World War I, but were simply enlarged "armored ships" of the 1920s, born of the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles. Even the composition of the medium-caliber battery was dictated by the guns already made for the 4th and 5th Deutschland-class ships. In total, there were eight single-gun 150-mm deck mounts with shields (4 per ship), which were not the most successful addition to the armored two-gun turrets, the number of which had to be limited because of this (also 4 each). The ships received powerful armor protection, but without the upper citadel traditional for German battle cruisers and battleships of the First World War. It was envisaged to use not only ready-made 150-mm guns, but also part of the equipment intended for the 4th and 5th armored ships. Although the Germans more often called "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" battleships, they were, in fact, battlecruisers with powerful defenses, high speed and moderate, by the standards of that time, main guns' caliber. The project of these, in fact, transitional ships became the development of the battleship "Deutschland" and bore traces of technical restrictions and political considerations, although during the redesign the Germans naturally used their experience in creating large, high-speed and heavily protected battle cruisers during the First World War.

                      I just said that the Scharnhorsts are in fact real heavy cruisers, like the projected Kronstadts and the American Alaska, capable of guaranteed destruction of ships with 203mm artillery.
                      The British also redesigned the already laid down ships. Their Rhynown and Ripals grew from the Royal Sovereign-class battleships already laid down on the stocks.
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 14 June 2020 14: 14 New
                        0
                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        These are the same ships. Originally laid out as "improved Deutschland"

                        These are completely different ships ...
                        The battleships ("improved" Deutschland ") were laid down on February 14, 1934.
                        Construction was discontinued on July 5th.
                        Reassigned on a new project on May 6 ("G") and June 15 ("W") 1935.
                      2. Sergey Suliga
                        Sergey Suliga 15 June 2020 21: 31 New
                        0
                        But were these great quotes handwritten or copied from a file? And why is the author of the quotes not indicated?
                      3. Sergey Suliga
                        Sergey Suliga 15 June 2020 21: 32 New
                        0
                        But were these great quotes handwritten or copied from a file? And why is the author of the quotes not indicated?
                      4. Sergey Suliga
                        Sergey Suliga 15 June 2020 21: 34 New
                        0
                        Rurikovich! But were these great quotes handwritten or copied from a file? And why is the author of the quotes not indicated?
                      5. Rurikovich
                        Rurikovich 15 June 2020 21: 39 New
                        0
                        Quote: Sergey Suliga
                        And why is the author of the quotes not indicated?

                        request
                        http://seawarpeace.ru/index.html

                        Nate s. Taken from the reference resource, where the author collected materials from well of so many sources, and since the author lives in Germany, it is precisely on German ships that the data is most adequate. Please read wink smile hi
      2. unknown
        unknown 13 June 2020 21: 43 New
        0
        The French had a significant advantage - modern KTU, which gave a very large gain in weight. In this, at least in Europe, the French were the first.
        The "Algeria" had one irreparable drawback - there was no displacement reserve.
        The ship was designed to the brink.
        But, the French should pay tribute, they did not cross this line.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 14 June 2020 11: 17 New
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          The "Algeria" had one irreparable drawback - there was no displacement reserve.

          This is the "drawback" of all ships designed within a certain framework. yes
      3. Octopus
        Octopus 14 June 2020 21: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: Rurikovich
        As a result, if you put big and fat on the restrictions, you can create quite adequate, relatively balanced and protected ships ("Zara")

        )))
        You can still wait until the war begins, the restrictions will be lifted, and build Baltimore. And you can wait until the war is over, finish pre-war artillery programs, which were screwed up in the 30s, and build Des Moines)))
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 14 June 2020 22: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          You can still wait until the war begins.

          It is interesting how the Third London Treaty would have looked if the Second World War had not happened. :)
          After all, the CMT of the first series was already approaching the maximum service life ...
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 14 June 2020 22: 59 New
            0
            Everything is just as conveniently decrepit Britain. Ships still need a lot, but little money, and new weapons are becoming more expensive, so the ships themselves are becoming less and less. KRT is banned already in second London.

            In a world without WWII, there is neither the triumph of naval aviation, nor guided weapons.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 14 June 2020 23: 19 New
              0
              Quote: Octopus
              KRT is banned already in second London.

              Not certainly in that way.
              The construction of an MRT (if you can call that a ship with a displacement of up to 17500 tons and a main battery up to 10 ") is prohibited until January 1, 1943.
              See Part II, Article 4, paragraphs. 3 and 4.
              That is why I thought about 3rd London. :)
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 13 June 2020 18: 12 New
    0
    The nose of the ship had an outdated already straight shape with a slightly protruding ram.

    By the way, a question for the author, which he, I think, will not see and read ... :)
    Does the author know what the nasal end looks like, in the common people called "Taylor's roll"?
  • don020
    don020 13 June 2020 20: 03 New
    0
    Off-topic, BUT how is it right: cruisers or cruisers? After reading Pikul it was postponed that Cruiser A, but in all other sources cruisers. Help!
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 13 June 2020 20: 07 New
      0
      Quote: don020
      Off-topic, BUT how is it right: cruisers or cruisers? After reading Pikul it was postponed that Cruiser A, but in all other sources cruisers. Help!

      As I wrote above, from the point of view of modern spelling both options are correct.
  • 41st region
    41st region 14 June 2020 12: 51 New
    0
    The case when ostentatious runs to set a record is one thing, but real combat operation is completely different.

    That's it. laughing
    A long time ago, when the trees were large, and the animals walked without tails, I was presented with the wonderful book "Modern Combat Means of the Navy" published in 1937. So there "Di Giussano" had a speed of 42,5 knots. There was a stamp on the book. I don’t remember which one. But it was not possible to buy at the bookstore / kiosk. Luxurious inserts, great photos. The impression was made by a strong “Giussano”. As it turned out, not all gold is stamped on it.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 14 June 2020 13: 21 New
      0
      Quote: 41st region
      So there "Di Giussano" had a speed of 42,5 knots. .... As it turned out, not all gold is stamped on it.

      In general, this was no secret to anyone even then: most of the directories (Jane, Tashenbukh, Swede) indicated 42 knots as speed in tests.
      That is, everyone perfectly understood what was happening ...
      Probably besides the Italians themselves. :)
  • ycuce234-san
    ycuce234-san 17 June 2020 13: 43 New
    0
    Did the cruisers have coal boilers? The cones in the photo with the clock resemble cyclones of a coal-fired power plant.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 17 June 2020 18: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: ycuce234-san
      Did the cruisers have coal boilers?

      Oil ...
      Cones are the bases of the artillery aiming posts of universal caliber.
      They have nothing to do with cyclone dust collectors.
  • Rakovor
    Rakovor 17 June 2020 13: 53 New
    0
    What I did not understand about the WWI cruisers. The Italians had a total of 1 Quarto and 2 Nino Bixio, from where the author counted 9 units, and even 4 of some kind of Trento?